 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
well, someone had to do it.
I was an 8 years old kid when Thriller swept the world. "Beat it" rocks
so much! "Billie Jean" and the moonwalk... man, can you believe it led
even a shy, white brazilian kid to try to perform it? and fail, of
course. :P
Anyway, RIP, Michael. "Billie Jean", "Beat it", "Don't Stop 'til You
Get Enough" and "Smooth Criminal" will never leave my "stereo"... :)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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), and don't surround yourself with sycophants (which MJ
clearly did).
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmail com> 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!)
I find it sad that some people dislike his music primarily because they
dislike him as a person. Or even if they admit that some of his songs were
pretty good, they still more or less avoid his music because of how they
feel about him. I suppose it's some kind of (conscious of subconscious)
fear that if they are seen listening to his music, people will think that
they like the musician as well, so they don't want to give the "wrong
impression".
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. And even after being acquitted of all charges,
still highly suspicious. Most people outright call him "pedophile" and
"child molester" for the sole reason that he was *accused* of being one.
Now, I'm not saying he wasn't. I have no way of knowing if he was guilty
or not. However, I find it rather outrageous that people just condemn him
without any kind of proof, and even though he was never found guilty. That
should never be done. That kind of thinking is despicable, IMO. That kind
of thinking has ruined innocent people's lives.
It also goes to show how twisted modern western society is. It seems
that the right to love children (in a completely non-sexual way) is more
or less reserved to women, and men have no right to it, or at the very
least they have *less* right to it and to show it then women have. If a
man truely and passionately loves children (again, in a completely and
absolutely non-sexual way) and acts accordingly, he will usually be
considered creepy and suspicious. The exact same behavior from a woman
will be completely ok, though.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a467153@news.povray.org...
> 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. And even after being acquitted of all
charges,
> still highly suspicious. Most people outright call him "pedophile" and
> "child molester" for the sole reason that he was *accused* of being one.
>
> Now, I'm not saying he wasn't. I have no way of knowing if he was guilty
> or not. However, I find it rather outrageous that people just condemn him
> without any kind of proof, and even though he was never found guilty. That
> should never be done. That kind of thinking is despicable, IMO. That kind
> of thinking has ruined innocent people's lives.
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.
More often than not, where there's smoke, there's fire, and you cannot and
should not expect people to think like automatons with their judegement
circuits indexed to the legal system. Legal system operates on a different
principle: Conviction is proof of guilt (ideally), but acquittal is not
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.
Also, people's judgements are not as black and white (no pun intended) as
the legal system's. Did Michael Richards get convicted due to his racial
outburst? No, and neither should he have been, that would be ridiculous. But
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
hardly feel like watching a rerun, let alone with the same level 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.
> It also goes to show how twisted modern western society is. It seems
> that the right to love children (in a completely non-sexual way) is more
> or less reserved to women, and men have no right to it, or at the very
> least they have *less* right to it and to show it then women have. If a
> man truely and passionately loves children (again, in a completely and
> absolutely non-sexual way) and acts accordingly, he will usually be
> considered creepy and suspicious. The exact same behavior from a woman
> will be completely ok, though.
Not as much as it used to be, after some highly publicised cases of sexual
abuse of minors by women, (mostly) teachers. That said, I do believe there
are major biological/hormonal/evolutionary...etc differences between the
sexes regarding feelings towards children: Put a baby in a stroller in a
shopping mall, and you'll instantly have a swarm of adoring females. You
won't see any similar flocking behaviour from men (unless the mom happens to
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
"passionately love them in a completely and absolutely non-sexual way". Are
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/27/09 13:43, John VanSickle wrote:
> reportedly was), and don't surround yourself with sycophants (which MJ
> clearly did).
Kind of like listening to only talk shows for news & analysis.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:21:14 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 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.
Probably, I'll agree with 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.
Yeah, and at that particular time of my life, I was just a bit of a music
snob, too - so I didn't really listen to anything that wasn't "Hemingway"
when it came to music. My tastes have broadened since then, but my
recollections from listening to the local radio stations on the bus going
to/from school growing up didn't play a lot of what I listen to now,
either - so that's coloured my view.
> 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).
