Do you think Jackson is guilty?

[VonDondu]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]And how exactly does a child molester walk, talk and act? What evidence do you have, that the court did not consider, that Jackson is in fact a child molester?[/QUOTE]
The standard conservative answer to a question like that is, "I know one when I see one." Ask George Bush, Sr., "Can you give me an example of someone who is a member of the 'media elite'?" and that's what he says. Ask Vice President Cheney, "What makes someone a good journalist?" and that's what he says. If you want a better answer than that, you're probably out of luck.

[Mangle Me Elmo]

I suppose it doesn't matter. Like I said, no one escapes final judgment. You wouldn't be able to tell Jackson is what common sense users now call "The Teflon Pedophile" just by looking at him, but given the kid's testimony and Jackson's highly suspicious behavior around boys, I'd say he's molested a kid at least once; no one who is that disturbed has that much self-control. Yeah, he had a crappy childhood, boo hoo, join the friggin club. Oh Vonny, that arrogant 'this is how stupid conservatives think' attitude is exactly why your man lost the last election. The political center in America is fed up with that liberal elitist attitude, so they voted for the Texas Tiger.

[C Elegans]

But how do they know they see one? They have divine powers that give them access to the Ultimate Truth(TM)? Or they have an inner representation of some kind of Platonic idea of "member of media elite"?

There are many good studies made of how people percept their own prejudices, such as "he looks like a criminal". I suppose Bush hasn't read them since he also thought the "War on drugs" was a good idea.

A little anecdone: I know a guy who is professor in sociology at Berkeley. This guy always used to offer his son to use his nice car if the son had a date. One night when the son had a date with a girl he had fancied for a while, the prof handed over his car keys as usual, but the son became very uncomfortable and said that he didn't really want to use the car. The prof asked why not, you always use it, and after some bad excuses, it turned out that the son didn't want to use the car because he found it embarring that he always got stopped and searched by the police when he used his fathers car. Black young man in fancy car = drug dealer. That's what the profile says the police should look for. Black young man in fancy car = son who has borrowed car from his father who is an internationally acknowledged professor at a major uni does not fit the profile.
You know what the prof did? He bought another car, a cheap and crappy one that the son could use.

I suppose it doesn't matter. Like I said, no one escapes final judgment.

I think it matters a lot if people feel they have the right to judge that others have committed serious criminal acts even though there is no evidence.

Final judgement? Does this comment refer to your personal religious beliefs?

You wouldn't be able to tell Jackson is what common sense users now call "The Teflon Pedophile" just by looking at him, but given the kid's testimony and Jackson's highly suspicious behavior around boys, I'd say he's molested a kid at least once; no one who is that disturbed has that much self-control.

Based on the testimony given by one kid, it is possible that Jackson molested this kid in some way. It is also possible that he molested other children. This, we cannot know. "Common sense" is an expression that many people use simply to refer to their personal beliefs. Thus, what is regarded as "common sense" is highly subjective and no objective conclusions can be drawn from it. What names people call Jackson does not show anything except their subjective opinions of him. You may hold the belief that Jackson has molested children. Maybe he has, maybe he hasn't. Since the court did not find enough evidence that he has, I am surprised that you think you have enough evidence to be certain he has.

Regarding self-control, there is no linear correlation between impulse control ability and degree of disturbance. A lot of extremly disturbed persons have perfect impulse control, whereas many otherwise perfectly healthy people have low impulse control. Thus, the conclusion that "Jackson is heavily disturbed, so he must have molested children" is incorrect.

Yeah, he had a crappy childhood, boo hoo, join the friggin club.

Whether somebody had a crappy childhood or not is not related to existence of, or lack of, evidence for having committed a certain act.

[Tower_Master]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]They have divine powers that give them access to the Ultimate Truth (TM) [/QUOTE]

This just in - I'm somehow related to the ultimate truth! An upgrade!

As I've said before, I am in no position to be able to asses this man's guilt or lack thereof, but I find it disgusting that it's become such a "newsworthy" event.

