On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:01:47 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> On 06/28/09 12:36, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> He was accused of actual inappropriate behaviour, and from the little I
>> read, it seemed there was evidence of such inappropriate behaviour.  I
>> agree with this:
> 
> 	Inappropriate by a large portion of society. As somebody pointed 
out
> with the Bashir documentary clip, he even admitted to behavior that many
> people would find inappropriate.

This is how laws are formed a lot of the time.

> 	It isn't, however, illegal. And I suspect it's not even 
"universally"
> inappropriate (in terms of all of humanity).

Um, some of the things he was accused of are in fact illegal.  That's why 
he went to court.

> 	My bottom line is that we're all free to dislike him for those 
things
> that are quite clear. However, while I might not want my kids around him
> without some reliable adult monitoring, I'm not going to judge other
> parents who let their kids hang around him.

Well, you're entitled to do that.  I would deem those parents 
irresponsible at least to just think that it's OK to let their kids sleep 
over with him because he's a star.  It's naive to think that the stage 
persona is the "real person" persona and that his popularity means that 
he's safe to leave your kids with.

Those who were willing to let their kids stay with him when they didn't 
know about him as a *person* might just as well have left their kids with 
some other stranger.  Just because someone is famous doesn't mean that 
you know them.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>     It isn't, however, illegal. And I suspect it's not even 
> "universally" inappropriate (in terms of all of humanity).

I didn't watch the whole thing, but the couple minutes at the start I 
watched probably wouldn't have raised eyebrows if it was a matronly woman 
saying exactly the same thing.

> I'm not going to 
> judge other parents who let their kids hang around him.

I understand a lot of the kids had problems, too.  What's creepy for someone 
when with a normal well-adjusted kid is not so creepy for some kid with 
nightmares and a history of mental problems, too.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a47867e$1@news.povray.org...
> On 06/28/09 08:05, somebody wrote:

> > 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

> Actually, I don't think so. Or rather, the law likely has a looser
> definition of a sexual act than you or I may think.

The law may have *different* definitions. But courts are to apply those
definitions in a binary manner, and I don't have to.

The court may come to completely different conclusions if a partner in sex
is 17.9 years as opposed to 18.1 years old. To me, that's more or less
meaningless, and I have a much more smooth judegement curve, which takes
into account the age differential between the partners.

Or, as in the previous mugging example, the court will dish out rather
different punishments depending on whether the victim was killed or not.
From my point of view, that doesn't matter at all as far as judging the
mugger, so long as he pulled the trigger with the intent to kill.

Finally, I can judge people on acts that do not fit the definition of a
crime at all.

> > 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.

> Here I disagree with you. Courts have nothing to do with it. I feel
> that for serious charges, judgment should be suspended until there _is_
> enough data to declare it.

My mind does not work in a binary manner (gratefully).

See below.

> > 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?

> See above paragraph. I personally need more data of being a racist
> before coming to a conclusion that someone indeed is a racist.

Do you believe that it's all black and white? That if MR crossed a certain
treshold (say, 12 episodes of racist rants per year) that you'd consider him
a racist, but anything below that you would not? Can you honestly say even a
single episode will not change your mind about him just a little bit?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Perhaps, but I'm certainly entitled to my own opinion. ;-)

Agreed. There's only a handful of his songs that I like myself. Beatles? 
Sure. Elvis? Sure. MJ? I'm surprised he's considered genius by those more 
informed than myself. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:57:30 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Perhaps, but I'm certainly entitled to my own opinion. ;-)
> 
> Agreed. There's only a handful of his songs that I like myself. Beatles?
> Sure. Elvis? Sure. MJ? I'm surprised he's considered genius by those
> more informed than myself. :-)

So was I. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> > Now as to whether MJ was a genius or not, well, personally, I don't think 
> > so.  His music always struck me as rubbish pop.  But that's just my 
> > tastes against his style.

> I think it's not unreasonable to look to the dozens of other famous 
> performers and composers who cited him as inspirational and geniusly talented.

  I must admit I haven't looked if MJ composed his songs himself, or whether
he just performed them. AFAIK he personally composed at least *some* (if not
most) of the songs he performed.

  IMO regardless of whether or not one *likes* the songs in question, one
cannot reasonably claim that they don't show compositional talent. Many of
the songs are quite complex in structure and content. So complex in fact,
that it can be very difficult for the average person to perform them even
nearly as well as he did. Yet they still manage to be good-sounding and
catchy.

  The music of the songs is also often complex and well-composed, IMO.
If you tried to play them eg. with a guitar, it would be quite difficult.
I'm thinking about songs like Billie Jean, Beat It and Black Or White.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> On 06/28/09 12:36, John VanSickle wrote:
> > I did hear of a man who applied for work at a day care center. He was
> > regarded as a pervert trolling for victims.

>         Let me guess. He was probably single?

  I find it a bit ironic that the exact same photograph can be completely
legal and ok in a family photo album, and illegal in a single man's
personal computer. This even though the letter of the law probably doesn't
make the distinction.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> The court may come to completely different conclusions if a partner in sex
> is 17.9 years as opposed to 18.1 years old. To me, that's more or less
> meaningless, and I have a much more smooth judegement curve, which takes
> into account the age differential between the partners.

  You mean if a 45-yo has sex with a 18.1-yo, that's ok, but if he has
sex with a 17.9-yo, that's not ok?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a47a147@news.povray.org...
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

> > But I also hold the opinion (based on what was
> > reported, so arguably not a very solid foundation) that he had problems
> > as regards kids and that the jury let the "star factor" get in the way
of
> > an objective verdict in his case, just like happened with OJ's trial.

>   One interesting aspect is that even if he *did* like kids in the wrong
> way, that's actually not illegal. You can't punish people for how they
> think (not yet, at least; we are still not that Orwellian), only for what
> they *do*.

Correct. But *I* (as well the rest of society) can very well judge people
for what I think they think.

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> Correct. But *I* (as well the rest of society) can very well judge people
> for what I think they think.

  Then you are being prejudiced, and judging people on appearances.

  We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether this is an acceptable
stance or not.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message