Michael Jackson - RIP

[lefteyewilly]

michael's a pedophile. and he dances like a fruity unicorn.

[CristiSearching]

you have a biiiiiiig obsession, do you try hypnosis ?

[gerbick]

You're the last person to talk about obsessing. Have you seen how many single sentence posts you've left all over this forum?

Why are you obsessed with posting so much?

[CristiSearching]

Yesterday and today I just reply...not single sentences !

[CristiSearching]

You're the last person to talk about obsessing. Have you seen how many single sentence posts you've left all over this forum?

Why are you obsessed with posting so much?

lefteyewilly had replied my every sentence !!

[e_tit]

London, July 13 (IANS) Pop legend Michael Jackson's sister La Toya is convinced she knows the group who 'killed' her superstar sibling and has vowed to go public with the 'murderers' names if the truth doesn't come out in court.

The King of Pop's sibling alleges a number of people took advantage of the singer and killed him to gain control of his music publishing catalogue, which she claims is worth more than $1 billion (666 million pound), reports contactmusic.com.

Toya has already informed the authorities of who she believes is responsible and she has promised to reveal the culprits to the world.

'If justice is not served in the courts, I will name them myself. I have made it clear to the police who is responsible. They must ensure, for Michael's sake, that the outcome is right,' she said.

The head of Los Angeles police, William Bratton, sparked speculation last week that Jackson's death June 25 was the result of foul play after confirming that cops are refusing to rule out the possibility the 'Thriller' hitmaker was murdered.

[CristiSearching]

His fame killed him.

[gerbick]

Rather dumb statement.

[CristiSearching]

Tell something intelligent.

[WannaBe_80z]

Why don't you try first?

Really? murdered?.....doubt it.

[gerbick]

Tell something intelligent.

I doubt you'd have the capacity to make an intelligent, informed statement; however it wasn't his fame that killed him. If you think so, back it up.

The man had become basically an prescription addict. Much like Rush Limbaugh, he depended on prescription drugs and had used aliases and other means to obtain them; which is illegal and ultimately immoral. It was that addiction that put him in the position of possibly an early death.

With that said, that's the last time I'll address your badly formed, incomplete single sentences again. I don't like to waste my time.

[CristiSearching]

Me too. Thanks for your time. You're a very good teacher.

[dnalogic]

ok, this is a retarded debate, but...

...and ultimately immoral.

...woah??

morality is subjective.

and this debate is largely based on speculation.
anyway, just saw it in passing (i am looking for deriving inverse matrix transformations of all things), and thought i would comment.
bye.

[Loyal Rogue]

ok, this is a retarded debate, but...

Ok, at least you quantify your jumping into and raising from the dead a 7 month old topic by stating that it is "retarded" to be debating this in the first place before you go debating it.

Seriously?!? ...OK.

...woah??

morality is subjective.

Granted.
Laws and societal rules are subjective also.
What may be immoral or illegal in this country/state/city/HOA may be perfectly acceptable and even duly required in a different country or society.
Cannibalism, homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia, torture, and female genital mutilation are just a few examples that come to mind off the top of my head of things that various groups and individuals consider immoral and/or illegal.

Are you arguing that those things are NOT immoral because they are "subjective"?
If so, my hat is off to you.
If not, then explain to me how that is not a hypocritical statement.

[dnalogic]

hahah!
yeah man. and it is even more retarded for me to keep replying! but..

in summary, i am saying that the other dudes sweeping claim that jackson was being immoral is a little bit subjective.
its not as if though he was being a cannibal now is it?

but, to answer your question, id say that morality is based on legality.

age of alcohol drinking, sexual consent, drug categorization, and all that, are all legal things. laws change from place to place, because behaviours, norms, problems, and managing your citizens all changes from place to place and has different requirements.

you yourself seem to be agreeing with me.

...things that various groups and individuals consider immoral and/or illegal.

exactly - various groups consider these things immoral, but not all groups do. there is variation. there are various different opinions. even in the extreme examples you have given, there is variety. it varies from group to group, or within a group. there is a varying moral standard.
it is impossible to say with any authority that an act is definitely right or wrong, you can only give your own point of view and quote the popular opinion of a the biggest group to back up your claim.
there is no way to quantify the inherent 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of an act, in a truely objective way. all such claims are subjective.

what is 'morally correct' in a war, for example, will vary extremely depending on which side you are on or a citizen of.


anyway, you'll be pleased to know that i found a solution for my matrix problem. not a very elegant one, but one that will suffice until i can find a geometry book from the library.

[FlashLackey]

I disagree with your premise that morality is only subjective or legal. Many people do or support things that they know are wrong in order to achieve some other objective that is stronger than their conscience. In other words, they fail to resist temptation.

For example, if we presume that Jackson was guilty of the crimes against children, it doesn't follow that his behavior was just as moral as those who avoid such things. It could be that he was completely aware that he was doing something wrong and potentially messing up a persons life but responded to his urges anyway. A persons inability to live up to their own moral feelings explains a lot of variety, imo. How many people are proud of every single thing they've done in their life?

Some of the other things that you listed (age of consent, drinking age, etc.) don't necessarily demonstrate variation anyway. If the moral objective is to keep people safe and healthy in two societies, that could be represented with variations in law without changing the underlying moral. Some may simply believe that different ages or approaches are more effective at accomplishing the same moral.

A side note: please reconsider using the term "retarded" in this type of context.

[david petley]

i disagrees as well. While morals can become laws, they are generally understood as externally imposed guidelines for living life. An immoral person may not always be breaking actual laws, although communities are quick to use law to enforce community moral standards once there is a general acceptance that something smells funny.

So I would say exactly the opposite of what you say. I would say that say that 'legality is based on morality'.

dp