“Submitted by iGod on Tue, 2009-07-14 16:22”
“Of course, I can't prove my position--since it would take much longer than I have to live to do so; but, as evidenced by the plethora of professional dancers, choreographers, directors, and producers making music videos, there is definitely a trend towards an enduring legacy that Michael Jackson firmly established.”

MY RESPONSE: His legacy if any will be that of a dancer/entertainer and an oddity known in pop culture, all superficial elements for the most part.

“You funny. I believe that if you actually thought out what you were going to type, this sort of error could not occur. You--I believe--are so eager to despoil any mention of the man, that you evade reality in order to "construct" a "rational" position/argument:
How can a superstar be considered "overnight" when their astounding career lasted for over 40 years? Michael Jackson's success was not the function of "moths" coming and going "like moths around a candle," but much more accurately: it was the function of delivering awesome entertainment in an otherwise boring climate of mediocre artists.”

MY RESPONSE: You didn’t say much here but his brief, yes brief moment in the spotlight bought him years of attention – such is the modern day phenomena of the media. A phenom. which by the way may likely disappear as we all become so well interconnected digitally (and thank goodness for that I am sick of superficial stars ;n)

"Massive" is a relative term. What's "massive" to a comparatively impoverished and perhaps mediocre fitness clinician, is nothing to Michael Jackson, who generates in .2 seconds much more income than said fitness clinician earns in a year."

MY RESPONSE: Nice, an insult towards what I earn by helping folks become fit and thus support their health. I work hard, honestly and objectively. Impoverished, mediocre?! That sort of scumbag pathetic inference is to be expected I suppose from one who finds the twisted superficial ‘act’ of M’J’s to be noteworthy. Your ‘relativity’ angle is silly 20-30 million (per pay off!) is massive and even for M.J. who was so in debt by the end of things he reflected the definition of impoverished far more than I. What a horribly scummy attack as a rebuttal.

“I have never known a fitness clinician worth his salt that did not at one point or another make a mistake, and pull a muscle. Such a mistake should not deem said fitness clinician to be a "sicko", nor should it deem Michael Jackson. The essentials of the mistake in his estimate of how much surgery his body could endure are the same.”

MY RESPONSE: Pulling a muscle? Egad what a silly comparison to M.J.’s freak show change of face over the years. He tried to buy his way out of everything including the way he looked and it didn’t work...period.

“Again, relativity. Obsessive to who? Given the fact that he died at 50, I think he didn't spend enough!
I don't know you, so I won't assume that you are a capitalist, and find it offensive when government "knows best" how individuals spent their hard-earned money; but, I for one do. In principle, what you are doing is no different. In short, a rational mind is seeking freedom from others, and easily grants the same in return. I suggest that for there to be "obsessive spending," there has to be "obsessive earning." Thank da' lawd for those who obsessively earn the things they want to have!”

MY RESPONSE: I could easily argue that he died because he spent too much on the wrong things like an anaesthesiologist to make him sleep ultimately forever.

"Now you endulge your "relativity complex" by fantasizing: "Well, the world mourns his death because of him being the best at what he does, but, that doesn't mean that he was really a nice person. I bet he was in--reality--mean and demanding." How pathetic. Try harder at being the best at what you do, and perhaps--one day--someone will know your name. Michael Jackson is known beyond the grave as one of the easiest and most creative people imaginable to work with. Another enduring legacy."

MY RESPONSE: That’s a grade school logical fallacy where you make an appeal to what the masses follow as truth, let alone important. It is only in the past few decades that this superficial stardom can masquerade as greatness. Do I try to be great in my life? Yes. Will a large percentage of the world know me for greatness? Not likely because millions of folks couldn’t know of the greatness of all the other millions of folks. Originality, genius and rarity get known. Unfortunately mix that with 90% superficial, well promoted freak show-isms and the suckers start suckling.

“And the city of LA spent 1.4 Million for his funeral; and the world watched his funeral; and all relevant news outlets covered the ceremony; and the world mourns his passing. So?”

MY RESPONSE: Again an appeal to authority and mass...well appeal. If the money (as the Cal Gov. likely hopes) doesn’t generate much more than that in related tourism etc, then it was a huge left of taxpayers money – which it already was ;n) BTW responding to my off color mention of nambla was not worth your time.

