|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 06/27/09 16:22, somebody wrote:
> True as the last sentence is, it's not the whole truth. That kind of
> thinking has also ruined guilty people's lives, and lack of that kind of
> thinking has also saved guilty people's lives. Not only that, but that kind
> of thinking on occasion has ruined other innocent people's lives who were
> victimized by a wrongfully acquitted criminal whose identity or risk was not
> revealed to the community he was released into.
I'm quite sure Warp was well aware of this when he wrote it.
> More often than not, where there's smoke, there's fire, and you cannot and
Highly misleading. More often than not, where there's smoke, *and no
one finds a fire*, there was no fire.
> proof of innocence. And it's no secret that rich and famous get benefits
> that the commoner does not. If a poor, no-name construction worker had faced
> the same accusations and testimonials/evidence, he'd be rotting behind bars
> as we type.
Yes, but that does not imply that the poor construction worker was
guilty, or that this fact made MJ statistically more likely to be guilty.
> Also, people's judgements are not as black and white (no pun intended) as
> the legal system's.
Which is what Warp is complaining about. Are you suggesting that if two
individuals accuse you on separate occasions of things you didn't do,
it's OK for someone to think you did it? If you did, then I think Warp
was talking about you...
> outburst? No, and neither should he have been, that would be ridiculous. But
It would be ridiculous, because it was not a crime. What MJ was accused
of is a crime, hence the need to find him guilty if he actually was
guilty. Your example is not analogous.
> a glimpse into the uglier sides of the minds of public figures can forever
> taint their accomplishments. I was a big fan of Seinfeld before that, but
Yes, they can. Which is what Warp complained about. Everybody has a bad
day, and that day may have been Richard's. That outburst alone is a very
poor indicator of any racial biases he may or may not have had. If it
is, then almost everyone I know is a racist, including some people on
this newsgroup.
And again, his case is irrelevant. There's *no* doubt that Richards
said what he did. OTOH, there's a lot of doubt that MJ did what he was
accused of.
> enthusiasm. Like it or not, feelings are not switches that one can turn on
> or off at will, neither do I wish that were the case.
I believe Warp's point is that feelings *are* switched on and off very
easily - regardless of will. I believe his point is that people should
be a bit more mature on how they control their feelings.
It seems you saw a clip of Richards, and your feelings switched quite
quickly.
> have certain prized qualities). If there are men with those women, a blind
> man can read from their faces that they are merely feigning interest not to
> come across as a jerk. Men don't ordinarily relate to children, let alone
Or rather, people like yourself try to find any sign of "feigning"
among them, in order to fit your world view. It's a known phenomenon in
many disciplines.
Your whole paragraph about the strollers and the differences between
men and women is ridiculous. You're basically attributing the
differences to physical/physiological reasons because that's what you're
used to observing (i.e. invoking a phenomenon to explain that very
phenomenon).
> there exceptions? Maybe, one in a million. But I don't see a emotionally
> balanced (which I don't think MJ was) grown man prefrerring the company of
> children, over, say, even a dog's, and finding intellectual fulfillment from
> that.
Yes, this is precisely what Warp's complaining about - people like
yourself being incapable of realizing that the difference in behaviors
between men and women towards children may be mostly cultural, and
almost none of it physiological.
--
Do Not Attempt to Traverse a Chasm in Two Leaps...
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |