[Star Wars 888] Dispelling rumors about Michael Jackson

[Phantasee]

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...

I'd start drinking if Donald Sutherland was the one pouring.

[Darth Fanboy]

You think MJs body will properly decompose? Oh mang SERIOUS DEBATE.

[General Zod]

You think MJs body will properly decompose? Oh mang SERIOUS DEBATE.

He's got more preservatives in him than a happy meal.

Oh and hey, speaking of happy meals what do MJ and McDonalds have in common? 40 year old meat between ten year old buns.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

:D

This has turned out to be the best popcorn-thread I've seen here in a long time. Practically every page has something that makes me giggle, whether it's SWnumbers going supernova (or is 'superfizzle' a little more accurate?), Dalton on his game like nothing I've ever seen, Formless pulling some delovely butthurt srs bsns and generally being That Guy, I'm in tears over here.

With the mention of A Certain Clique, though, I think we need to get both Shep and Duchess in here to make this thread outright legendary.

[Mr. Coffee]

If a Michael Jackson falls over in the woods and no one's around to witness it, did he fall on top of a little boy?

[MKSheppard]

A certain clique, what?

The only thing I'm interested in is another edition of IMPERIAL COURT OF BRAGULE.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Okay, I gotta know; What's the origin of 'Bragule'?

[Spoonist]

Amazing, not gone yet. Shep are you taking that long to write about the Bragulans?

@SW88
In a serious forum debate one quotes the part one argues to make the context clear.
In a rational debate one concede points that are agreed to and answers given questions truthfully.

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

Nope, that doesn't fly. Now if you had in your arguments had links to sources and included images/vids/etc then yes, I'd provide direct links to what I claim.
Now since you have set the bar so low I don't have to do more than I did, which still was far more than you did. I at least provided info which easily could be put into google. Example. You did not.
So while the jury is out on whether you are intentionlly trolling or sincere I won't do diddly until you have done your homework on your claims.

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

If you had looked up who they where you would realise that it doesn't matter. Since you didn't that Q just looks ignorant. There has been lots of others arguing that the world of computing would have been better off without MS.

2. Except that Michael Jackson did not use any detrimental methods to get to the success he did.

I'm still not debating whether MJ was an asshole or not, please note that your further repetition of that position after I spelled it out to you only furthers the image of your WoI and proves Thanas and GhostRiders earlier points about lalalalaland.

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.

That's just ridicilus, for someone who actually lived in the 70s and 80s that is just baloney. I agree that MJ was talented, but you didn't have to have talent to make it big back then. Just like now good looks and/or big boobs would make you a star if a record company backed you up with some producers. In the 80s Sabrina, Samantha Fox and Milli Vanilli would all be examples there. It was so prevalent that people where suprised that Yazoo was a hit since it was fronted by Alison Moyet.

Your "second" was the request for me to concede my apparent donating money to charity = good person claim, which actually is a semi strawman.

If it was apparent how could it be a strawman? When people accused MJ of being an asshole, your counter was that he gave to charity and was a good man. How can we not construe that as a "give to charity=good" fallacy?

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

Which I had already adressed, you need to show that he was a good person regardless of whether he gave to charity or not. This since one can be an asshole and give to charities at the same time. The amount or the % does not matter.
Thanks for ignoring the indulgences bit, it speaks volumes about your argument.
Now regarding your other "evidence" as I stated above, so far you have not provided any. No links, no charity reports, no quote of the Guinness book, no images, no video... Nothing but your say so. So if you had actually had provided such evidence you might have gotten away with the false martyr pretense. Now you just look like Bethany Storro.

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.

Look up "broken record" in the urban dictionary. Then explain why this has any relevence to our discussion. Then please note what this does to your claim of wanting a serious rational discussion.

[Star Wars 888]

Nope, that doesn't fly. Now if you had in your arguments had links to sources and included images/vids/etc then yes, I'd provide direct links to what I claim.
Now since you have set the bar so low I don't have to do more than I did, which still was far more than you did. I at least provided info which easily could be put into google. Example. You did not.
So while the jury is out on whether you are intentionlly trolling or sincere I won't do diddly until you have done your homework on your claims.

