"Ladies and gentleman of the jury. This, is Chewbacca."

HAHAHA That is the greatest, I love south park

If we're going to relatavise everything and say that "what we think is right and wrong may not be right or wrong" then we cannot have this discussion ... because we're talking about the courts. If there is no right and wrong, no truth, and no justice, then we cannot have a court system that judges people. That court system is dictated by ideology and public opinion.

i really didnt doubt he would get out of this. he's famous, and no matter how much money he's allegedly lost, he can still afford the best lawyers. and it doesn't help that the prosecutors presented a story full of holes with testimony from people who changed their stories on more than one occasion.

Well, obvioulsy the court system isn't as black and white as it can be. How many people really think that MJ is innocent? Not many. But how many people think the people who are testifying are really truthful? Not many. So in this case there was no truth, no justice, only right and wrong. But the court had its hands tied just like in many other cases. Based on the evidence the courts made the right decision, but it certainly wasn't right or wrong.

My gripe is that the major public opinion is "Michael Jackson is a weirdo, so he just has to be guilty." This is what I dislike about much of this countries systems. A public opinion != the right opinion.

Well the illegal thing is sexual misconduct (in this case, any sexual conduct at all). Many will argue that the highest human pursuit is love, and humans are polyamorous, they are capable of loving anything. Pedophilia, simply a love for children, should not be considered a surprising phenomenon. Children (yes, i know many would disagree, and when you're stuck on a flight with one, you'll definitely disagree) are fantasic creatures, a often unnoticed oddity in the human phenomenon, unspoiled by experiences, not old enough for the many neuroses of the average adult to have formed. I could easily see myself being enchanted by children.
In this sense, we have no right to condemn someone for following their own spiritual calling. It seems the children loved Michael, too, and not just because he bribed them to be around. Now I'm not arguing that he's not weak, pathetic, lonely, fucked up, sad, and needy. He may well be all those things. And that's why the mixture of a genuine love of children with a weak or warped sense of self, and perhaps unresolved sexual issues (i'm bullshitting together a psychology here but i think it's not invalid) is dangerous because self satisfaction through children gets confused with any occaisional sexual impulses he gets.
I personally think it's likely that in moments of closeness with children, he has touched them inapropriately and irresponsibly. I believe the state has the right and the duty to protect and act responsibly on behalf of children. If the court had convicted him (had there been more solid evidence) I would not think it an ethnocentric outrage where he was being persecuted for loving children. Rather the court would be acting on a deeply valid social norm, that children should not be exploited as objects of pleasure.
However, in the case of the children being subjects of amazement, it's not impossible that you would want to sleep with them and they would be just fine with it. And violating this social norm is just too bad for those who hold it.

The courts don't decide guilt and innocence, they decide guilt only... either guilty or not guilty. "Not Guilty" is a verdict that can come from many things ... weak testimony, lying "victims", and a motive-laden prosecution. There is still truth, and there is still right and wrong. The jury decided that it is wrong to convict Jackson on such evidence... Evidence that, no matter how weak, is still evidence; it just doesn't act against Jackson, but for him.

I think that a lot of people are positive that he had done something before; something illegal. However, there was no evidence that showed that Jackson did those illegal things in this case. And ... I'm wondering, if public opinion does not make the right opinion, what does? (And I'm not trying to say "public opinion is the right opinion" in any way, I'm wondering what your answer is).

I think Neil hit a lot of points that I agree with. As far as public opinion goes, this is how I look at it: The majority can believe anything, but just because it's the majority does not mean it should be accepted. If the majority thought that molesting children was A-OK definitely does not mean it is right. In most cases the majority decision is fine, or at least acceptable. But there is always the possibility that the miniority has, in fact, the more valid opinion. It's all about stepping back and thinking, if only for a short amount of time, that your opinion could be wrong.

In order for something to be considered "wrong" or "right" there has to be some sort of opposite or reason for it. In this case, why is touching children wrong? Because you've been told that it is? Think about how touching children can be "right" and then you'll have a more valid answer. So in this perspective think about how simply sleeping with children is both "wrong" and "right". I don't really know much to prove either, but I've read about positives and negatives for both cases.

Another aspect is that nothing is absolutely wrong or right. If you had to molest a child to save five other children, would you? In this case should you be prosecuted if you choose to save the five children?