Well, being prolific doesn't always equate to being good. I've heard
Mozart described as a pop star as well in his own time. Just a question
of taste, I suppose. As for Jackson, I think there was a bit of
manufactured stardom there, but to his credit, he was the manufacturer of
that image - it wasn't the sort of manufactured stardom that is hoisted
upon performers these days.
> Speculation can always run rampant. People question whether he
would
> have been accused had he not been who he was.
True.
> 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.
Well, I didn't really follow the case closely (celebrity gossip/lives
isn't something I'm into at all). But I do think that there is an
element of the human psyche that does put the two together - there are
those who wouldn't listen to Wagner, either, because of his anti-
semitical views. I can understand that - but like some with Jackson, I'm
willing to overlook Wagner's personal views because I enjoy 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).
I think the artist's personality is reflected in their art - sometimes
with subtlety, sometimes not. But would, for example, Thriller have been
as good in some people's minds if his personality hadn't been "bigger
than life"? I'd venture to say probably not.
>> 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.
I do as well - though there's something to be said for being able to
evaluate a witness' character that you can't pull through a transcript.
But a lot of court is theater (though not the way it's portrayed on TV,
at least not in my experience as a juror). But there should be a way to
level the playing field so the focus is more on facts and less on
personalities. However, the jury's responsibility is to interpret facts
by determining who's telling the truth and who's not, again something
very difficult to pull from a piece of paper.
It might work better, though, if the identities of the defendant and
those testifying were unknown, maybe obscured and voices modified. You
might want to know, for example, the background of the person testifying
(ie, police officer vs. cellmate), but you'd have to include more about
the person than is typically let in now - if a police officer has a
history that's relevant to the case, that needs to be let in (often times
I understand it isn't because it doesn't relate directly to the case in
question).
> But then again, I've never been to court (fortunately?), so I'm
just
> arguing from my armchair.
I've not been to court other than as a juror or an observer (in a civil
case for the latter), but it is a topic that has been an interest to me
over the years, and probably will continue to be.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> 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
One less child molester in the world
not gone soon enough for some poor little kids
doing his little dances in hell now
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a46e152$1@news.povray.org...
> 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.
I think it did, but hey, it's your opinion.
> >> 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.
You are not supposed to take idioms literally. It's stated as such, because
it doesn't make a good concise idiom when people say "where there's smoke,
there's a higher probably for fire than not".
> 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.
The claim is about likelihood of fire. Not about proving presence of fire.
> > However, my judgement will always be based on (what I perceive to be)
the
> > most likely explanation.
> You're not demonstrating anything
Nor do I need to. I'm pointing out the fallacy about basing one's opinions
solely on court decisions. I'm not here to demonstrate to you MJ's guilt (or
lack thererof, as the case may be). Let's not pretend this is a courtroom or
an investigation.
> 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".
I don't need extraordinary evidence, for I am not making extraordinary
claims. I'm making the "ordinary" claim that MJ was a creep at best. I don't
need him to be convicted of the molestation charges to decide that.
Something like this suffices:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2NYzo9Wj7A&feature=channel_page
And yes, someone else might find him sweet and endearing. It doesn't matter.
> > The more accusations, the higher the likelihood, ceteris paribus. Now,
it
> Don't make the mistake of assuming mutual independence.
I mentioned that earlier myself.
> 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.
I wouldn't publish with that, but I can form an opinion with it.
> > 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.
Fire was not proven, but a lot of "funny" business surfaced. I can still
form a disfavourable opinion of MJ based on all else.
> > 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.
What does that have anything to do with anything? A thinly veiled attempt at
character assasination? When did I give the impression that any of those
things mattered to me?
Hey, I'm just pointing out that the whole paragraph did not really respond
in any meaningful way to what I was saying.
> 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.
> > 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.
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
police. However, *I* can base my character judegement on things that the law
has no business judging. Also, I believe there can be degree of pedophilia,
as there can be degrees of anything. I'm not even claiming MJ was one - or
if he were, that he probably was a relatively benign case.
> 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 did not say he was. But, out of curiosity, how do we define "racist"? Is
it necessary for someone to be convicted of hate crimes to be labelled as
one? Again, I believe there are degrees of racism, all the way from white to
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.
> > 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.
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?
> > 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.
It's not like he was stoned to death for showing an ankle. I don't think the
society's response was harsh at all, his supporters and fans probably way
outweigh those who think unfavourably of him.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a46e783$1@news.povray.org...