[Luis Antonio]

The Ultimate Truth is Bush's argument. He has the ultimate truth in war against terror, in church, in courts... /rant

[C Elegans]

[QUOTE=Tower_Master]As I've said before, I am in no position to be able to asses this man's guilt or lack thereof, but I find it disgusting that it's become such a "newsworthy" event.[/QUOTE]

I certainly agree. In Sweden it has not had a lot of coverage, but compared to other similar cases that has not involved any "celebrities", it has still received an unproportial amount of media coverage, as always when a "celebrity" is involved in anything. Why people are so much more interested in famous people, and why the media believe people are, is a long discussion that is outside of the scope of this thread, but it's sad really.

[Tower_Master]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]I certainly agree. In Sweden it has not had a lot of coverage, but compared to other similar cases that has not involved any "celebrities", it has still received an unproportial amount of media coverage, as always when a "celebrity" is involved in anything. Why people are so much more interested in famous people, and why the media believe people are, is a long discussion that is outside of the scope of this thread, but it's sad really.[/QUOTE]

Exactly! Why we pay attention to this, instead of things that might actually influence our world for years to come, completely baffels me. I can only blame it on my country's superficiality as a generic collective.

[Luis Antonio]

[QUOTE=Tower_Master]Exactly! Why we pay attention to this, instead of things that might actually influence our world for years to come, completely baffels me. I can only blame it on my country's superficiality as a generic collective.[/QUOTE]

Bread and circus policy, anyone?

[C Elegans]

[QUOTE=Luis Antonio]Bread and circus policy, anyone?[/QUOTE]

Of course. Emotional entertainment without personal investment or risks, just view others suffer, be humiliated, tortured and hurt, from a safe distance. A majority of people get emotionally involved in things that are easily accessible rather than things that are remote, like global environmental problems or people starving in an area geographically and culturally far from them.

In ancient Rome, only a small minority had access to emotional entertainment, but with modern media, we all have the priviledge to get flooded by emotional entertainment. Emotional entertainment is very, very efficient escape from your own reality. If you want to make a heap of mindless, helpless consumers out of people, this is the way to go.

[VonDondu]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]But how do they know they see one? They have divine powers that give them access to the Ultimate Truth(TM)? Or they have an inner representation of some kind of Platonic idea of "member of media elite"?[/QUOTE]
No, they don't have a specific definition. You're making things way too complicated. It comes down to this: if George Bush likes a person who works in the media (this mainly applies to people who have given George Bush favorable coverage), then that person is not a member of the "media elite". But if George Bush doesn't like a person who works in the media (this mainly applies to people who don't portray things the way that George Bush wants them to), then that person is a member of the "media elite". By the way, "media elite" was the successor to "cultural elite", which George Bush stopped using when the public began to notice that George Bush looks pretty "culturally elite" himself (depending on your definition, of course).

So you might as well look at the argument like this: people who don't like Michael Jackson will say, "I don't like the way he looks, so I bet he's a child molester, while people who like Michael Jackson will say, "He looks like a wonderful person to me, so I don't think he's a child molester." The "argument" really isn't any deeper than that.

[Mangle Me Elmo]

Geez, the reply to my last post was so serious I almost fell asleep. You libs take yourselves way too seriously, be more like us neo-cons and lighten up. I'm totally over the whole Jackson thing anyway. He'll get what's coming to him someday, rest assured. I only hope the poor kid can recover and become a good man despite what he's been through. Sadly, most of them don't. I think the jurors are some sick people though. I suspect they stared only at the judge and not at Jackson before the verdict was read to make all who were watching or listening think they had reached a guilty verdict (as jurors often do when they've convicted some one). I just have a feeling that they were toying with people. Very cute. I wonder how those people sleep at night.

[VonDondu]

[QUOTE=Mangle Me Elmo]Oh Vonny, that arrogant 'this is how stupid conservatives think' attitude is exactly why your man lost the last election. The political center in America is fed up with that liberal elitist attitude, so they voted for the Texas Tiger. [/QUOTE]
That's a strange reason to vote for someone for President, but everyone is entitled to vote the way they want to.