“I checked your page at: http://www.zone-training.net/s..., and it seems like you do indeed have ability in what you do. Instead of being so shallow, and tearing at the successful, why not learn from Michael, and manage to gain the attention of the world so that we all can be better off for it--if you are as good as it seems that you are. As for me, do you offer anything that someone in Atlanta, GA could use. I am really impressed!”

MY RESPONSE: MY page is http://fitnessclinician.com/

You can forget back peddling from the unwarranted insults. Try instead to look to the greatness and success of Julie Payette http://www.ottawacitizen.com/t...

OR

Arthur Jones
http://arthurjonesexercise.com/

There you find real greatness the kind which improves humanity.

The story of Michael Jackson is tragic story of a man with identity crisis who spent his life, his talant and his money in futile attemt to turn beautiful black boy to ugly white woman. About dead or good or nothing. RIP.

"What did he actually create and what will last...very little."

Of course, I can't prove my position--since it would take much longer than I have to live to do so; but, as evidenced by the plethora of professional dancers, choreographers, directors, and producers making music videos, there is definitely a trend towards an enduring legacy that Michael Jackson firmly established.

"Again most of it was just superficial passing fashion. If anything he was an example of the bizarre effect mass media is now able to generate with skin deep over night superstars that you could see through with a close inspection and that come and go like moths around a candle."

You funny. I believe that if you actually thought out what you were going to type, this sort of error could not occur. You--I believe--are so eager to despoil any mention of the man, that you evade reality in order to "construct" a "rational" position/argument:

How can a superstar be considered "overnight" when their astounding career lasted for over 40 years? Michael Jackson's success was not the function of "moths" coming and going "like moths around a candle," but much more accurately: it was the function of delivering awesome entertainment in an otherwise boring climate of mediocre artists.

"Beyond that the evidence seems to support the fact that he may very well have been quite the sicko, all those massive pay off’s,"

"Massive" is a relative term. What's "massive" to a comparatively impoverished and perhaps mediocre fitness clinician, is nothing to Michael Jackson, who generates in .2 seconds much more income than said fitness clinician earns in a year.

"butchered physicality,"

I have never known a fitness clinician worth his salt that did not at one point or another make a mistake, and pull a muscle. Such a mistake should not deem said fitness clinician to be a "sicko", nor should it deem Michael Jackson. The essentials of the mistake in his estimate of how much surgery his body could endure are the same.

"obsessive spending"

Again, relativity. Obsessive to who? Given the fact that he died at 50, I think he didn't spend enough!

I don't know you, so I won't assume that you are a capitalist, and find it offensive when government "knows best" how individuals spent their hard-earned money; but, I for one do. In principle, what you are doing is no different. In short, a rational mind is seeking freedom from others, and easily grants the same in return. I suggest that for there to be "obsessive spending," there has to be "obsessive earning." Thank da' lawd for those who obsessively earn the things they want to have!

"the sickeningly soft 'put on' of a supposedly humble, gentle guy - I didn’t buy it - betcha he was a passive aggressive nightmare."

Now you endulge your "relativity complex" by fantasizing: "Well, the world mourns his death because of him being the best at what he does, but, that doesn't mean that he was really a nice person. I bet he was in--reality--mean and demanding." How pathetic. Try harder at being the best at what you do, and perhaps--one day--someone will know your name. Michael Jackson is known beyond the grave as one of the easiest and most creative people imaginable to work with. Another enduring legacy.

"BTW I herd the nambla flag is still at half mast."

And the city of LA spent 1.4 Million for his funeral; and the world watched his funeral; and all relevant news outlets covered the ceremony; and the world mourns his passing. So?

I checked your page at: http://www.zone-training.net/s..., and it seems like you do indeed have ability in what you do. Instead of being so shallow, and tearing at the successful, why not learn from Michael, and manage to gain the attention of the world so that we all can be better off for it--if you are as good as it seems that you are. As for me, do you offer anything that someone in Atlanta, GA could use. I am really impressed!

M.J. wasn’t much more than a passing fashionable fancy. He clicked with the emerging genre of the time and came and went just as quickly, past a couple of releases his following was sheep looking to watch a fireworks show. Certainly there was raw singing and performing talent there but nothing beyond what has been seen thousands of times before. What did he actually create and what will last...very little. Again most of it was just superficial passing fashion. If anything he was an example of the bizarre effect mass media is now able to generate with skin deep over night superstars that you could see through with a close inspection and that come and go like moths around a candle. We follow them in the news because it is easy and they have the money to flood the media but talent...please. Beyond that the evidence seems to support the fact that he may very well have been quite the sicko, all those massive pay off’s, butchered physicality, obsessive spending and the sickeningly soft 'put on' of a supposedly humble, gentle guy - I didn’t buy it - betcha he was a passive aggressive nightmare. BTW I herd the nambla flag is still at half mast.

