Quote:
Originally Posted by Dion
Guess my standards are different from yours. I looked at MJ as a person and not just his musical talents.
|
Umm, where did I state my standards anywhere? Oh wait, I didn't.
My point is that your comparison is completely and utterly flawed. I'll try it again.
Bonds: His 'scandal' is directly related to the only reason he's famous, his baseball ability. His legend as a baseball player is tarnished for many people because that legacy seems to have depended upon the use of steroids. The two things are interconnected, you can't separate the two.
Jackson: His 'scandal' is completely unrelated to why he's famous. His fame is derived from his musical ability, and the charges against him have nothing to do with his ability as a performer. The only tenuous tie is that his status potentially made him a target for extortion claims, or on the other hand, allowed him to pay off accusers. Either way, you can separate the performer from the alleged pedophile or whatever he was.
See why it's a flawed comparison?
I'm not really one for compartmentalizing things personally, I tend to look at the big picture as opposed to picking and choosing that which serves my viewpoint. However, if we're discussing whether people can look past a scandal and appreciate a person for their abilities it's obviously a far different situation when the scandal is directly related to those abilities than where the two are very loosely related if at all.