What links do you want?

Besides, when I tried researching your claims, they came out to be biased anti-microsoft sites. Not saying that they aren't true, but it's difficult to figure out which one's correct.

If you had looked up who they where you would realise that it doesn't matter. Since you didn't that Q just looks ignorant. There has been lots of others arguing that the world of computing would have been better off without MS.

Do you expect me to look up your arguments and read through several websites?

I'm still not debating whether MJ was an asshole or not, please note that your further repetition of that position after I spelled it out to you only furthers the image of your WoI and proves Thanas and GhostRiders earlier points about lalalalaland.

Even if you have a negative view of Bill Gates, it's because negative things counterbalanced his charity donating. Michael Jackson has no solid and consistent criticism against him.

That's just ridicilus, for someone who actually lived in the 70s and 80s that is just baloney. I agree that MJ was talented, but you didn't have to have talent to make it big back then. Just like now good looks and/or big boobs would make you a star if a record company backed you up with some producers. In the 80s Sabrina, Samantha Fox and Milli Vanilli would all be examples there. It was so prevalent that people where suprised that Yazoo was a hit since it was fronted by Alison Moyet.

I searched Sabrina, and she did indeed actually write her songs and produced her records (according to the super-reliable Wikipedia)

If it was apparent how could it be a strawman? When people accused MJ of being an asshole, your counter was that he gave to charity and was a good man. How can we not construe that as a "give to charity=good" fallacy?

Except that it wasn't my only counter.

Which I had already adressed, you need to show that he was a good person regardless of whether he gave to charity or not. This since one can be an asshole and give to charities at the same time. The amount or the % does not matter.

Did you even read my post? I stated that him giving to charities is but one of the many factors that makes him a good person.

Thanks for ignoring the indulgences bit, it speaks volumes about your argument.
Now regarding your other "evidence" as I stated above, so far you have not provided any. No links, no charity reports, no quote of the Guinness book, no images, no video... Nothing but your say so. So if you had actually had provided such evidence you might have gotten away with the false martyr pretense. Now you just look like Bethany Storro.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14283749/Mich ... s-19792003

http://jollypeople.com/blog/2009/07/01/ ... ld-record/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DQzxqXBK4k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtURiWjG ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2yuzrDl ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVZyUwoG ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EL_QC-eYZw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9lq8oaK5Mw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWf-eARnf6U&ob=av3e

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gJcNBKiyMI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzP0HcftrVY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ3tQRevcVY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1APgEk2p ... re=related

Happy?

Look up "broken record" in the urban dictionary. Then explain why this has any relevence to our discussion. Then please note what this does to your claim of wanting a serious rational discussion.

My point in that part of the post was that what's special isn't that MJ donated money to charity - it's that Michael Jackson donated SO MUCH money to SO MANY charities. Note that Bill Gates's charities are impressive, but he has far more money to spare than MJ who was at his death like 400 million dollars in debt.

[Ghost Rider]

A certain clique, what?

The only thing I'm interested in is another edition of IMPERIAL COURT OF BRAGULE.

One day, we're just going to buy you and Shroom riding bears, just to see what you two would do.

[Enigma]

A certain clique, what?

The only thing I'm interested in is another edition of IMPERIAL COURT OF BRAGULE.

One day, we're just going to buy you and Shroom riding bears, just to see what you two would do.

We'd either be laughing our guts out or most likely be scrubbing our eyes with steel wool and bleach.

[Thanas]

Oh yes, let them ride bears. As long as they sign a will giving me all their earthly belongings in case they just happen to be killed/eaten by bears.

[Tiriol]

Oh yes, let them ride bears. As long as they sign a will giving me all their earthly belongings in case they just happen to be killed/eaten by bears.

I must point out that any bear-riding must also involve wearing winter fur hats and shouting "For the Motherland!". I am willing, though, to settle with "Hakkaa päälle Suomen poika!" ("Go get 'em Finland's boy!") shouted with a drunkard's reality-defying force.

[Serafina]

Oh yes, let them ride bears. As long as they sign a will giving me all their earthly belongings in case they just happen to be killed/eaten by bears.