Regards,
Andrew

... that called me a "Charlatan":

"Political correctness dictates that any good-faith disagreement has a hidden racist, classist or sexist agenda. In your case, you accuse those who disagree with you about Michael of being driven by a racist agenda."

My pudgy friend, I have not called everyone who does not agree with me about Michael a racist. I will use you as just one example. There are many others, including my father who disagree with me that I don't consider racist in their estimate. Ignore this fact as you may, but the truth is what it is.

"No one here on SOLO is a racist, apart from you and Scherk who are reverse racists, and no less racist for that."

I disagree. I am not a racist in any way, shape, or fashion. If you disagree, please make a valid and conclusive demonstration. Perhaps, if you do, I will see for myself, and make any necessary changes in my persona and be a better man. Otherwise, check yourself.

"Charles will run himself into the ground with way-too-easy slops of the 'racist' brush, as he has undercut argument by calling Scott names. Lindsay is correct to take him to task for this. Charles, people will remember that kind of shit as your calling card, rather than any intelligent and useful critiques you might give. Why dig that hole for yourself?"

What "hole?" Your assumption that I am trying to amass disciples or a following of some sort is a bad one. Hell yeah, if I develop friendships with like-minded people, that's a good thing; but, the "like-minded" thing is fo-real with me. My small, but awesome circle of friends in real life and online are all people of intelligence and humor, which is the way I like it. I have acquaintances with people of the brilliant-intellectually, but dull-spiritually sort, but that's as far as it goes. I don't really like people that can see value in joking about a pompous fool like Scott.

If the type of people that you are referring to can only remember that I talked about Scott's rediculous facial expression, and forget or disregard any factual evidence, or sound arguments, then, screw 'em! Again, I ask: what "hole?"

BTW, what is it in particular that you disagree with in Objectivism? And, thanks for the message you sent. I would have responded before now, but it went into my junkmail, and I was away from the computer yesterday... Sunday is "family day" for me.

'Call me weird...'

OK, you are weird, Wiig.

We all get the point, Marcus. You. Are. Not. A. Michael. Jackson. Fan.

Ok, registered.

"His 1983 Thriller album shattered all previous sales records..."

Thriller sounds like a pile of crap today, definitely not a classic.

It seems inexplicable to me now why it sold so many copies.

I admit that at the time I was just a boy and I thought it was good too. But then, at that time I also enjoyed listening to James Last.

His songs in the Jackson Five sound far more superior from both their sound and from their 'evergreen' quality.

Weird that the recording sound back then was more pleasant to the ear than much of the stuff made in the eighties.

And who wouldn't want a pet chimp and a private amusement park?

Call me weird, but I wouldn't.

So he's weird 'cause he wore white socks and military jackets in the eighties? I can't imagine you know much about fashion Sharon, but that was kinda normal then. And who wouldn't want a pet chimp and a private amusement park? As for the face, as Charles pointed out, do you think he hoped it would turn out that way?

What's interesting to me in all of this is how, for so many, the 'Women's Weekly,' type magazine stories of his private life seem to trump his talent.

My little tidbit about: Michael Jackson changed pop music. That is wonderful. He ruled long before he started to call himself the King of Pop—he was the Crown Prince of Motown. The guy was fronting a top ten R&B band when he was five years old, for God’s sake, singing and showing off his James Brown footwork before an adorning nation. Of course the man had talent, for Christ’s sake. Any idiot can see that (except for those idiots who prefer to win the anti-Jackson debate by ignoring it or refusing to acknowledge it).

His 1983 Thriller album shattered all previous sales records, and his cinematic videos for “Beat it,” “Billie Jean,” and “Thriller,” changed the way music videos are made in the way Citizen Kane changed film and Sgt. Pepper’s changed the album. Case in point: he made the world a better place for all the pleasure and entertainment he brought. You can’t take that away from him. The album sales show this. (Ah, capitalism—let the voice of the people speak!)

But then he turned out to be so damn weird.

His fashion sense might have given us a clue to just how strange this boy was. He had the pseudo-military jackets, the white socks, the single studded glove –but it really got bizarre after that. His Neverland private amusement park, his pet chimp, his attempt to buy the Elephant man’s remains, his, um, strange friendships with young boys, never mind the incredible morphing face. We all can be forgiven for forgetting the music and asking, “What the hell is with this guy?”

