"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a46e152$1@news.povray.org...
> 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.

I think it did, but hey, it's your opinion.

> >> 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.

You are not supposed to take idioms literally. It's stated as such, because
it doesn't make a good concise idiom when people say "where there's smoke,
there's a higher probably for fire than not".

> 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.

The claim is about likelihood of fire. Not about proving presence of fire.

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

> You're not demonstrating anything

Nor do I need to. I'm pointing out the fallacy about basing one's opinions
solely on court decisions. I'm not here to demonstrate to you MJ's guilt (or
lack thererof, as the case may be). Let's not pretend this is a courtroom or
an investigation.

> 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".

I don't need extraordinary evidence, for I am not making extraordinary
claims. I'm making the "ordinary" claim that MJ was a creep at best. I don't
need him to be convicted of the molestation charges to decide that.
Something like this suffices:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2NYzo9Wj7A&feature=channel_page

And yes, someone else might find him sweet and endearing. It doesn't matter.

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

> Don't make the mistake of assuming mutual independence.

I mentioned that earlier myself.

> 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.

I wouldn't publish with that, but I can form an opinion with it.

> > 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.

Fire was not proven, but a lot of "funny" business surfaced. I can still
form a disfavourable opinion of MJ based on all else.

> > 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.

What does that have anything to do with anything? A thinly veiled attempt at
character assasination? When did I give the impression that any of those
things mattered to me?

Hey, I'm just pointing out that the whole paragraph did not really respond
in any meaningful way to what I was saying.

> 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.

> > 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.

The crux of the matter is, I believe someone can be a pedophile and *not*
have had any sexual acts with kids, for whatever reason. The law, of course,
should only consider if the act took place. Last thing we want is a thought
police. However, *I* can base my character judegement on things that the law
has no business judging. Also, I believe there can be degree of pedophilia,
as there can be degrees of anything. I'm not even claiming MJ was one - or
if he were, that he probably was a relatively benign case.

> 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 did not say he was. But, out of curiosity, how do we define "racist"? Is
it necessary for someone to be convicted of hate crimes to be labelled as
one? Again, I believe there are degrees of racism, all the way from white to
black including all shades of gray. It looks to me that MR is at least
slightly racist, however you define "slightly". That video *is* information,
and as information, I don't feel at all that it should be discarded because
"it's a single datum" and hence statistically meaningless, or because "it
doesn't amount to a crime in court"... etc.

> > 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.

It may be isolated (and any data about him will be isolated unless you
follow them 24/7), but why would you assume that latter? I haven't seen any
non-black raven and I have seen one black raven: I have not seen anything
that says MR is not a racist (granted, that's something you don't get to see
much), and I've seen one case which suggest he may at least have some latent
racism in him. Am I to ignore what I saw?

> > 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.

It's not like he was stoned to death for showing an ankle. I don't think the
society's response was harsh at all, his supporters and fans probably way
outweigh those who think unfavourably of him.

Post a reply to this message