dagblog - Comments for "What the BET Awards (and everybody else) Forgot to Mention About Michael Jackson"

Touche to Deadman. This post

Larry Jankens — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:28:00 +0000

Touche to Deadman. This post is not at all nuanced and indeed is a bit over the top. I wrote it in response to what I saw as the over the top celebration of a man who made very poor decisions in regards to how he conducted himself with children. I saw very few sources actually bring up his inappropriate behavior at all and instead focus only on his career.

Perhaps I could have communiticated my points in a softer tone, but I don't think they would have had their intended effect. Regardless of whether you have flaws, you have the right to judge other people for their unscrupulous behavior.

And Dman you said:

obviously, child molestation has to be one of the most evil things a human can do, but i'm not about to declare him guilty of something the courts and police could not find sufficient enough evidence to do.

You're right, you didn't come out and explicitely say that the courts are never wrong, but you used the courts implied correctness as your arguement that he you are unable to determine the man's guilt.

i can and do judge others if

Deadman — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:35:48 +0000

In reply to You're right, we all know

i can and do judge others if i have proof of poor or evil behavior. But because I admit and acknowledge my own flaws and imperfections, I am really reluctant to do so unless the behavior is so grossly uncool.

molestation of young children would certainly apply, but in any case, I dont have that here. i do feel fairly confident MJ was a sick individual who was abused as a child and never really grew up. and his sickness manifested itself in various ways - his peter pan syndrome and the neverland ranch, his enormously successful charity work for children and yes the unfortunate predilection for having slumber parties with little boys (and I just feel that whether such activity crossed the line is for others with more firsthand knowledge and if there is such a thing, a god, to judge, not me).

btw, i never said courts don't make mistakes. of course, they do.

You're right, we all know

Larry Jankens — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:26:38 +0000

In reply to i understand your feelings,

You're right, we all know that the courts and police never make mistakes in adjudicating justice... Oh, wait you're wrong, they do all the time.

Regardless of your wealth or fame you should never put yourself in the position that Michael Jackson put himself in. As an adult male, you should never have a little boy sleep over at your house without his/her parents. Do you really want to defend a guy who admitted to sleeping in the same bed as an 8 year old?

I'm okay with the fact that he was bat-sh*t crazy, I'm okay with him owning a chimp and dressing the chimp up in matching outfits. I'm not okay with having little boys spend the night at your mansion and thinking it is appropriate to sleep next to them. He had inappropriate relationships with kids and it was freaky and wrong.

What disturbs me is people who are unwilling to pass judgment on others, Deadman. Judging people is what keeps society together. If you don't pass judgment upon people for doing things like raping, killing or child molesting, you don't hold them accountable for their horrible actions and thereby condone it.

i understand your feelings,

Deadman — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:36:11 +0000

In reply to What the BET Awards (and everybody else) Forgot to Mention About Michael Jackson

i understand your feelings, but i try not to judge so quickly or harshly. obviously, child molestation has to be one of the most evil things a human can do, but i'm not about to declare him guilty of something the courts and police could not find sufficient enough evidence to do. yes, OJ would seem to be a similar instance of the courts letting the guilty go free because of good defense lawyers, this is a much different scenario in my opinion.

Jackson admitted to behavior that was surely questionable and would at a minimum lead to some very sticky situations. Given his wealth and status, I believe it is very possible that he could have been unfairly targeted for behavior that was misinterpreted (I'm not saying that's the case, i'm just saying it's possible)

In any case, as you can see by other aspects of his life, Jackson was a sick, sick individual in addition to being a terrific talent. he needed help desperately but for whatever reason never got it in sufficient qualities. i'm not absolving him of blame for his own condition, he clearly surrounded himself with people who were more interested in enabling and taking advantage of his sickness and in the end, we are responsible for our behavior. but mental illness is a real disease, and sometimes it takes others who care enough to get those who suffer from it to try and treat it.

of course, i don't really now Jackson personally any better than you do, Larry. I'm only going by what I know third-hand, or by public evidence (like his plastic surgeries), as are most in the media. I think in general, judging others is a very dangerous thing to do. hero worshipping someone who may not have deserved it is sad, but no offense, i think calling someone - who you don't really know and who never was convicted of the crimes with which you implicate him - evil and wishingthey had died earlier is even more grotesque.

Trials are how the legal

Nebton — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:45:44 +0000

In reply to Why even have trials? If

Trials are how the legal system work, and they're a necessary feature. Criminal trials require evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas civil trials only require a "preponderance of evidence".

Whether or not we should judge people, how we do so does not necessarily have to align with how our legal system judges people. Just as civil trials differ in their standards from criminal trials, our "personal" trials can have yet another standard. Unless Larry starts invoking his own personal justice, he gets to choose those standards for himself.

My own feelings don't differ much from Larry's.

Why even have trials? If

Sean — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:38:11 +0000

In reply to What the BET Awards (and everybody else) Forgot to Mention About Michael Jackson

Why even have trials? If you're accused, you're guilty. Right?

Fact: he was acquitted...twice.