You can’t really blame the public for being more interested in the man than the music, but still: once upon a time, that kid sure could sing and dance.

Lindsay thinks that Charles and I are the only racists at SOLO, in a reverse kind of way. What that means in my instance I have no idea. Lindsay is not widely acclaimed for the clarity or depth of his charges.

As for this, "Scherk is an apologist for banning me from speaking at TAS, for Babs and Nathan Branden's Rand-diminution, for pomowanking nihilism," bullshit. Typical sloppy overheated and factually-incorrect boilerplate. I never supported the 'banning,' and I never wrote in support of the 'banning.' I think both Lindsay and TAS fucked up in the public squabbling over the issue, and that the rescinding of the speaking invitation was almost inevitable given the climate. I wanted Lindsay there at TAS, and I so wrote.

As for Nathaniel Branden, I have never written in support of him. I don't like him. I don't like his writing, or his smugness, or his pretensions to psychological authority. I don't like his part in the therapy-cult or the 'cult' of Rand at NBI, and I certainly don't support his deception of Rand in The Affair. If Lindsay thinks that criticizing the sprawling awfulness, error and artful dodges of Valliant's book The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics automatically makes one a supporter of TheBrandens© in the murky sin of 'Rand diminution,' he is even more intellectually bereft than usual. Lindsay critiques Rand at times, on several issues, but never sees this as unlawful 'diminution.' Why is that? Why, two different standards of discourse, of course. The horrible evul Them, and the saintly, princesses Us.

As for the pomowanking nihilism charge, three points: the term is meaningless; the referents have never been given to any particular post or opinion of mine that fits the bill of charges; I have refuted that part of the charge which is comprehensible -- that of post-modernism.

Charles will run himself into the ground with way-too-easy slops of the 'racist' brush, as he has undercut argument by calling Scott names. Lindsay is correct to take him to task for this. Charles, people will remember that kind of shit as your calling card, rather than any intelligent and useful critiques you might give. Why dig that hole for yourself? If you have anything more to say than that Scott is a big fat dumb cheese-eating boob, say it. Picking on surface characteristics of heft in a portrait are not much different than judging someone for their skin colour. Apologize for going over the top and move on . . . .


WSS

"You evade my challenge"

Silly man, I didn't evade anything. Check the post that you referred me to, and you will see my answer. And the most eloquent power slam I have delivered on this board yet! You really made an ass out of yourself. By the way, why didn't you let on that it was a challenge?

"And you evaded your own statements..., ...Just go back through this thread, and be honest."

As is customary, and appropriate, you have the burden of proof. I say, "Again, I don't consider everyone who doesn't share my opinion about Michael a racist, nor do I think that they are somehow morally inferior. I myself don't think Michael to be the "greatest musical genius ever," but do consider him to be the greatest musical entertainer." In other words, no such entities exist within the thread. You say that such entities do exist within the thread. It is your job to copy and paste your proof. Since you "da man," and have so many lackeys sucking up to you, why don't you get one of your flunkies to do the work for you? Oh yeah, that would backfire against you and make you loose face with anyone you gave the assignment to; wouldn't it? Maybe one day you just might think "I bet that smart ass __________ was luring me into this all along, by being so passive with me, after being so aggressive with everyone else."

Finally, I am getting sleepy. I am going to sleep, and will get back to spanking your ego's ass tomorrow.

...to control his emotions.

If he comes to this thread with an open mind he will realise that Lindsay, Scott DeSalvo and Sandi are the good guys.

I may disagree with them from time to time, and they with me, but I have the experience here to know that they are not bigoted or mean-spirited.

I think iGod has a first class mind underneath all that hot-headedness, he just needs to calm down and think again.

You evade my challenge:

I draw your attention to two things: the Weissenberg Rachmaninoff posted today at the top of this thread, and my article Music of the Gods. There in both cases you will learn perspective, if you're open to it, which your gratuitously abusive posts suggest you're not. The denigration you've hurled at decent folk like Mr. DeSalvo is unconscionable. Grow the fuck up, jerk!

And you evaded your own statements:

Again, I don't consider everyone who doesn't share my opinion about Michael a racist, nor do I think that they are somehow morally inferior. I myself don't think Michael to be the "greatest musical genius ever," but do consider him to be the greatest musical entertainer.

Just go back through this thread, and be honest.

