[Star Wars 888] Dispelling rumors about Michael Jackson

[Bakustra]

What I want to know is how "Micheal Jackson was a good person because he donated a lot to charity" = "Its morally wrong to make fun of Micheal Jackson." Hell, other people have given more to charity (as has been stated in this thread) and they still get made fun of and criticized, so why should MJ get special treatment?

1. Did I say that it was ok to make fun of those other people? No, I didn't.
2. I was saying that it's immoral to make fun of someone for unsupported claims especially when said person is dead. Constructive criticism is ok.
3. The purpose of this thread was to try and dispel the rumors about Michael Jackson. Making fun of him is off topic and not related to the thread.

He's been dead for a year. Making fun of him is the only topic that really works anymore, apart from maybe an AMP post about "I listened to some of his unreleased material, and man did it suck/rock!"

[Phantasee]

Holy shit, we've managed to take this thread to ten pages and people still haven't stopped believing those horrible rumours?

SW88, it's a lost cause, these people are all heathens. I think we should just give up and take our appreciation of MJ somewhere it will be respected.

[Ghost Rider]

To a small room filled with bubbles and unicorns?

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

What I want to know is how "Micheal Jackson was a good person because he donated a lot to charity" = "Its morally wrong to make fun of Micheal Jackson." Hell, other people have given more to charity (as has been stated in this thread) and they still get made fun of and criticized, so why should MJ get special treatment?

1. Did I say that it was ok to make fun of those other people? No, I didn't.
2. I was saying that it's immoral to make fun of someone for unsupported claims especially when said person is dead. Constructive criticism is ok.
3. The purpose of this thread was to try and dispel the rumors about Michael Jackson. Making fun of him is off topic and not related to the thread.

[/quote]

I wasn't aware that jokes had to be true, I was also unaware that its only ok to make fun of bad people.

Rumors and jokes can't take away Micheal Jackson's charity work, and in any case, he's far beyond caring about any of that now, so what does it matter?

I understand, by the way, that this is not what you wanted this thread to be, but to quote a better (IMO, anyway) musician, you don't always get what you want.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Listen man, nobody is looking for a 'new easy target'. Shit, even Colefax is part of the clique you appear to have a hard on for! Nobody is giving you shit for every little misstep, do you see how much shit I get for breathing in Testing? I can't make a thread without jaeriusmuse bringing up my (painful and recent) motor vehicle accident. Christ, I just got out of physical rehabilitation for that today and they're making jokes at my expense already!

But I don't let it get to me! I follow Bakustra's (and Aaliyah's) advice: I dust myself off and try again.

Yeah, of course they are, because you have been joking about J's and muse's attention whoring and so on, and of course since J wears the pants aerius will have to follow her and muse's lead, and probably he's half of the time too stoned to care, anyways. But I commend you about your attitude: growing a thicker skin is always good and Formless should really try that.

Since I'm a nostalgic old git with a "greater than thou" attitude, I might add that back in the glory days of Usenet (those were in fact before the original ASVS group was even started) all this stuff would have been considered barely registrable in the flame meter. Man, Usenet was like fucking Salusa Secundus and Arrakis for discussion board warriors rolled into one ;)

[Stark]

you're right i was abused as a child and i turned out fine

wait

that logic is stupid

[Spoonist]

Since I'm a nostalgic old git with a "greater than thou" attitude, I might add that back in the glory days of Usenet (those were in fact before the original ASVS group was even started) all this stuff would have been considered barely registrable in the flame meter. Man, Usenet was like fucking Salusa Secundus and Arrakis for discussion board warriors rolled into one ;)

Even if the flames where hotter the arguments back then was pretty lame. No screencaps. People misquoting dialog. No canon. etc

[Star Wars 888]

What I want to know is how "Micheal Jackson was a good person because he donated a lot to charity" = "Its morally wrong to make fun of Micheal Jackson." Hell, other people have given more to charity (as has been stated in this thread) and they still get made fun of and criticized, so why should MJ get special treatment?

1. Did I say that it was ok to make fun of those other people? No, I didn't.
2. I was saying that it's immoral to make fun of someone for unsupported claims especially when said person is dead. Constructive criticism is ok.
3. The purpose of this thread was to try and dispel the rumors about Michael Jackson. Making fun of him is off topic and not related to the thread.

I wasn't aware that jokes had to be true, I was also unaware that its only ok to make fun of bad people.

