As for the rest of you, there's only so much unfounded, unsustainable and reactionary invective that Norrin Radd can take:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandman53
Michael Jackson did not change the way we listen to music. He made good music that entertained us all. There was no breakthrough at all. The real breakthrough for the music industry goes to Sony with the invention of the walkman... that changed the way we listened to music.
|
Oh please.
When people say "Listened to music" they clearly mean perceived. Not actually, literally listened in terms of method. Like when someone says "Sir Isaac Newton changed how we saw science.", he didn't literally replace our eyes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandman53
Michael Jackson was a good performer, and a good music artist, but beyond that people try to over glorify his life. The crazy bastard went insane and fuked up his face and slept with random children in his bed. He did not bring the black community together at all. By what some people say, not on this forum, just because white guys listen to Lil Wayne he must be be bridging the white and black community.
|
Tripe. No offense, but that's tripe.
The man was a crazy bastard and went insane? Don't be so utterly ridiculous. He made choices that people don't necessarily feel were appropriate, but seeing as how all we have evidence of is that he SLEPT in the same bed as other children, I don't think it's fair to call him a crazy bastard and claim that he went insane.
Not understanding something doesn't make it insane, or the person for doing so. He wasn't insane for "f*cking up" his face. He made a choice.
His "worst" antic was hanging the baby over the balcony; that does not constitute insanity either. Being "Pretty damn weird" isn't a criminal offense, it's also subjective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandman53
Sharptons speech was also just plain ridiculous. Now that is what I would call an over glorification there. I think he claimed that Michael Jackson made people comfortable for voting for Obama... wtf?
|
When someone of note dies, there will be over-blown glorifications. That's absolutely no reason to go in the complete opposite direction. I understand you find the news coverage to be saturating, but let's not get carried away.
If you cannot mention Michael Jackson without levelling criticisms at the man that have nothing to do with his music, then one has to wonder what reasons to critique him you have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWafflez
One of them was never given a chance to be proven guilty, as he paid an extremely large amount of money to shut the family up and keep it out of court.
In my mind, the only reason to pay someone to keep it out of court is if you have something to hide, whether it's what you're accused of or something around the same.
|
The hypocritical nature of people regarding his trials is astounding.
Firstly; people wanna say "He wasn't proven guilty, it doesn't mean he didn't do it.". Yet, if he was proven guilty on the SAME amount of evidence that exists now, nobody would question the verdict. I guarantee you. Everyone's like "He might still have done it.", but nobody would have said "He might not have, despite being proven guilty.". People have been on death row for crimes they didn't commit.
Secondly; it has been noted that various accusors have admitted to lying about Jackson under oath. Various of his child friends have come forward and said nothing ever happened and he was nothing more than a man with an intense love of children.
Thirdly; the father of Jordan Chandler (The kid he paid off) has allegedly said that he SAW Jackson abusing his child and LEFT THE ROOM to calm down. A likely story. Additionally, he also said that he confronted Jackson, Jackson denied the claims. As a result, he continued to let his child go over there.
As for your ridiculous "You only pay people off if you've got something to hide."...
Scenario; a man sexually abuses your child. How much does it take to shut you up? 10, 20, 30 million?
Any sane parent would answer "Zero million dollars". You know why? Because parents of genuinely molested children do not take anything less than 100% justice, and seeing that man imprisoned. The fact that they put a price on their child's safety makes THEM look like despicable bottom feeders more than it makes M.J. look guilty. "It doesn't matter that you were traumatised, sexually, Jordan.", "Why, Dad?", "Because I'm rich now.". Hmm, how caring.
When you KNOW that guilty or innocent by court ruling, the world is gonna come back after you, you tend to have nothing left to lose. I believe he paid them off so it would be over. Before you say "If he was innocent they would have found him so.", yeah? Then what? They found him innocent in the last case and people STILL continued calling him a child molester. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
Courts are not always right, but if people are gonna ignore verdicts because they feel they know something that courts and lawyers do not, then what's the point of even having courts? The point of them is to acquire closure and verdicts. They did that, accept it or bring the proof.
Laters.