Before I respond to this, I would first ask that you be perfectly clear to me what exactly you mean by my "political correctness." I think that I know, but want to be sure. That way cards are on the table, and I know exactly what I am dealing with.

Political correctness dictates that any good-faith disagreement has a hidden racist, classist or sexist agenda. In your case, you accuse those who disagree with you about Michael of being driven by a racist agenda. No one here on SOLO is a racist, apart from you and Scherk who are reverse racists, and no less racist for that.

As for the "common cause," I have since learned Scherk's philosophic differences, and am opposed to his thinking. However, I still believe him to be a brilliant mind, and, given the average IQ present before my arrival, there is little wonder that he has not been persuaded to see things the was [sic] we all should.

Scherk's mind shows potential, as I've often allowed, but it's undercut by his morbid nastiness. That's a quality you share with him, and you're welcome to jerk off mutually to your common snarkiness. SOLO is very liberal, and allows folk to publicize the worst of themselves. Scherk is an apologist for banning me from speaking at TAS, for Babs and Nathan Branden's Rand-diminution, for pomowanking nihilism. Ask Leonard Peikoff what he thinks of that!

"The denigration you've hurled at decent folk like Mr. DeSalvo is unconscionable. Grow the fuck up, jerk!"

Tell the truth: You took a look at Scott's picture, laughed and got mad didn't you? ROFL!

"Peikoff is quite right about the element of hatred of the good for being the good in MJ's case. If I'm not mistaken, I already made the same point myself."

Yes, as I recall you did. Kudos! The point to posting that url though, was for Howard the Schmuck's benefit. I took advantage of the premiere Objectivist's thinking and commentary on the matter, particularly, issues related to the trumped up charges brought against Michael.

"But that's no reason to adjudge Mr. Jackson to be the greatest musical genius ever, or those who say he wasn't to be 'racist.'"

Again, I don't consider everyone who doesn't share my opinion about Michael a racist, nor do I think that they are somehow morally inferior. I myself don't think Michael to be the "greatest musical genius ever," but do consider him to be the greatest musical entertainer.

"The political correctness you bring to this debate is moronic. You are the kind of counterfeit individualist I refer to in my Herding Cats article. Small wonder you find common cause with an avowed anti-Objectivist snark-merchant like Scherk."

Before I respond to this, I would first ask that you be perfectly clear to me what exactly you mean by my "political correctness." I think that I know, but want to be sure. That way cards are on the table, and I know exactly what I am dealing with.

As for the "common cause," I have since learned Scherk's philosophic differences, and am opposed to his thinking. However, I still believe him to be a brilliant mind, and, given the average IQ present before my arrival, there is little wonder that he has not been persuaded to see things the was we all should. FYI: most brilliant people can easily see through hypocrisy, and cloaked bigotry. Even though a hypocrite/bigot can be right most of the time, someone who has lost confidence in the bigot/hypocrite's integrity will often fail to see any "correctness" that the bigot/hypocrite might possess.

By the way: Loved the Herding Cats article.

Thank you for commending my hip appellation. Not, though, if you mean it in a 'white men can't jump' sense.

I reposted your derogatory ad hominem to Scott because I was too quick to cast you as a good sort earlier in this thread.

As for "pot shots," I haven't made one. I've re-quoted your "anger" and said "hot head." That's justified.

... Now that's a "hip" name if I ever heard one.

If you wanna be startin' somethin', don't hang around the fringes, jump on in! Lurking about, not having the fortitude to confront me directly, makes you look like some sort of cheesy sidekick; carrying Chunky Boi's nuts around in the palms of your hands.

To put what I just said in less inflammatory terms: if you have a "beef" with me, and my style of verbal combat, then challenge it directly. If you are respectful, and honest, I won't be too hard on you, and perhaps won't chide you much, if at all. However, I don't respect a man who won't step up to the plate and make his case. In this regard--at least--I can respect Scott. Your approach--on the other hand--so far, leaves much to be desired.

Next "pot shot" you take at me, I will begin jo-nin' you too. And with a forehead like the one you have, I wouldn't make light of such a threat from me.

I draw your attention to two things: the Weissenberg Rachmaninoff posted today at the top of this thread, and my article Music of the Gods. There in both cases you will learn perspective, if you're open to it, which your gratuitously abusive posts suggest you're not. The denigration you've hurled at decent folk like Mr. DeSalvo is unconscionable. Grow the fuck up, jerk!