> 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.
Interesting idea indeed. Would you also obfuscate the race and even sex? It
would make an interesting sociological experiment to provide sets of jurors
VR plays of same criminal court proceedings but with markedly different
(race / age / sex / wealth / beauty / education....etc) characters.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/28/09 08:05, somebody wrote:
> You are not supposed to take idioms literally. It's stated as such, because
> it doesn't make a good concise idiom when people say "where there's smoke,
> there's a higher probably for fire than not".
Even that may not be true. The only thing that's true is "where there's
smoke, there's more likely to be fire than if there wasn't smoke".
However, given that there's smoke, there may still be a greater than
50% chance that there was no fire.
Which is why it's a stupid idiom.
>> Not quite what he said, I believe. More like "Extraordinary claims
>> require extraordinary evidence".
>
> I don't need extraordinary evidence, for I am not making extraordinary
> claims. I'm making the "ordinary" claim that MJ was a creep at best. I don't
Oh. OK. I thought this was about him being a pedophile. No arguments
that he acted abnormally.
>> 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.
>
> What does that have anything to do with anything? A thinly veiled attempt at
> character assasination? When did I give the impression that any of those
> things mattered to me?
You keep insisting that society *can* have less rigorous criteria to
judge someone. I'm pointing out that individuals and society can judge
someone however they feel like. No one's arguing about what they *can*
do. It's whether we feel it's appropriate to do so.
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>> 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 did not say he was. But, out of curiosity, how do we define "racist"? Is
> it necessary for someone to be convicted of hate crimes to be labelled as
> one? Again, I believe there are degrees of racism, all the way from white to
No - just a pattern of explicitly racist behavior. For all I know, that
was MR's only episode.
> 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.
> 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.
--
Circular Definition: see Definition, Circular.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/28/09 08:22, somebody wrote:
> Interesting idea indeed. Would you also obfuscate the race and even sex? It
Sure - unless it's relevant to the case.
--
Circular Definition: see Definition, Circular.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody <x### [at] ycom> 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 sorry, but it's precisely that kind of "punishing innocent people by
mistake is ok as long as guilty people get also (probably) punished along
the way" witch-hunting thinking that I cannot agree with.
One of the most basic principles of the modern western judiciary system
is the principle of the burden of proof: People are assumed innocent until
proven guilty. It's better to free a guilty person than jail an innocent
person.
I'm sorry if I seem like an insensitive jerk, but I do not consider
that children should be in any way more protected than other people in
this regard. Unlike seemingly modern western society, I do not consider
children to be some kind of semi-gods which must be protected at all
costs, even if it means that innocent people are burnt at the stake.
In my opinion the basic principles of the modern judiciary system should
be applied to everybody in the same way. Reverse burden of proof is an
abomination and a complete judiciary farce. It's a step back to burning
witches.
I also find it completely hypocritical that there's a world-wide witch
hunt against people who abuse children sexually, but no witch-hunt of
any kind against people who abuse them mentally. Is mental abuse of a child
somehow more acceptable? Less of a horrible crime? Seemingly it is.
> That said, I do believe there
> are major biological/hormonal/evolutionary...etc differences between the
> sexes regarding feelings towards children: Put a baby in a stroller in a
> shopping mall, and you'll instantly have a swarm of adoring females. You
> won't see any similar flocking behaviour from men (unless the mom happens to
> 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
> "passionately love them in a completely and absolutely non-sexual way". Are
> 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.
Or as I said: Men have no right to love children in modern society.
Equal rights go to hell.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> Thus, Warp's implied suggestion that we should base our judgement only on
> the legal outcome is rather, well, naive.
I did not say that we should base our judgement on the legal outcome.
I said that we have no right to judge anybody without proof. The fact that
he was aquitted might not be definite proof of anything, but at least it
strongly implies lack of proof of guilt.
We should not judge people based on prejudice.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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*. Even if you could prove that someone has such a problem (which
in itself can be rather difficult), there's no law against it. There can't
be law against it because mental problems cannot be illegal. So the only
thing you can punish someone for is if he actually *does* something.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The Shadow <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> One less child molester in the world
> not gone soon enough for some poor little kids
> doing his little dances in hell now
Yeah, sure. You know *for sure* that he was guilty. You were there
watching the whole thing, which is why you know.