Granted, much of my ramblings have little to do with this specific case, but I think it's something extremely important for social and individual growth.

if nothing else, it makes for goood tv (i added an extra 'o' because it's so good):

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/267...&htv=12&htv=12

"If there is no right and wrong, no truth, and no justice, then we cannot have a court system that judges people. That court system is dictated by ideology and public opinion."

Sucks, doesn't it.

Yeah, raub, I didn't want to sound like I thought that public opinion determines right and wrong, because, as some have probably noticed, I'm an absolutist ... and ... an absolute right and wrong cannot be that of public opinion.

I do think, however, that our courts are dictated by the opinion of people... which is largely in tune with public opinion... though, judicial activism seems to undermine that for both good and bad.

word, i wish i could talke some morwe about this right now. meet me int he drunk thread in.. howebver long it take me to dint it!

I think our court system is more complex then being suck ass and biased towards public opinion.

While it is true, there are laws that protect everyone because occasionally, the public doesnt know its ass from a hole in the ground. Mikey took advantage of everything he could, this is not a shortcoming on his part, it just means our system isnt perfect. For instance, for every 2 latino or black people in jail for drug related crimes, theres 1 white person for the same crimes, and for every 2 latino and black person out actively doing drug related activities, there are 5 white people, free to do those same ones.

There IS a bias towards public opinion, but instead of being a part of the public, get in there and change it, thats the beauty of america, you can change shit, may cost you a lot, but it works.

A communist economy/socialist civil rights democratic-republic law making might work better for in the long run tho, if that makes any sense...



african american, raub.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ = innocent


some one got paied off you fuxorz

Biased towards public opinion? Don't you think that they should serve public opinion? If it doesn't reflect public opinion, at least somewhat, then it reflects something universal ... And ... I don't know if you, Pinko Communist, want to get into universality.

You want to show us the study on this? Preferably one that isn't from the NAACP or the ACLU, but a third party. If it is true though, which it very well could be, the drug users being arrested and convicted are usually drug users living in urban areas (suburban drug users are prosecuted less, one would have to assume), and because there is a higher population of Black people in urban areas than White people in urban areas, the numbers would reflect this. And, the 'sameness' of the crime can be questionable. There is a difference between doing a drug in your house and doing a drug in an alley way. Though they are both crimes, one is a lot easier to find and convict.

A communist economy/socialist civil rights democratic-republic law making might work better for in the long run tho, if that makes any sense...

And it would be better in the long run if we could all fly, and had ice cream makers in our hands, with free electricity, and money making machines that magically did not cause inflation. We have civil rights, we have socialist policies, and we have democratic-republic law making. THere is zero evidence that a communist economy produces anything but starvation and mass murder, however.

--edit--

Good zing at the end, btw.

in my brief history of hanging out with black people at college, none of them liked being called 'african american'.

That was actually one of the better jokes that Jep has ever made, I think... Because the Black and White was referring to like "defined and undefined" "on / off" duality relationship thing ... and Jep was making a subtle joke about how people think the word "Black" is a swear.

Though, you're right. It's usually more Liberal White people and Leftist Jews who push the African American bull shit. I always say that I'll call a Black person African American when everybody else refers to me as European American... though I know that if any black person ever called me European American, I'd just call them a nigger.

-------

In other news, Ralph Nader used the word Nigger in an interview, and PC libs are all pissed at him saying how it's the destruction of the universe. They're only pissed because Nader pwned them in 2000 ... so it is the civic duty of every liberal democrat to smear him as much as possible (if this forum were more politically active, there'd be somebody replying to this about how much of a crazy person he is. He wasn't thought of as crazy until the Dems told us he was right before 2000).

mikes a crazy nigger

Some people are smart, most people are complete morons.

Its cuz theres more cops in fucking oakland and san hose than in sunnyvale.
Completely Official Study

its only been around for a short time compared to the 2000+ years that republicanism and democracy has been around.

I love bob dylan

Thank you, that undermines socialism. I completely agree.

Chicken ... egg ...

That still doesn't change that there is absolutely zero evidence that communism is a viable alternative to capitalism, and that a socialist 'government' is a viable alternative to a democratic republic. On the other hand, there is a host of evidence that capitalism and democratic republics are fine selections of government and economy. Though, in regards to your comment, you'd be hard pressed to find the republic anywhere outside the walls or Rome, despite the vastness of the empire. You'd also be hard pressed to find democracy anywhere outside of Athens, despite the vastness of that empire. Conversely, the entirety of the Soviet Union had the same structure... no part any better than the other. The same can be said for China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, and Juische Korea.