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