Peikoff is quite right about the element of hatred of the good for being the good in MJ's case. If I'm not mistaken, I already made the same point myself. But that's no reason to adjudge Mr. Jackson to be the greatest musical genius ever, or those who say he wasn't to be "racist." Both judgments are ludicrous. The political correctness you bring to this debate is moronic. You are the kind of counterfeit individualist I refer to in my Herding Cats article. Small wonder you find common cause with an avowed anti-Objectivist snark-merchant like Scherk.

...the chin--in your picture--looks like an ass hanging over a toilet, and judging by the look on your face, you're out of toilet paper!

Jason has nothing to worry about, people don't have to agree with me in order to belay my onslaughts, they merely have to come correct. He did, which, I believe is just his way of discussing issues and making points. You on the other hand are a retard, and a bigot, and a fat faced clown with a horrid face, paired with one nasty double chin.

What I do to you--by the way--is not called "name calling." I'm "jonin' " yo' fat ass out! Chunky Boi.
}:)

Howard:

Rather than twiddle with your teeny tiny mind, I thought it best to post a link to Leonard Peikoff's remarks about Michael Jackson's death and the trumped up charges brought against him. It is nice to see that i can count on REAL objectivists to come to the aid of greatness in the midst of mediocrity.

http://peikoff.com/podcasts/20...

enjoy.

"I am angry. But as a human being; and, one of the great ones within this species."

He seems easy to anger alright:

"Dummy, I created no "straw man;" I questioned a marshmallow man, that's too soft and pudgy to substantiate his claims, cite any examples, and relies on other bigots' validation, by words unspoken.

"I am VERY busy and have to use my free time carefully," *crunches on potato chips* "and I do not derive any value from exchanges with you."

I am sure you don't. Value to you is accepting your dogma, and/or giving you another twinkie to wrap your chubby little fingers around.

You one stupid, stupid, redneck, bigot, ugly, philosophically impotent, cowardly, asshole... Munch on! Chunky Boi."

Jason:

You are a gentleman of far better temperment than I.

Other than further exposing him for what he is, it is unlikley that you'll make much progress.

Soon, this will devolve into charges of racist thinking against you, and if history serves as any guide, schoolyard name calling.

The quotes from points 4a and 5 are not mine!!!

They belong to Peter Hitchens of the Daily Mail.

Thank you for conceding that there is no evidence of racism in my comments regarding MJ though.

As to the other points, based on what I have written:

1) I never made those comments specifically in reference to his dancing. But now you mention it, despite being talented in his dancing - it was rather odd at times. MJ grabbing his 'crotch' while dancing distracted from his talent.

I remember quite specifically that when the video of 'black or white' first aired MJ turned into a black panther at the end of the video. Then he turns back into MJ and goes into a dance where he starts rubbing his genitals quite graphically. (I did not seek it out, I just happened to be watching TV in a US hotel in the early nineties when a 'world-wide' first screening of the video came on.)

Following this, there was a deluge of complaints to the TV station and that part was subsequently cut out of the video.

I wonder if the original uncut version is posted on youtube? Maybe someone can dig it out?

2) My comments referred to his association with the 'Nation of Islam', as this institution is well-known to be anti-Semitic and racist.
Of course that doesn't affect his talent necessarily, because I don't consider the same of Muhammed Ali, even though he has since split from them.

I didn't mean it to be a comment on his talent, but a play on words, so sorry for the confusion.

3) I don't have a problem with his building an amusement park.

My comment referred to his not wanting to grow up. The original 'nerverland' being in the story of Peter Pan about the boy who never grew up.

4b) This comment was not directed at MJ himself but at those who defend the way he behaved in life as being 'childlike' (meaning that's a good thing), but would never call his talent or music 'childlike'. Or would they? I doubt it.

I believe points five and six were not covered.

iGod wrote,

"The next item is your use of the words "overblown" in describing the adulation many feel for the man; myself included. http://dictionary.reference.co... cites envy as being: "a feeling of discontent or covetousness with regard to another's advantages, success, possessions, etc." Now, I believe it's obvious that you have a "feeling of discontent" in regards to the "pathetic" and "overblown adulation" that many people have for Michael. I most certainly made a decent case that you do."

You can't just take the definition out of context and say I display 'feelings of discontent", therefore I am envious of MJ.

I am not envious of MJ, but after what you have written about him I don't see why you are not.

I don't see what's wrong with 'you' being envious of MJ. If you aspire to be as good as you think he is, and you are not, what is wrong with feeling envious?