You really don't know enough about my political views to call me a "liberal". I didn't call conservatives "stupid". I was merely giving examples of the way that conservatives think. If you think my examples are off the mark, then prove me wrong instead of saying I have an "arrogant" and "liberal elitist" attitude. That's an ad hominem attack. It's yet another example of a conservative "argument".

[Mangle Me Elmo]

Whatever, but that attitude that I mentioned is the reason why the elephants will continue to win elections. The fact that you guys have that looney toon Howard Dean running the party doesn't help either. Hillary Clinton has been trying to present herself as a centrist (she's actually hard left) to set herself up for the election of 2008. She knows she doesn't stand a chance if she's perceived as a lefty.

[Magrus]

*shakes my head* Didn't think it's possible man, but you give Rochester a worse name than it already has.

I have a feeling you're going to end up getting slammed with arguments across the board for you views.

[Mangle Me Elmo]

I'm not even serious about the vast majority of my views. To me, politics is a joke. Besides, I don't really argue, as you can see. I just like to amuse myself with this stuff sometimes. My spiritual views are what matter to me (for those of you thinking I have no values), but as far as politics are concerned, I could really care less if it wasn't so fun to joke about it. This is how lots of people make a living, only they're much better at it than me.

[Magrus]

Well then, I'm assuming you'll just get ignored by a lot of people with that kind of attitude.

[Mangle Me Elmo]

You're probably right. It won't be fun anymore once I stop getting a rise out of people, oh well.

[C Elegans]

Uhu. But that's totally meaningless nonsense, it's just like saying "I don't like him because I don't like him".

Well, it's good for us Eurotrash commies to have a cultural translator

Geez, the reply to my last post was so serious I almost fell asleep.

If you are not able to participate in serious discussion, don't post in them. Posting some not very well thought personal opinions without presenting any aupportive arguments and then claim you were merely joking, it a disruptive way to behave in serious discussions, so stay out in the future unless you want everybody here to thoroughly dislike you.

You libs take yourselves way too seriously, be more like us neo-cons and lighten up.

You do realise there is a big world out there with billions of people who are not American and do not at all fit your simplified labels "lib" and "neo-con"?

I only hope the poor kid can recover and become a good man despite what he's been through. Sadly, most of them don't.

Even though you may be unserious, you demonstrate a serious lack of knowledge about the things you make statements about. Studies of the health of children who have been victims of child molestation shows that a majority recover excellent. The subgroup where a majority of the children do not recover, is when family members are the offenders and the offence is repeated over a long period of time.

[dragon wench]

You're probably right. It won't be fun anymore once I stop getting a rise out of people, oh well.

Deliberately trying to get a rise out of people is called "trolling," and is against SYM Rules.

6) Trolling (saying something designed to start an argument or offend people) won’t be tolerated either. Members who violate this will be banned.

Not only are you going to make yourself disliked, you are also going to invoke the wrath of the moderators and site owner, in all probability.

[VonDondu]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Uhu. But that's totally meaningless nonsense, it's just like saying "I don't like him because I don't like him".[/QUOTE]
Now you're oversimplifying. Allow me to rephrase the "argument". If a person likes Michael Jackson, then he or she won't believe the allegations of child abuse. If a person doesn't like Michael Jackson, then he or she will believe the allegations of child abuse. It's not "meaningless"; it's simply prejudice.

A political science professor is the one who taught me to look at things that way. We were studying U.S. Supreme Court cases. One case involved restrictions on the use of margarine. The Justices sided with the dairy industry. Why? Because the Supreme Court did not like "fake butter". Their prejudice was dressed up in various arguments about interstate commerce, deceptive trade practices, and agricultural policy, among other things; but they completely contradicted themselves in another case involving the delivery of beer from one state to another. In that case, the Court sided with the beer producers. Why? Because the Supreme Court liked beer.


[QUOTE=C Elegans]Well, it's good for us Eurotrash commies to have a cultural translator [/QUOTE]
Thank you for your confidence in me.

I would never call someone a "Eurotrash commie", but I think that term is very funny.