Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Yazman
anybody can make a claim about a mega popular celeb and the meda wll jump all over it and publicise the hell out of it, and people like you
believe it without ever actually doing any research. I understand that maybe you don't care enough to research it, but in that case you don't have a
right to judge the person (whoever it is) because you haven't got an informed opinion.
You are right, the tabloid press are often too quick to turn a small thing into hype. Even when the facts of a story are correct, the extent and pitch
of the story is often unbelievable. I disagree with your assertion that he or she doesn't have the right to judge....they do. You do to and have
shown it by 'judging' Jackson to be innocent of all accusations. Unless you know him personally, your opinion is as informed and reliable as anyone
Out of idle interest...
If you had two pre-adolescent sons and an unmarried, childless man over 30 invited them over for a sleepover...what would you do? If they later said
they shared a bed, how would you feel? If you were a boy of that age, would you want to sleep with a man of that age? If you are a man over 30, would
you want to sleep with children (I mean this non-sexually)?
In the country I live adults sleep in the same beds as children all the time. It isn't uncommon at all, so no, I wouldn't care about it and it
doesn't really mean anything. In fact, we routinely sleep with children whose home is across the street every night.
That you seem to think sharing a bed with somebody is inherently sexual, reflects poorly on you I think, or maybe just a hypersexualised culture that
you live in where people are bombarded with sexuality every day in just about every avenue. That you can't seem to think outside of this social
conditioning, particularly as a poster on a forum like this, is quite bizarre.
Let us also not forget that your analogy is exceedingly silly, simply for the fact that we're not talking about some random dude. We're talking
about a person who is arguably the most famous man on the planet, who holds citizenship in what is arguably the most litigious culture on the planet.
In a country where a woman can sue tobacco companies and be awarded over $100 billion dollars because she "didn't know smoking would give her
cancer", where famous people and companies routinely get sued via frivolous lawsuits that are routinely thrown out and the accusers fined (and
sometimes even thrown in jail) for extortion and fraud, it is of course extremely common for such accusations to be launched and often completely made
(Your earlier reply was banned before I could read it. I hope it was a blast. I'm not sure what element of my post annoyed you. It was just good
humored and had me laughing when I wrote it. C'mon, the 'Moonwalk defense' must've raised a little smile? )
To sum up that earlier post: You have been extremely condescending towards me in every one of your replies, not to mention you have made character
judgments and and assumed things about me that are neither true nor even relevant. Finally, you haven't really posted anything constructive up until
now, instead choosing to insult, antagonise, and flamebait me.
I disagree with your assertion that he or she doesn't have the right to judge....they do. You do to and have shown it by 'judging' Jackson to be
innocent of all accusations. Unless you know him personally, your opinion is as informed and reliable as anyone else.
You do not need to know somebody personally in order to know the facts, particularly when they have already been laid out by countless people who know
the accusers, as well as Jackson himself. In the age of digitised libraries, google street view, forums, free media and the internet it is both
ignorant and naive to assume that one needs personal, intimate knowledge of a topic to be able to make a correct judgment. Maybe if this was 1950 I
would agree with you. But its not.
The difference between "he or she" and myself is that I have actually done the research, and when I haven't done research on something then I
simply don't make a judgment and form an opinion on it. Because nobody has the right to do this when they quite simply have no idea what the hell
they're talking about.
If you haven't done the research on a topic, regardless of whether its michael jackson, life on mars, what cause the famine in the ukraine, or who
shot JFK, you don't have the right to make a judgment on it until you do the research. Otherwise everything you say is just wild speculation based on
nothing of substance.
[edit on 22/5/09 by Yazman]