I must point out that any bear-riding must also involve wearing winter fur hats and shouting "For the Motherland!". I am willing, though, to settle with "Hakkaa päälle Suomen poika!" ("Go get 'em Finland's boy!") shouted with a drunkard's reality-defying force.

Like this?

[Darth Nostril]

Oh yes, let them ride bears. As long as they sign a will giving me all their earthly belongings in case they just happen to be killed/eaten by bears.

You really want Shroomys collection of chopped off whores breasts and stabbed dicks?

Strange man.

[Thanas]

Ebay, dude.

[General Zod]

Oh yes, let them ride bears. As long as they sign a will giving me all their earthly belongings in case they just happen to be killed/eaten by bears.

You really want Shroomys collection of chopped off whores breasts and stabbed dicks?

Strange man.

It's a German thing, which I really like.

[Spoonist]

Do you expect me to look up your arguments and read through several websites?

Never claimed that I did. Instead I expect you to at least try to understand a subject before asking ignorant questions like that. What difference would the brand name of my computer make to whether or not Bill Gates is an asshole? Currently, its an IBM, yesterday it was a Dell, a week before I was browsing using a custom built Linux machine. Next week I'll be at a friends house who prefer Macs. Does it make any difference?
So you actually asking me the brand name of my computer in this context shows that you are ignorant on the history of computing, the current business model of computing and how Microsoft started out. So yes I expect you to have read up on what you are trying to debate.
Now if you had realised that you probably don't know enough about such stuff to debate it and said as much, I would have respected that. But the current way you are doing it...

Even if you have a negative view of Bill Gates, it's because negative things counterbalanced his charity donating.

Life doesn't work that way. Please explain why you think that someone can't be an asshole and donate to charity at the same time.
Lets take three examples, this time answer them, don't ignore them like before:
X) I loan money from you with the intention of never giving them back to you. I take that money and give to a respected charity. When you ask for your money back, I explain what I did and that you didn't need it anyway so I was doing you a favor by giving your money to charity. So am I an asshole or a good person?
Y) I am a telemarketer working for a charity. Whenever someone agrees to donate and gives me their credit card info I put them up for double the sum they agreed to. Am I an asshole or a good person?
Z) You and I are friends. You own a stock in a company. I get information that your stock will be worth lots more soon, so I purchase your stock at 10% above what you think they are worth. So a good deal for you, right? A year later the stock is now worth 100 times more. So I tell you that I knew the stock would be worth more that's why I bought it. But hey you should not be mad because I will give it all to charity when I die. Am I an asshole or a good person?

Michael Jackson has no solid and consistent criticism against him.

Again, why do you try that line of reasoning with me who never claimed that MJ was an asshole? Fuck this is only the third time I tell you.

I searched Sabrina, and she did indeed actually write her songs and produced her records (according to the super-reliable Wikipedia)

For the peanut gallery:

Now since you sound like a teenager I believe that you can appreciate the massive talent displayed.
The point was that your simplification of the record industry is false. Someone did not then, just like someone does not now, need massive talent to make it big. Instead ever since people could see the performer money could be made promoting someone good looking wihout talent, over someone talented but ugly. There is a whole reason for the meme of the sexy girl miming to the not so sexy girl's playback. Again for the peanut gallery a more recent example from Sweden:

If you don't know this you are again showing a massive lack of experience in how the world works.

If it was apparent how could it be a strawman? When people accused MJ of being an asshole, your counter was that he gave to charity and was a good man. How can we not construe that as a "give to charity=good" fallacy?

Except that it wasn't my only counter.

So you concede that point then, like a serious debater?

Which I had already adressed, you need to show that he was a good person regardless of whether he gave to charity or not. This since one can be an asshole and give to charities at the same time. The amount or the % does not matter.

Did you even read my post? I stated that him giving to charities is but one of the many factors that makes him a good person.

Did you read mine? We can go around in circles like this ad infinitum.
As I stated before, all I want is for you to concede the stupid "he gives lots of money to charity - that makes him a good person" or back it up. If you agree that the world does not work like that then there is no harm in conceding the point. If you do believe that assholes can become good by donating money to charity then at least be honest and upfront about it. Like a rational debater.