If someone at his memorial had said something along the lines of, "Michael I was always envious of your talent" - do you think someone in the audience would have stood up and pointed at him shouting - "You covetous bastard!"? Or do you think they would have thought, "right on!"? The latter I think.

To my mind envy and jealously are like hunger and poverty.

Envy and jealously are not necessarily evil in themselves (as Christians would have you believe), but it's the actions or sentiments that spring from those emotions that may or may not be evil.

Yet again they may just give rise to hero-worship, praise and aspiration which are surely good things.

"I haven't seen any 'logic' based on any 'substance' in your claims that my dislike of MJ is racially motivated."

I concede this point. Sorry for THIS comment, and for its slander.

"The only specific charge you have made against me is that 'envy' or 'jealousy' must drive me to hate Jackson on racial grounds."

Not true. I said that you are envious and jealous. Not that either drives you to hate Michael on racial grounds. These two things stand on their own. There are plenty of black people that are envious and jealous of other black people for example.

"I have said that I do not envy MJ, but you simply ignore that. Where's your evidence that I envy MJ?"

Ok:
1)." No matter how pathetically overblown the adulation for MJ, at least he was a self-made man."
2)."Not just an unusual talent then, but an evil one too."
3)."The guy was simply one complete deluded mess, living in a Nerverland in his head."
4)."Is it true, as I think it is, that Bach, Handel, Purcell, Gibbons and Corelli can say more in two minutes than Michael Jackson did in his entire life?"
4)."People love to defend him by calling him 'childlike', but then turn around and pretend he deserves the respect of an 'adult' artist."
5)."Is it a pity that millions of people in this country have never been introduced to good music - and have, for example, been completely cut off from the great tradition of English church music that was a normal part of the lives of previous generations?"
6)."All you've said so far was that Jackson was a 'colourful character'.
Obama and Ahmadinejad are also colourful characters. Completely deluded, but still colourful characters."

Now, since I was a bit harsh in my critique of you earlier, I will break down these items, and demonstrate that they do qualify as evidence of envy.

1). I consider it to be odd that any human being on earth could ever witness Michael Jackson dancing, and consider it to be "pathetic" of others to express feeling of adulation because of his ability. The next item is your use of the words "overblown" in describing the adulation many feel for the man; myself included. http://dictionary.reference.co... cites envy as being: "a feeling of discontent or covetousness with regard to another's advantages, success, possessions, etc." Now, I believe it's obvious that you have a "feeling of discontent" in regards to the "pathetic" and "overblown adulation" that many people have for Michael. I most certainly made a decent case that you do. I acknowledge that I might be wrong in my estimate, however, I have a right to express it. I have good reason to.

2).In this instance you "demonize" the man's talent with no good reason. If you were to be appropriate in such a statement, you would have to link us to, or refer to a recording of Michael Jackson singing a call for Jihad. Perhaps a video of him dancing with PLO style militia wearing terrorist costumes dancing, and detonating themselves. No such thing exists. Michael Jackson's enduring legacy is that he promoted peace. THIS is where I disagreed with Michael totally. Peace at all costs--in my view--is as retarded as war for no reason. Since there was absolutely no reason for you to demonize Michael's talent, then, it is rational for one to infer that there is--in your mind--some "problem" you have with the man's talent. Refer to the definition of envy in #1.

3).I guess that I don't find it odd that someone built an amusement park at their home, because I would do the same thing if and when I can. What's delusional about this? The park exists. He was not some nutcase that believed there to be an amusement park in his backyard, but was not there. He was a creative genius that accumulated enough wealth from his ability to build and enjoy one. In my view, statements such as this one indicate a need for you to diminish--through trickery if necessary--Michael's achievements. Why? I refer you to envy definition in #1 as my suggested reason.

4a).I don't need to diminish the accomplishments of any of your touted artists or their accomplishments in order to make my point here. I am tempted; but I won't. I will however state that the visual aspects of Michael's genius can't be discounted out of existence. Let's take Bach for example. In regards to any one of his fugues, there exists only the fugue. Michael combined such composition with acting, dance, extreme beauty and filmed projection of heroism, that--in my view--lifts him up to and perhaps above your stated artists.

For example: review Bach's Fugue in G minor, which to me is one of his most thrilling works. I think as most others do that Bach is the absolute greatest composer of them all. A strong if not overwhelming case can be made that he created music as it is today.

