MJMDT (Michael Jackson Memorial Day Thread) - Page 11 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

FlamesAddiction · 07-08-2009, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igottago

Except in Jackson's case, there are organizations and groups that stand to make a lot of money on making him look bad. Tabloids, ex employees who hold a grudge, opportunist parents, etc. Im not sure of his guilt or innocence, but I can't fully accept one side of the story without considering the other.

And there were also many people around him who stand to gain financially if Jackson's repuation stayed as positive as possible (or would lose a lot if his repuation was harmed). Money can pretty much buy a repuation if you wanted to look like a vicitm.

For all the people who want to take Michael Jackson down because of his fame, there are at least as many who want to give him the benefit of the doubt because of his fame and talent. The same benefit probably wouldn't be extended to a talentless hillbilly living in a shack by the river.

alltherage · 07-08-2009, 01:31 PM

I wonder if it would be possible to have a poll regarding MJ. It's a pretty hot topic.

What do you think is the truth about MJ?

1) He's been victimized and exploited his whole life.
2) He molested little children.
3) He's a freak, but he didn't abuse kids.
4) I have no friggin clue.

Devils'Advocate · 07-08-2009, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rerun

Everybody has an opinion but nobody really knows (or at least very few know). But that doesn't stop us from our beliefs. Sometimes you just gotta sh*t or get off the pot. You can't sit on the fence forever.

I hate watching baseball. Absolutely abhor watching the game on TV and I don't follow MLB. However I don't go into the other sports forum of calgarypuck, go into the Blue Jays thread and tell people how stupid it is to watch the game, how foolish they are to enjoy it and how idiotic they are for following the players of this wretched game. Sure I am entitled to my opinion, I just don't enjoy pissing in peoples cornflakes. Other people, well, they take a different approach to life.

Rerun · 07-08-2009, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alltherage

I wonder if it would be possible to have a poll regarding MJ. It's a pretty hot topic.

What do you think is the truth about MJ?

1) He's been victimized and exploited his whole life.
2) He molested little children.
3) He's a freak, but he didn't abuse kids.
4) I have no friggin clue.

From what I can see by what the majority who have posted in both MJ threads, #2 would be the least popular choice. There's a lot of Michael love out there.

Dion · 07-08-2009, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inferno

Not if you look at it with an open mind. I don't worship the ground he walks on. His music doesnt even fit my musical taste though I respect him as a musician just like I do The Beatles or the Rolling Stones. I dont have any bias for the guy as I might if say James Hetfield was accused of something like this.

I have a hard time seperating inappropriate behaviour from his musical talents. It's like asking a baseball fan to salute Barry Bonds when he set the new HR record but ignore the fact he mostly likely cheated to get that.

valo403 · 07-08-2009, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rerun

From what I can see by what the majority who have posted in both MJ threads, #2 would be the least popular choice. There's a lot of Michael love out there.

I think you're confusing 'Michael love' with people who aren't willing to wage the same degree of hate campaign you are.

I certainly don't 'love' the guy. I thought he was more than a bit of a wacko, and I'm not entirely convinced he's completely innocent. I am 100% positive that the people at the extremes on both ends of the argument are acting like total idiots though.

malcolmk14 · 07-08-2009, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alltherage

I wonder if it would be possible to have a poll regarding MJ. It's a pretty hot topic.

What do you think is the truth about MJ?

1) He's been victimized and exploited his whole life.
2) He molested little children.
3) He's a freak, but he didn't abuse kids.
4) I have no friggin clue.

Can I answer 1, 3 and 4?

Machiavelli · 07-08-2009, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dion

I have a hard time seperating inappropriate behaviour from his musical talents. It's like asking a baseball fan to salute Barry Bonds when he set the new HR record but ignore the fact he mostly likely cheated to get that.

That's a ridiculous comparison.

Devils'Advocate · 07-08-2009, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dion

I have a hard time seperating inappropriate behaviour from his musical talents. It's like asking a baseball fan to salute Barry Bonds when he set the new HR record but ignore the fact he mostly likely cheated to get that.

You think Jackson molested children so that he could sing better?

Dion · 07-08-2009, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

That's a ridiculous comparison.

It's a valid comparison.

Dion · 07-08-2009, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

You think Jackson molested children so that he could sing better?

When I based my opinion on MJ i looked at the whole person and not just his musical talents

Machiavelli · 07-08-2009, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dion

It's a valid comparison.

No, it really isn't. See the post above yours.

valo403 · 07-08-2009, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dion

It's a valid comparison.

No it's not, one involves something that was inherent to the activity that he's recognized for, the other involves something that's totally separate from the ability that produced the fame.

If the debate is over the ability to compartmentalize the activities of someone the comparison is incredibly flawed.

Inferno · 07-08-2009, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dion

I have a hard time seperating inappropriate behaviour from his musical talents. It's like asking a baseball fan to salute Barry Bonds when he set the new HR record but ignore the fact he mostly likely cheated to get that.

I wasnt asking you to. I was talking about how I have no bias towards the guy that would make me believe he's innocent. You act as if all of us who think he's innocent "worship the ground he walks on" while listening to Billie Jean and think that everyone else should too yet that isnt the case at all with me. It doesnt matter who it is. If the same facts were presented I would believe the person was innocent.

Dion · 07-08-2009, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by valo403

No it's not, one involves something that was inherent to the activity that he's recognized for, the other involves something that's totally separate from the ability that produced the fame.

If the debate is over the ability to compartmentalize the activities of someone the comparison is incredibly flawed.

Guess my standards are different from yours. I looked at MJ as a person and not just his musical talents.

Dion · 07-08-2009, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

No, it really isn't. See the post above yours.

I was just responding to the ridiculous assumption that somehow I thought Jackson molested children so that he could sing better.

valo403 · 07-08-2009, 02:22 PM

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.

Dion · 07-08-2009, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by valo403

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 see your point. My Bonds example was a poor choice to explain what I meant.

Quote:

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.

I can't look past a scandal and appreciate a person for thier abilities. That sums up my feelings in regards to MJ - which probably makes me a lot different from most.

valo403 · 07-08-2009, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dion

I can't look past a scandal and appreciate a person for thier abilities. That sums up my feelings in regards to MJ - which probably makes me a lot different from most.

I'm the same, I guess the place we diverge on this one is how convinced we are of the truthfulness of the scandal, although we're not that different on that either.

I'm not fully convinced all the allegations are true, the whole situation is just so full of weird crap that I find it hard to fully believe any of it. I mean there are pet monkeys involved for christs sake.

I get why people believe strongly one way or the other, but I don't really get people who are completely positive one way or the other. There are arguments both ways, and lots of them are stupid and lots of them have merit, and above all the guy accused was such a wild card that it seems anything is possible.

Reggie Dunlop · 07-08-2009, 08:55 PM

Check out the ears on Paris Jackson. They stick out like the side doors on a Honda Element. So at least we know "Daddy's" plastic surgeon hasn't got a hold of the kids.

Let's just say these mutant offspring of undetermined parentage are not going to have a normal childhood, and chances are it'll be much more intense than that of the "old man." In Rehab by the age of 22 is their probable future.