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] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > Anyway, RIP, Michael.  "Billie Jean", "Beat it", "Don't Stop 'til You
> > Get Enough" and "Smooth Criminal" will never leave my "stereo"... :)
>
>   He was indeed a really talented singer (and dancer!)

very friggin' much!  I don't usually "watch" music, but in his case, much of the
kick comes from his electrifying performance.

>   I find it sad that some people dislike his music primarily because they
> dislike him as a person.

All genius are disturbed individuals.  Wagner, Beethoven... I know how to enjoy
the work separate from the author.

>   MJ was also a sad victim of people's twisted notion of inverted burden
> of proof in child molestation charge cases: The accused is assumed to be
> guilty until proven innocent.

well, in his case I do believe he was indeed a child molester... as well as was
molested when a child.

It doesn't change the fact that his performances and some of his hits were
completely top-notch and a hallmark of the 80s.  A great artist, a petty human.

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > well, someone had to do it.
>
> And let us all learn from it:  Don't be a s**t to your kids (MJ's dad
> reportedly was)

were Beethoven's or Mozart's fathers any better?  Too late to ask and doesn't
matter anyway...

I believe well-adjusted individuals express themselves solely by raising a
family rather than by seeking artistic expression.  Those who do otherwise are
never as successful as the tortured souls in bringing up unknown emotions to
the public.

Post a reply to this message

On 06/27/09 19:29, nemesis wrote:
> All genius are disturbed individuals.

	Nope. Common misconception.


-- 
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

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a469d11$1@news.povray.org...
> 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.

Are we only allowed to write things that you are not absolutely sure that
Warp was not well aware?

> > 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.

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).

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

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.

> > 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.

Correct.

> > 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...

The more accusations, the higher the likelihood, ceteris paribus. Now, it
may be a planned attack, coincidence... whatever. Sure. But given that even
observing a white dove increases the probability of correctness of the
statement that all ravens are black, let's not pretend that smoke can be
ignored until one sees the fire.

> > 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.

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).

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.

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.

Likewise, had it been the case that Bill Clinton made open sexual advances
to "that woman" but was rejected, would our opinion of him have to be higher
than now? I don't understand the obsession with being found guilty of "the
crime". Yes, it matters greatly from the viewpoint of the legal system. It
has to. We need the legal system to be highly regulated, predictable,
repeatable, objective... etc. But legal proof of crime is sometimes a mere
technicality and pretty much irrelevant as far as my moral judgement is
concerned. MJ's case, to me, is one of those times.

> > 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.

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.

> > 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.

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.

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

> > 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).

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

> > 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.

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
teenagers remain in matriarchial domain until quite late by western
standards, and even the father-son bonding is weaker and father-daughter
bonding may be virtually non-existent, not to say anything about
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.

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:web.4a46ba75a714cf81acb4120a0@news.povray.org...
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > nemesis wrote:
> > > well, someone had to do it.
> >
> > And let us all learn from it:  Don't be a s**t to your kids (MJ's dad
> > reportedly was)
>
> were Beethoven's or Mozart's fathers any better?  Too late to ask and
doesn't
> matter anyway...
>
> I believe well-adjusted individuals express themselves solely by raising a
> family rather than by seeking artistic expression.  Those who do otherwise
are
> never as successful as the tortured souls in bringing up unknown emotions
to
> the public.

You are correct to the extent that it's exceedingly difficult to rise above
all the competition in any given field and still manage to find time and
effort to lead a well rounded life and be happy. Usually something has to
give. But true genius are those that can manage that, and there are many
artists or scientists who do, contrary to the stereotype.

Post a reply to this message

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

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:47:33 -0600, somebody wrote:

>  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.

This is true not just in the case of MJ, but also in other matters as 
well that have been touched upon here recently.  But that's all I'll say, 
lest I be accused (again) of attempting to derail the conversation.  It 
just struck me odd that you'd say this given your rather emphatic 
statements to the contrary in other threads here recently. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:43:22 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> Nope. Common misconception.

Agreed.  This stereotype is largely reinforced by the way genius is 
portrayed in entertainment media.

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.  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.  
That's one of the problems with the way law is done here in the US - the 
jury knows who the defendant is and the associations built with a public 
persona influence the outcomes in high profile trials like MJ's and OJ's.

I wonder if the outcome would have been different if the personality 
hadn't been in the courtroom or somehow the jury were unaware that that 
was the case they were hearing.

Indeed it would be interesting to see how trials would be conducted if 
the defendant (and witnesses too, for that matter) were sequestered from 
the jury so the jury didn't know who they were.  It would be difficult to 
do, no doubt, but might make an interesting experiment in jurisprudence.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/27/09 22:46, 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

	Well, he was quite a skillful performer in terms of his dance moves. 
I'd wager he'd be much less known and much less remembered if not for that.

	As for his songs, it's really a matter of taste. At a certain level, 
pop music simply cannot be taken very seriously. It's kind of like 
comparing Stephen King with Ernest Hemingway.

	Obviously, it wasn't all _his_ success. I'm guessing he didn't write 
many of his songs (just a guess - don't really know), and there's a 
whole team involved (music video, music, etc).

	But then again, I think he does deserve quite a bit of "credit". I 
don't think he was simply a manufactured star as some others have been. 
His output was more successful than just about anyone of his time, and 
he maintained that success for about 25 years. You do have to be someone 
special to achieve that. And to a large extent, his music was unique (at 
least within the pop genre).

	You don't have to like him or his music to appreciate that.

> I wonder if the outcome would have been different if the personality
> hadn't been in the courtroom or somehow the jury were unaware that that
> was the case they were hearing.

	Speculation can always run rampant. People question whether he would 
have been accused had he not been who he was.

	I didn't follow the case, so I don't know the details. I guess I could 
go read about it on Wikipedia. But I do agree with (one of) Warp's 
points: Being guilty won't make me not appreciate his music. I might 
have not bought any of his merchandise (not that he had any since then) 
because I wouldn't want any of my money going to him, but I wouldn't 
just stop listening to his music.

	There are actually quite a few famous people whose personality I 
dislike or even despise, but I still like the work that they're famous 
for (which, obviously, is not related to their personality).

> Indeed it would be interesting to see how trials would be conducted if
> the defendant (and witnesses too, for that matter) were sequestered from
> the jury so the jury didn't know who they were.  It would be difficult to
> do, no doubt, but might make an interesting experiment in jurisprudence.

	Double blind test? Doesn't sound like a bad idea. In fact, I've often 
felt (perhaps even stated on this newsgroup) that I don't like the 
notion that jurors can see and hear the witnesses directly. I think it's 
too likely that they'll be swayed by emotions than by facts. They should 
just read the transcripts.

	But then again, I've never been to court (fortunately?), so I'm just 
arguing from my armchair.

-- 
CONgress (n) - Opposite of PROgress


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

Post a reply to this message