On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:02:41 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Well, I disagree.  Most pop music in and of itself consists of very
>> simple rhythm and not a lot of musical ingenuity, based on what I've
>> heard.
> 
>   Musical ingenuity does not necessarily have to be measured in
>   technical
> terms. There's also the subjective component to it.

Of course.  And in my subjective opinion, pop music simply isn't complex 
enough or rich enough to meet my own criteria for "genius".

>   Even a simple tune can be really catchy. If someone composes such a
>   tune,
> one could argue that's music ingenuity at work.

Sure.  Sometimes simple is ingenious, but there's a difference between 
something simple that's ingenious and a three-chord wonder.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:49:51 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> On 06/28/09 13:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> 	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.
> 
> 	I know - I was, however, referring to what we *know* rather than 
what
> he's been accused of.

What I know is what was in the few reports that I read.

>> 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
> 
> 	Well, I think anyone who thinks it's OK to let their kids sleep 
over
> anyone's house merely due to stardom is irresponsible to an extent (not
> enough for the law, though).

Exactly.

> 	But was that the case? The parents had not spent time with MJ?

According to the reports I had read, no, they hadn't spent time enough to 
know how he'd behave.  They were wowed by the "star factor" and that he 
wanted to spend time with their kid.

>> 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
> 
> 	Do you know that the parents didn't know him personally?

According to the reports that I read, they didn't.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a47d5ce$1@news.povray.org...

> > 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?

> Nope. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
>
> I need a certain threshold before I will even _consider_ whether
> someone is a racist. That's not being binary.

You don't consider whether someone's a racist below a treshold, you consider
whether someone's racist above it. However you word it (and yes, I realize
the difference between X and considering the possibility of X), it's a
binary proposition.

> My threshold isn't "one incident" (at least in MR's case).

Is it 3, 5, 25? Why do I have a feeling you won't be willing to share that
treshold with us? :P

Personally, one incident is enough for me to entertain the notion, and I
don't have a problem with thinking that someone might be very mildly racist.
Of course the more incidents, the stronger my conviction is about the
strength of the racism, but I cannot really pinpoint a treshold. It's
entirely possible your mind works very differently in that respect.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a47c132@news.povray.org...
> 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?

Possibly from a legal point. Not from my personal POV. That's the whole
point. Something does not have to be a (provable) crime for me to pass
unfavourable personal judgement. That the 45 yo was cleared by the court
because the partner happened to have their 18th birthday the day before
changes very little, if anything at all, for me.

That said, you can be fined the same parking fee whether you are 1 minute or
59 minutes over, and will not be fined if you are 15 seconds under. While
that's also a very binary "legal" judgement, it doesn't carry any moral
implications.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a47c1fb@news.povray.org...
> 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.

Appearance?

Post a reply to this message

On 06/28/09 17:43, somebody wrote:
>> I need a certain threshold before I will even _consider_ whether
>> someone is a racist. That's not being binary.
>
> You don't consider whether someone's a racist below a treshold, you consider
> whether someone's racist above it. However you word it (and yes, I realize
> the difference between X and considering the possibility of X), it's a
> binary proposition.

	By that reasoning, yours is also a binary proposition. Either he's not 
a racist, or he might be.

>> My threshold isn't "one incident" (at least in MR's case).
>
> Is it 3, 5, 25? Why do I have a feeling you won't be willing to share that
> treshold with us? :P
	
	Because it's nebulous, and depends on the incident(s).


-- 
For a while, she had a boyfriend with a wooden leg. Then she broke it off.


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

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:46:11 -0400, 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 should add that while I think his music was generally rubbish, he had  
significant abilities in the areas of showmanship and dance.  I had 
forgotten about a lot of that until I was at the gym this afternoon and 
watched videos (on MTV, natch) without the sound.  There's no doubt he 
was talented in those areas.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:4a47c1fb@news.povray.org...
> > 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.
>
> Appearance?


Well just my take on this issue.

The court found it did not have enough information to determine guilt or
innocents. However from other evidence like the video posted earlier I would
not risk my children being in contact with someone in the same situation as MJ
was in. It is not a matter of guilt but the risk of guilt. Trust must be
reestablished.


She has no proof. He will still have to overcome her doubt even if he is
telling the truth. It is human nature.

This is also why OJ had to pay the wrongful death suit but not spend time in
jail. Different levels of proof.

I agree with Warp in that we should not pass improvable guilt but when the risks
are high caution should prevail.

Ah here is another example. If I am swinging a bat at you, you will try to stop
me and take my bat away even though I have not hit you yet. You would be
finding guilt in me and punish me by taking my bat. It is the possibility of
risk and not the fact of guilt.

There is a possibility MJ was innocent but I would not put my children at risk
to find out.

It was quite entertaining to see the ongoing debate. Things like this should
stimulate us all to think about things like this. I believe it is not thinking
that has lead to unbending laws.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 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.

It is probably illegal in both; but the single man is the one who is 
more likely to be prosecuted, and more likely, if prosecuted, to be 
convicted.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz 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?

That is a detail of which I have no recall.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message