Can we apply this "accusation = proof of guilt" to every crime?
If I accuse *you* of molesting a child, can I automatically assume
that you are guilty? Using the same logic.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:48:51 -0400, Warp wrote:
> We should not judge people based on prejudice.
I agree with this, but at the same time, it's highly possible the jury
judged him not guilty due to prejudice rather than any actual facts heard
in court.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 07:22:14 -0600, somebody wrote:
> Interesting idea indeed. Would you also obfuscate the race and even sex?
I think it might depend on the case - for example, a murder or assault
that has a "hate crime enhancement" would be difficult to prosecute if
you didn't know the victim's race or the racial idiosyncrasies of the
defendant.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:58:47 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 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.
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:
> You can't punish people for how they
> think (not yet, at least; we are still not that Orwellian), only for
> what they *do*.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> It also goes to show how twisted modern western society is. It seems
> that the right to love children (in a completely non-sexual way) is more
> or less reserved to women, and men have no right to it, or at the very
> least they have *less* right to it and to show it then women have. If a
> man truely and passionately loves children (again, in a completely and
> absolutely non-sexual way) and acts accordingly, he will usually be
> considered creepy and suspicious. The exact same behavior from a woman
> will be completely ok, though.
I did hear of a man who applied for work at a day care center. He was
regarded as a pervert trolling for victims.
This is an unfortunate artifact of society's expectations of men (he was
pursuing a non-traditional career), the fact that men are
over-represented on the rolls of convicted child molesters, and the fact
that child molesters seek out situations in which they are in a position
of trust with children.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:48:51 -0400, Warp wrote:
> > We should not judge people based on prejudice.
> I agree with this, but at the same time, it's highly possible the jury
> judged him not guilty due to prejudice rather than any actual facts heard
> in court.
Well, *everything* is possible. But unless we know better, we cannot go
judging people on what could have *possibly* happened.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 07:22:14 -0600, somebody wrote:
> > Interesting idea indeed. Would you also obfuscate the race and even sex?
> I think it might depend on the case - for example, a murder or assault
> that has a "hate crime enhancement" would be difficult to prosecute if
> you didn't know the victim's race or the racial idiosyncrasies of the
> defendant.
IMO in cases where the concept of "hate crime" is involved, it would
be specially important to conceal the ethnicities of the involved parties.
People have demonstrably bias on who can commit hate crimes against who.
Of course in practice this would be impossible to conceal. For example
statements made by the accused would need to be presented to the jury,
which would in most cases immediately reveal the ethnicities involved.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> He was accused of actual inappropriate behaviour, and from the little I
> read, it seemed there was evidence of such inappropriate behaviour.
Yes, I know. I was just commenting on your "he had problems as regards
kids", which sounded like "he might have been attracted to them in an
inappropriate way".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/28/09 12:41, Warp wrote:
>> I think it might depend on the case - for example, a murder or assault
>> that has a "hate crime enhancement" would be difficult to prosecute if
>> you didn't know the victim's race or the racial idiosyncrasies of the
>> defendant.
>
> IMO in cases where the concept of "hate crime" is involved, it would
> be specially important to conceal the ethnicities of the involved parties.
> People have demonstrably bias on who can commit hate crimes against who.
I was about to say something similar.
But to be honest, I don't want to say it definitively. I'd like to say
this (Warp's approach) should be the default, but there should be room
to argue in front of the judge for it *not* to be on a case by case
basis (i.e. if the particular case has some elements where one really
needs to know).
But really, there are probably lots of factors I have not considered.
(Armchair arguments...)
> Of course in practice this would be impossible to conceal. For example
> statements made by the accused would need to be presented to the jury,
> which would in most cases immediately reveal the ethnicities involved.
That too. Come to think of it, in many cases, trying to adhere to this
would be a mess. At times, I'd rather it be openly stated rather than
have juries "figure" it out based on testimony.
--
Mike: I used to think correlation implied causation. Then I took a
statistics class. Now I no longer think that.
Sue: Sounds like the class helped.
Mike: Well...maybe.
(Credit: xkcd comics)
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/28/09 11:58, Warp wrote:
> in itself can be rather difficult), there's no law against it. There can't
> be law against it because mental problems cannot be illegal. So the only
> thing you can punish someone for is if he actually *does* something.