Rumors and jokes can't take away Micheal Jackson's charity work, and in any case, he's far beyond caring about any of that now, so what does it matter?

I understand, by the way, that this is not what you wanted this thread to be, but to quote a better (IMO, anyway) musician, you don't always get what you want.[/quote]

Good point.





*sigh* Well, I rest my case. Michale Jackson was innocent of those charges, he donated lots to charity, he was an extremely talented and influential musician and those crazy rumors about him were almost all false.

If anybody wants to make a rational debate challenging my argument, then I'm open to that. Other than that, nobody has really made and followed through with any serious debate challenging this.

To a small room filled with bubbles and unicorns?

I see that you ignored my rebuttal, because you have no argument. I'm open to a debate if you're actually going to back up your claims.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Since I'm a nostalgic old git with a "greater than thou" attitude, I might add that back in the glory days of Usenet (those were in fact before the original ASVS group was even started) all this stuff would have been considered barely registrable in the flame meter. Man, Usenet was like fucking Salusa Secundus and Arrakis for discussion board warriors rolled into one ;)

Even if the flames where hotter the arguments back then was pretty lame. No screencaps. People misquoting dialog. No canon. etc

I wasn't talking about the SW vs. ST scene specifically or even any scifi related discussions, versus or otherwise.

[Spoonist]

If anybody wants to make a rational debate challenging my argument, then I'm open to that. Other than that, nobody has really made and followed through with any serious debate challenging this.

Yea, a serious debate would have been nice. You following through would have been nice as well. You trying to do a rational debate would have been nice as well. Instead you just repeated yourself and finally just ignored the response.

"Oh, well. What's a royal ball? After all, I suppose it would be frightfully dull..."

I wasn't talking about the SW vs. ST scene specifically or even any scifi related discussions, versus or otherwise.

Oh, sorry. If so, I agree. Lots of banter.

[Star Wars 888]

Yea, a serious debate would have been nice. You following through would have been nice as well. You trying to do a rational debate would have been nice as well. Instead you just repeated yourself and finally just ignored the response.

What response? Where?

[Phantasee]

Let it go, bro. They clearly can't appreciate the artistic genius and intrinsic saintliness of MJ. They aren't worth your time.

[Spoonist]

Yea, a serious debate would have been nice. You following through would have been nice as well. You trying to do a rational debate would have been nice as well. Instead you just repeated yourself and finally just ignored the response.

What response? Where?

Over here.

I'm heading off to bed now, so I'll probably won't have time to respond before you are gone though.

[Star Wars 888]

Yea, a serious debate would have been nice. You following through would have been nice as well. You trying to do a rational debate would have been nice as well. Instead you just repeated yourself and finally just ignored the response.

What response? Where?

Over here.

I'm heading off to bed now, so I'll probably won't have time to respond before you are gone though.

Response to your points:

1. It's not my duty to look up your evidence. If you want to degrade Gates and Buffet show me the evidence.

BTW, out of curiosity, what brand of computer are you using?

2. Except that Michael Jackson did not use any detrimental methods to get to the success he did. He got successful because (gasp!) his music was good, his dancing was good, etc. because back then (no sarcasm in this case intended) you actually had to be talented to make it big in the music industry.

3. Your "first" was an assertion of what you care about. Your "second" was the request for me to concede my apparent donating money to charity = good person claim, which actually is a semi strawman.

a) I did not claim that Michael Jackson was ONLY a good person because of his charitable donations, that was merely a major factor in it. I also had other evidence too. So basically, my claim in this thread is not charity = good person, it's charity + lots of other valid factors = good person

b) Michael Jackson donated more money than he himself actually had at the time of his death. From a certain standpoint he donated more than half of his money to charity (although this is hard to tell since his net worth at the time of his death isn't representative of the total wealth he spent). He donated ALL of the money he earned from his "Bad" tour to charity. He spent money out of his own pocket to help children.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

sigh* Well, I rest my case. Michale Jackson was innocent of those charges, he donated lots to charity, he was an extremely talented and influential musician and those crazy rumors about him were almost all false.

I don't think anybody was disputing any of that, just trying to have a little fun, then you took it all so seriously and it turned into this.

[Bakustra]

That's a pretty cool story, bro. But have you considered that he might have done it out of shame, shame for his role in facilitating the invasion of the Earth by aliens from beyond Mars, as seen in the documentary Men In Black II?