*lots of links*
Happy?

Actually yes.
Congratulations, you have finally done what you should have done 11 pages ago.
I will reciprocate with why Gates and Buffet are assholes in my next post (it will take a little time).

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.

Look up "broken record" in the urban dictionary. Then explain why this has any relevence to our discussion. Then please note what this does to your claim of wanting a serious rational discussion.

My point in that part of the post was that what's special isn't that MJ donated money to charity - it's that Michael Jackson donated SO MUCH money to SO MANY charities. Note that Bill Gates's charities are impressive, but he has far more money to spare than MJ who was at his death like 400 million dollars in debt.

Code: Select all

10 PRINT "Argument"
20 PRINT "Counter argument"
30 GOTO 10

Or if you wish you can just copy paste my last response again.

[Star Wars 888]

Never claimed that I did. Instead I expect you to at least try to understand a subject before asking ignorant questions like that. What difference would the brand name of my computer make to whether or not Bill Gates is an asshole? Currently, its an IBM, yesterday it was a Dell, a week before I was browsing using a custom built Linux machine. Next week I'll be at a friends house who prefer Macs. Does it make any difference?

So you call Bill Gates and Buffet assholes and then use their software?

So you actually asking me the brand name of my computer in this context shows that you are ignorant on the history of computing, the current business model of computing and how Microsoft started out. So yes I expect you to have read up on what you are trying to debate.
Now if you had realised that you probably don't know enough about such stuff to debate it and said as much, I would have respected that. But the current way you are doing it...

Nice try at dodging the point. What brand computer do you have?

Life doesn't work that way. Please explain why you think that someone can't be an asshole and donate to charity at the same time.

Did I claim that?

Lets take three examples, this time answer them, don't ignore them like before:
X) I loan money from you with the intention of never giving them back to you. I take that money and give to a respected charity. When you ask for your money back, I explain what I did and that you didn't need it anyway so I was doing you a favor by giving your money to charity. So am I an asshole or a good person?

Both, although this depends on a huge number of circumstances.

Y) I am a telemarketer working for a charity. Whenever someone agrees to donate and gives me their credit card info I put them up for double the sum they agreed to. Am I an asshole or a good person?

Again, both. Your intentions are probably noble (again, it depends on the circumstances), but the means are unfair.

Z) You and I are friends. You own a stock in a company. I get information that your stock will be worth lots more soon, so I purchase your stock at 10% above what you think they are worth. So a good deal for you, right? A year later the stock is now worth 100 times more. So I tell you that I knew the stock would be worth more that's why I bought it. But hey you should not be mad because I will give it all to charity when I die. Am I an asshole or a good person?

Asshole (in this scenario).

Again, why do you try that line of reasoning with me who never claimed that MJ was an asshole? Fuck this is only the third time I tell you.

Again, why do you try that line of reasoning with me who never claimed that charity = good person? Fuck this is only the third time I tell you.

*snip*

Well she isn't super talented, but she did cowrite and produce many of her songs.

So you concede that point then, like a serious debater?

I didn't even make the claim, so what is there to concede?

Did you read mine? We can go around in circles like this ad infinitum.

I never claimed that charity = good person.

I claimed that charity + bunch of other factors that I listed = good person.

Get it?

Actually yes.
Congratulations, you have finally done what you should have done 11 pages ago.
I will reciprocate with why Gates and Buffet are assholes in my next post (it will take a little time).

Notice that many of my links are not about charity; some are, but I also had other factors to help.

Or if you wish you can just copy paste my last response again.

Notice that I divided that point into A and B. B was a side argument. Charitable donations DO indeed show evidence towards someone being a good person, BUT I DIDN'T CLAIM THAT IT WAS THE ONLY FACTOR.

[Batman]

Never claimed that I did. Instead I expect you to at least try to understand a subject before asking ignorant questions like that. What difference would the brand name of my computer make to whether or not Bill Gates is an asshole? Currently, its an IBM, yesterday it was a Dell, a week before I was browsing using a custom built Linux machine. Next week I'll be at a friends house who prefer Macs. Does it make any difference?

