 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] nospam com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> > Now as to whether MJ was a genius or not, well, personally, I don't think
> > so. His music always struck me as rubbish pop. But that's just my
> > tastes against his style.
> I think it's not unreasonable to look to the dozens of other famous
> performers and composers who cited him as inspirational and geniusly talented.
I must admit I haven't looked if MJ composed his songs himself, or whether
he just performed them. AFAIK he personally composed at least *some* (if not
most) of the songs he performed.
IMO regardless of whether or not one *likes* the songs in question, one
cannot reasonably claim that they don't show compositional talent. Many of
the songs are quite complex in structure and content. So complex in fact,
that it can be very difficult for the average person to perform them even
nearly as well as he did. Yet they still manage to be good-sounding and
catchy.
The music of the songs is also often complex and well-composed, IMO.
If you tried to play them eg. with a guitar, it would be quite difficult.
I'm thinking about songs like Billie Jean, Beat It and Black Or White.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> On 06/28/09 12:36, John VanSickle wrote:
> > I did hear of a man who applied for work at a day care center. He was
> > regarded as a pervert trolling for victims.
> Let me guess. He was probably single?
I find it a bit ironic that the exact same photograph can be completely
legal and ok in a family photo album, and illegal in a single man's
personal computer. This even though the letter of the law probably doesn't
make the distinction.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> The court may come to completely different conclusions if a partner in sex
> is 17.9 years as opposed to 18.1 years old. To me, that's more or less
> meaningless, and I have a much more smooth judegement curve, which takes
> into account the age differential between the partners.
You mean if a 45-yo has sex with a 18.1-yo, that's ok, but if he has
sex with a 17.9-yo, that's not ok?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a47a147@news.povray.org...
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > But I also hold the opinion (based on what was
> > reported, so arguably not a very solid foundation) that he had problems
> > as regards kids and that the jury let the "star factor" get in the way
of
> > an objective verdict in his case, just like happened with OJ's trial.
> One interesting aspect is that even if he *did* like kids in the wrong
> way, that's actually not illegal. You can't punish people for how they
> think (not yet, at least; we are still not that Orwellian), only for what
> they *do*.
Correct. But *I* (as well the rest of society) can very well judge people
for what I think they think.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> Correct. But *I* (as well the rest of society) can very well judge people
> for what I think they think.
Then you are being prejudiced, and judging people on appearances.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether this is an acceptable
stance or not.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > Jim Henderson wrote:
> > > Now as to whether MJ was a genius or not, well, personally, I don't think
> > > so. His music always struck me as rubbish pop. But that's just my
> > > tastes against his style.
>
> > I think it's not unreasonable to look to the dozens of other famous
> > performers and composers who cited him as inspirational and geniusly talented.
>
> I must admit I haven't looked if MJ composed his songs himself, or whether
> he just performed them. AFAIK he personally composed at least *some* (if not
> most) of the songs he performed.
>
> IMO regardless of whether or not one *likes* the songs in question, one
> cannot reasonably claim that they don't show compositional talent. Many of
> the songs are quite complex in structure and content. So complex in fact,
> that it can be very difficult for the average person to perform them even
> nearly as well as he did. Yet they still manage to be good-sounding and
> catchy.
>
> The music of the songs is also often complex and well-composed, IMO.
> If you tried to play them eg. with a guitar, it would be quite difficult.
> I'm thinking about songs like Billie Jean, Beat It and Black Or White.
Yes, excellent response.
No, I don't think he was the composer, he was mainly a lyricist and performer.
Perhaps melody and basic harmonic progression was his doing, but the detailing
and complexity of the arrangements and orchestration was left to real
musicians, like Quincy Jones and special guests like Eddie Van Halen or Paul
McCartney.
Regardless, I never said he was a musical genius -- while I truly do enjoy some
of his songs from a musical standpoint alone. He was a performatic genius,
whatever that means. He's also pretty much an embodiment of the 80's and left
a huge influence on whatever came after, specially on street dance.
I'm mostly a music snob, but having met Michael before the classicals may be
what has proven his music so enduring with me. I still find his offerings much
better than most of the majority of pop music.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/28/09 13:11, Darren New wrote:
> 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.
I think his point was that MJ surrounded himself with people who liked
him, and he'd get quite upset at those who'd criticize (legitimately)
his ways and habits, and probably wouldn't maintain ties with those people.
In other words, he didn't have an effective feedback mechanism from
which he could gauge how he was doing.
(I'm not, BTW, talking about kids - more about his inability to take
control of finances, medications, and some personality aspects).
--
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 06/28/09 13:54, somebody wrote:
>> 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).
My paragraph did not imply a need to be binary.
>> 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?
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.
My threshold isn't "one incident" (at least in MR's case).
--
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 06/28/09 13:27, Darren New wrote:
> Great sig, btw. :-)
>
> Do Not Attempt to Traverse a Chasm in Two Leaps...
>
> /\ /\ /\ /
> / \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
Thanks. Don't recall where I got it from...
--
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 06/28/09 13:15, Darren New wrote:
> 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...
Well, hope no one minds the resumption of MJ jokes, but here's one I
saw on Reddit. For context, people there often complain about things
like missing white females get a lot more press and collective worry
than missing black men.
A: Oh suuure. Rich white lady dies of a heart attack and the media is
all over it. What if this was a black man?
B: Only in America can a poor black man grow up to be a rich white woman!
--
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 Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:06:19 -0400, Warp wrote:
> one
> cannot reasonably claim that they don't show compositional talent.
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.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
> 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).
But was that the case? The parents had not spent time with MJ?
> 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?
--
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 06/28/09 14:16, somebody wrote:
> Correct. But *I* (as well the rest of society) can very well judge people
> for what I think they think.
We all know you *can*. That was never under dispute.
--
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 06/28/09 14:06, Warp wrote:
> I must admit I haven't looked if MJ composed his songs himself, or whether
> he just performed them. AFAIK he personally composed at least *some* (if not
> most) of the songs he performed.
Looking at the Thriller album, he did write some of the songs (at least
the lyrics). Beat It and Billie Jean were written by him, for example.
Some others as well.
Looking at Bad, he wrote Bad, Smooth Criminal, and a bunch of others
from that album.
Too lazy to look at the rest. But it is clear that he did write some of
his big hits.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Even a simple tune can be really catchy. If someone composes such a tune,
one could argue that's music ingenuity at work.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Example: The wife’s friends tell her the husband cheated. He claims he did not.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
