On 06/27/09 20:47, somebody wrote:
> Are we only allowed to write things that you are not absolutely sure that
> Warp was not well aware?
	
	Nope. Just pointing out that the whole paragraph did not really respond 
in any meaningful way to what Warp was saying.

>> Highly misleading. More often than not, where there's smoke, *and no
>> one finds a fire*, there was no fire.
>
> Legal system does not look for likely explanations of fire, it looks for
> provable (beyond reasonable doubt) of fire. Thus fire may be much more
> likely than not, but not provable (as stated).

	You're going to drown yourself in poor metaphors and analogies.

	The statement "where there's smoke, there's fire" is simply false from 
a literal perspective. Using it in an analogy puts your point into 
question. If you wish to point out the flaw in the analogy, do keep in 
mind whose argument is originally based on it.

	Besides, "may be much more likely than not" is simply a "may". I could 
respond with equal measure with "Thus fire may be much less likely than 
not". You haven't supported your claim, and nor shall I.

> However, my judgement will always be based on (what I perceive to be) the
> most likely explanation.

	You're not demonstrating anything to suggest his guilt other than "he 
acted weird". If that's all you have to judge him with, then I must say 
I agree with Warp's sentiments.

> Thus, Warp's implied suggestion that we should base our judgement only on
> the legal outcome is rather, well, naive. It's too much of a binary and
> top-down-dictated worldview.

	Not quite what he said, I believe. More like "Extraordinary claims 
require extraordinary evidence".

> The more accusations, the higher the likelihood, ceteris paribus. Now, it

	Don't make the mistake of assuming mutual independence.

	And even if you did, applying statistics to two data points is not 
something I have the courage to do. You can go right on ahead.

> statement that all ravens are black, let's not pretend that smoke can be
> ignored until one sees the fire.

	The smoke was not ignored. It was looked into, and no fire was found.

> I'm not sure you understood. The point is, there are varying degrees of
> societal judgement. I can judge fellow humans poorly even if what they did
> was not criminal in the eyes of the law (speaking of MR, I suggest you watch
> the last dual episode of Seinfeld, where this very subject is the theme).

	No, I do understood, and I'm sure Warp understands.

	There *are* varying degrees of societal judgment.

	And you *can* judge fellow humans on whatever criteria you wish. You're 
even free to judge them on the basis of height. Or weight. Or skin 
color. Or muscular build. Or beauty.

	You can do what you want. As can society.

	And societies and individuals can be judged for it. Which is what Warp 
is doing.

	Are you interested in describing what *is* or what *should* be?

> MJ may not technically have had sexual relations with children. But Bill
> Clinton defense/terminology is a technicality for the courts to decide. I
> will shape my opinion by the overall picture that emerged. That that
> particular accusation was proven or not is not the only or even the major
> criteria for personal judgement. This is my main disagreement with Warp. He
> seems to claim that since he was cleared of the charge, we should all wipe
> our memories clean of what else came about during that process.

	I'm willing to accept a certain viewpoint if a reasonably intelligent 
person can explain why he was not convicted. If, perhaps, it really was 
about a legal technicality, I'd like to hear about it.

	I'm too lazy to reread your posts, but it seems to me you're suggesting 
guilt by "weirdness". And people like me do judge those who make 
judgments on such frivolous grounds.

> Here's an example: A mugger holds a gun to your head and pulls the trigger.
> Gun doesn't fire for some reason, and the police apprehend him. As far as
> legal system is concerned, there's no manslaughter. He gets of on a lesser
> charge. But as far as you and I are concerned, the technicality means
> nothing, he attempted to murder you. Whether he ultimately succeeded or not
> due to some random happenstance will not change my evaluation of his
> character. This is another case where I am not bound strictly by the
> conclusions of the legal system to shape my own opinions.

	Well, there is something known as "attempted murder". If he's charged 
and convicted with that, it's all fine. If he gets caught on a lesser 
charge, and there were no witnesses, then I believe society should give 
him the benefit of the doubt. Even if he's murdered (unrelated) people 
before.

	It may not be OK as far as *I'm* concerned, because I was there and he 
pulled the trigger on my head. I know the facts.

	If you, however, were not present, that's a different story.

> Yet, there's no doubt that MJ did a lot of things that may not strictly be a
> crime (or *the* crime prosecutor tried to prove), but exposed an ugly side
> of his character. Nothing MR did was a crime, yet, I judge him poorly. A lot
> of things that MJ seems to have done came much closer to an actual crime,
> even if not proven. I will of course judge him poorly too.

	No arguments with you that MJ was a weirdo. But that's not the point of 
the discussion. The issue is pedophilia, and I'm sure if you do the 
study, you'll find that the majority of people who like kids the way he 
did never molest anyone.

	Which is why when there's smoke and no one finds the fire. There 
probably wasn't one. Statistically speaking, you're likely to be in the 
wrong.

> What's wrong with that? Sure, he was having a bad day/time. But isn't that
> the sign of character? Real character seems to come out when shield are
> down. It's easy to be nice on a good day, I am sure even Mussolini was a
> delight to be with on a good day.

	Yes, and I'm sure Gandhi was a jerk on a bad enough day.

	Your point?

	I'm saying that unless there's other evidence, it's naive to believe MR 
was a racist, purely based on that one video.

> I've had many bad days, and I've seen many others have bad days. I don't buy
> that as an excuse.

	Excuse for what? No one's saying he should be forgiven for it. I _am_ 
saying that for all I know, he committed an offense and it was an 
isolated offense and not suggestive of his character.

	But at least I _know_ MR's offense. What do I know with certainty that 
MJ was guilty of (legally or otherwise).

> Well, it's an observation. I don't need to explain it, just note it as a
> difference between men and women regarding children.

	Yes. And I'm just noting that it's most likely a cultural, rather than 
an inherent difference. And that it may be valid in only a minority of 
the world (i.e. a part of the inaptly named "Western" world).

> I've seen many cultures, and even in non-stuck-up/non-western cultures, men
> don't normally have an affinity towards children. In fact, children and

	I've seen otherwise. Granted, probably none had a greater or even an 
equal affinity as the women did, but much more than what I see in the US.

> relationships between unrelated men and children. If you still say it's
> cultural, feel free to provide an example of a society in which MJ would
> have felt right at home.

	Strawman.

	No one said MJ's actions were normal by any particular culture's. Just 
that it was a sign of society's weakness to condemn him for the sin of 
acting differently.

-- 
What kind of electricity do they have in Washington? D.C.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message