So you call Bill Gates and Buffet assholes and then use their software?

Why the hell not? What has the guys inventing it being arseholes got to do with the quality of the software?

So you actually asking me the brand name of my computer in this context shows that you are ignorant on the history of computing, the current business model of computing and how Microsoft started out. So yes I expect you to have read up on what you are trying to debate.
Now if you had realised that you probably don't know enough about such stuff to debate it and said as much, I would have respected that. But the current way you are doing it...

Nice try at dodging the point. What brand computer do you have?

And again why, exactly, is that relevant?

Life doesn't work that way. Please explain why you think that someone can't be an asshole and donate to charity at the same time.

Did I claim that?

Yes?

[Dalton]

Ran out of justifications, or are you just dodging me now, 888? The clock is ticking.

[D.Turtle]

When did I change the rules of that thread? Show me evidence and examples. If anything, it's the other side that changed the conditions from "do they succeed" to "can they survive and make some nations and make space stations"

Lets see.

You have this little penchant of making the side you want to lose lose because of preconditions you retroactively consider part of a scenario. You did that in both the Empire vs Earth thread and the MI vs RDA vs Stormtroopers vs Ewoks thread, wherein you put in forces without any support and them make them lose because they don't have any support, after the side you apparently want to win doesn't win. Which any sane person realizes is the fault of the person making the scenario and not of the forces included in this scenario.

You never did understand that.

But hey, thats why I started ignoring your stupid little useless threads.

[Star Wars 888]

@Dalton:

Do you want to debate? Because you said that you don't, and seemed to be annoyed with the debate. I'm open for a debate though at your request.

@Dturtle:

I responded to your complaints and we debated, but you dropped it. I'm open to starting again, but don't drop the debate for a while and then months later bring it up again with the same arguments that I already debunked with the hope that I forgot my rebuttals.

[D.Turtle]

You still don't get it... Which just shows how much of a useless idiot you are.

Here I'll make a scenario that should fit right in with your other ones:

Lets have a fight between a modern tank and a tribe of hunter gatherers from the stone age.

Who wins?

Fake starwars888 after the fact clarification: Oh right they start on opposite sides of the world. So the tank loses because they run out of gas and the crew starves before they reach the tribe, as they have no way of crossing the ocean.

Tada! Tribesmen>tank!

I am zeh best debater evah!

[Star Wars 888]

Lets see.

You have this little penchant of making the side you want to lose lose because of preconditions you retroactively consider part of a scenario.
You did that in both the Empire vs Earth thread and the MI vs RDA vs Stormtroopers vs Ewoks thread, wherein you put in forces without any support and them make them lose because they don't have any support,

What does this have to do with altering the thread mid-way? In the OP of those threads I made their supplies clear. If you think it's a spite thread, then you can notice it.

The after the side you apparently want to win doesn't win. Which any sane person realizes is the fault of the person making the scenario and not of the forces included in this scenario.

With the Empire vs Earth thread I knew that Earth in that scenario would win. The question would become how far the Empire could get.

With the other thread, ALL of the sides didn't get space supplies or really any supply line. All the sides had their own advantage that was relevant in the thread (stormtroopers: more advanced tech, RDA: air support, MI: huge numbers, Ewoks: they weren't intended to be able to win, but they would have lots of numbers and be familiar with the terrain).

You never did understand that.

But hey, thats why I started ignoring your stupid little useless threads.

We had this debate, and you suddenly dropped it.

You still don't get it... Which just shows how much of a useless idiot you are.

Here I'll make a scenario that should fit right in with your other ones:

Lets have a fight between a modern tank and a tribe of hunter gatherers from the stone age.

Who wins?

Fake starwars888 after the fact clarification: Oh right they start on opposite sides of the world. So the tank loses because they run out of gas and the crew starves before they reach the tribe, as they have no way of crossing the ocean.

Tada! Tribesmen>tank!

I am zeh best debater evah!

Except that I didn't make the alteration mid thread: I STATED CLEARLY IN THE OP the supplies of the invasion force.