[Phantasee]

More rumours!

[Bakustra]

More rumours!

All I'm saying, is that you can't discount the possibility that he did eventually become "Agent M" under the so-called "government agency" the "Men In Black", and did participate in ensuring that "illegal aliens" arrived and "took our jobs", causing this sudden rash of "finger-quoting".

EDIT: While we're talking about rumors, this video seems very suspicious, I must say.

[Darth Fanboy]

He had sex with that chimp.

[Enigma]

He had sex with that chimp.

In the hyberbaric (sp?) chamber in a threesome with the elephant-man.

[Mr. Coffee]

He had sex with that chimp.

So Michael Jackson walks into a bar, sits down and tells the bartender he wants a glass of water. Bartender tells him it's a bar so he needs to order something with alcohol in it. "How about a shot of whiskey," the bartender asks.

"No, last time I drank whiskey I blew bubbles," MJ says.

"Bah, who hasn't blown bubbles before, have one on the house, Mike," The bartender says.

MJ looks real sad and says, "You don't understand... Bubbles is my pet chimpanze."

[Phantasee]

So it's MJ and the bartender is Donald Sutherland. Great.

[Artemas]

I think Donald Sutherland would be a very understanding bartender.

[Mr. Coffee]

So it's MJ and the bartender is Donald Sutherland. Great.

You know for a fact you'd drink in a bar that had Donald Sutherland as the bartender. Hell, I'd move to another city if I found out Sutherland was the bartender...

[Dalton]

I was defending myself. You clearly got angry at me for comparing you to a slave owner, and I'm explaining that it wasn't intended to be that. If you want to, ignore the accusation of you using a strawman and focus on my point; that is, that making a claim and stating that it's "self evident" can be used for practically any absurd claim (and no, I'm not claiming that your point is absurd, simply that your evidence has been used to back up absurd claims).

Also, I sincerely don't want to troll, since I dislike people who troll. If you were to simply tell me what I'm doing that apparently makes me a troll in your eyes, then I can stop. I'm not trying to troll, but it's hard to stop trolling when you aren't told HOW you're trolling. For all I know I could be trolling because I'm using run on sentences (which I'm not), or because I'm posting too much, or making too much threads, or using improper grammar (which I'm not) or any other multitude of reasons.

You know, we've been telling you throughout your time here how you've been basically the poster boy for How Not To Debate, and you've done nothing but stick your fingers in your ears and go LALALALA. I'm sure Ghost Rider and Thanas both have a thing or two to note in that regard.

Posting Rules #5 says that the best way to counter a mean person is to have a better argument than them. I'm pretty much, with a few exceptions, the only poster in this thread (not forum, but this thread) that's actually made ANY argument, so I followed the rules.

Debating Rules #5 says to back up your claims. I did, you, at the risk of sounding rude, didn't. Again, not lawyering, I'm pointing out the facts that you're requesting me to.

Aministrative Rules #6 says that you can insult the staff during a debate, but not on their performance on their duties. This doesn't really apply since I haven't actually insulted you, but what I'm trying to say is that I haven't actually broken any of the rules.

I see. So basically, in your personal universe, that translates into "provide evidence to back up flames and insults". Nowhere does that state that this is the case. This is you looking for a loophole to try to pull a "gotcha", get your ass out of the deep, deep shit you are in and try to come out clean. Sorry, no dice. If you're saying that I haven't shown any proof of your jackassery, trolling, fuckwittery etc. (stop looking for semantics loopholes too), then you need to stop ignoring evidence.

Only one moderator called me out on that thread and then left the thread. You still haven't explained how I'm a troll. For other trolls like darkstar, people were super eager to call him out, point out every one of his logical fallacies, destroy his arguments, etc. Yet for me, my arguments haven't actually been challenged.

Again, since you've proven adept at ignoring things people have said, several moderators in the Moderator forum itself have noted your "highlights". In response to the rest of what you said...WOW, but that is one mile-high wall of ignorance. There are MULTIPLE posters in this thread ALONE busily challenging your arguments. Oh wait, I forgot, your arguments are perfect and flawless and that those who disagree simply haven't seen the light. Their paltry rebuttals and counterpoints are like throwing sand against the mighty castle of your impermeable defenses.

BTW, are you calling me a troll for this thread or the other thread?

You're a special kind of dumb.