Well, you can't punish someone, but can't you get them committed into
an asylum if their mental problems were serious enough? I really don't
know what the law says about this. Do people get committed because
someone's mental problems make them "likely" to be, say, violent - even
though they've never attacked anyone before?
But getting back to what you're saying, I think what somebody and Jim
are trying to say that yes, even if he didn't commit the crime, if it is
*clear* that he had nasty predilections (albeit due to mental issues),
then there is some room for judging him for it.
--
Mike: I used to think correlation implied causation. Then I took a
statistics class. Now I no longer think that.
Sue: Sounds like the class helped.
Mike: Well...maybe.
(Credit: xkcd comics)
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:38:44 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:48:51 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> > We should not judge people based on prejudice.
>
>> I agree with this, but at the same time, it's highly possible the jury
>> judged him not guilty due to prejudice rather than any actual facts
>> heard in court.
>
> Well, *everything* is possible. But unless we know better, we cannot
> go
> judging people on what could have *possibly* happened.
True, but I make my judgment based on what I know about the case - just
like everyone else. You judge based on what you know, and what I know is
enough to be convinced that if I had small children, I'd have kept them
away from him at all costs.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:41:30 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 07:22:14 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
>> > Interesting idea indeed. Would you also obfuscate the race and even
>> > sex?
>
>> I think it might depend on the case - for example, a murder or assault
>> that has a "hate crime enhancement" would be difficult to prosecute if
>> you didn't know the victim's race or the racial idiosyncrasies of the
>> defendant.
>
> IMO in cases where the concept of "hate crime" is involved, it would
> be specially important to conceal the ethnicities of the involved
> parties. People have demonstrably bias on who can commit hate crimes
> against who.
Maybe, but at the same time, the hate crime enhancement, for example,
against an African-American, would be easily demonstrated if the
defendant was a member of an organisation like the KKK. That would be a
necessary piece of evidence.
> Of course in practice this would be impossible to conceal. For example
> statements made by the accused would need to be presented to the jury,
> which would in most cases immediately reveal the ethnicities involved.
Yep.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:43:33 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Yes, I know. I was just commenting on your "he had problems as regards
> kids", which sounded like "he might have been attracted to them in an
> inappropriate way".
I was trying to be nice. I know enough about the cases in question to
know that I wouldn't want to have left a kid alone with him, much less
stay overnight without adult supervision.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
It isn't, however, illegal. And I suspect it's not even "universally"
inappropriate (in terms of all of humanity).
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.
From all I have seen (and I admit not to looking into it with fervor),
the only thing I can say about MJ was that he behaved differently. It's
normal that it makes people be on guard when being around folks who just
act contrary to social norms, but that's it.
--
Mike: I used to think correlation implied causation. Then I took a
statistics class. Now I no longer think that.
Sue: Sounds like the class helped.
Mike: Well...maybe.
(Credit: xkcd comics)
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
--
Mike: I used to think correlation implied causation. Then I took a
statistics class. Now I no longer think that.
Sue: Sounds like the class helped.
Mike: Well...maybe.
(Credit: xkcd comics)
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> And let us all learn from it: Don't be a s**t to your kids (MJ's dad
> reportedly was), and don't surround yourself with sycophants (which MJ
> clearly did).
Funny enough, all his actual close friends all thought he was a great, kind,
funny guy. It's only those who wanted something from him that called him out.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> shopping mall, and you'll instantly have a swarm of adoring females. You
> won't see any similar flocking behaviour from men
And, uh, which camp does MJ fall into, then? Not that I'm being totally
serious, but given how many people make fun of him for his femininity...
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> But as far as you and I are concerned, the technicality means
> nothing, he attempted to murder you.
Annnnd, that's why he goes to jail for attempted murder (or attempted
manslaughter, as appropritate).
What you're really saying is "I know better than the jury to whom all
relevant critical evidence was presented whether this happened or not."
> 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.
Because you think you know what all the evidence was. Right.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Great sig, btw. :-)
Do Not Attempt to Traverse a Chasm in Two Leaps...
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
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 11:29:46 -0700, Darren New 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.
Perhaps, but I'm certainly entitled to my own opinion. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