Now, let's compare this work to another of Michael Jackson:

Click the video area for Michael's in order to goto youtube and view the video. Embedding is disabled.

Now, musically the two works can be compared. If you are silly, and divorce purpose from your evaluation, then perhaps not; I would never do such a thing. Michael's artistic vision and message are crystal clear to anyone. The beauty of the song itself integrated with the serenity in the various scenes, which all integrate with his voice and remarkable acting to produce a work of art that rivals all, and surpasses most. This is just one such work. Wether or not one likes the work is irrelevant. What is relevant is wether or not one is big enough to admit the nature of the work itself, and it's success or failure at projecting the artist's view of man and his existence. To quote Ayn Rand:

"By a selective re-creation, art isolates and integrates those aspects of reality which represent man’s fundamental view of himself and of existence. Out of the countless number of concretes—of single, disorganized and (seemingly) contradictory attributes, actions and entities—an artist isolates the things which he regards as metaphysically essential and integrates them into a single new concrete that represents an embodied abstraction.

For instance, consider two statues of man: one as a Greek god, the other as a deformed medieval monstrosity. Both are metaphysical estimates of man; both are projections of the artist’s view of man’s nature; both are concretized representations of the philosophy of their respective cultures.

Art is a concretization of metaphysics. Art brings man’s concepts to the perceptual level of his consciousness and allows him to grasp them directly, as if they were percepts.

This is the psycho-epistemological function of art and the reason of its importance in man’s life (and the crux of the Objectivist esthetics)."

I can see clearly Michael's view of existence as it should be, and love him for it; it is a liar that says he can't. To allege a reduction in Michael's work is as false as can be, and is indeed, yet another attempt at minimization--in my view. If you have a need to minimize his work, then, I refer you once again to definition of envy in #1.

4b). The only way I think that anyone could "take" this remark is that since Michael Jackson is childlike in his attitude towards life, then, his work can't be taken seriously. Now if this 'aint ad hominem I don't know what is! Perhaps, then, you aren't envious in this statement, your are just horribly desperate to argue against his work. But, that would take us back to square 1, in that why would you be so emotionally charged to build a case that states that Michael's work should not be taken seriously; such, that you resort to an ad hominem "argument?" Refer to definition of envy in #1.

For points #5 and #6 I already argued then throuroughly. I believe that a simple scroll should suffice. The motivation that I may or may not have cited is dealt with--once again--in #1's definition of envy.

"Twice I have pointed out that you confused my words with those I quoted of the journalist Peter Hitchens in the Daily Mail.
You simply ignore that as well."

I reviewed the thread, and see what you mean. I am sorry that I missed where the quotes were placed. I did respond to Christopher's statement and not yours. I recant any such statements I made that indicate that you are ridiculous in believing it "sad" that other people don't like the same things that you do.

Hopefully, now, you at least have a perfect account of things from my perspective.

I've no desire to wade into any "arguments" about the so-called merits of a famous child molester. And outside of a slight feeling of relief, the recent demise of this foul creature is of no concern to me.

However, this thread has raised some interesting commentary concerning race and racism, and that is an area I would like to explore further. So instead of hijacking this thread, I've decided to create my first blog entry.

I hope you folks find it interesting and entertaining.

Howard

iGod,

"Now, if you retrace the thread, you will see conclusively that I am the only one who actually replied to the arguments, and claims. I indeed addressed the "substance" of the arguments presented, and produced counter examples."

I haven't seen any 'logic' based on any 'substance' in your claims that my dislike of MJ is racially motivated.

The only specific charge you have made against me is that 'envy' or 'jealousy' must drive me to hate Jackson on racial grounds.

You haven't quoted any evidence of that.

I have said that I do not envy MJ, but you simply ignore that. Where's your evidence that I envy MJ?

Again my ignored question to you. Why should I envy someone who I dislike? Why should I want what MJ had? I would definitely not want to live my life the same way he did.

So why wouldn't I just chose another pop star to be envious of, of whose life I approved of, if that's what I sought? God knows there are enough of them to choose from out there.

Twice I have pointed out that you confused my words with those I quoted of the journalist Peter Hitchens in the Daily Mail.

You simply ignore that as well.

It seems to me that rather than being logical or substantive you're just having an emotion-fuelled rant at anyone who dislikes MJ.

Well, don't expect me to address you further if you continue in that hysterical vein.

I am angry. But as a human being; and, one of the great ones within this species.

I like your contributions. I don't get shot down as much as I would have thought, this being a relatively robust debating ground. I "play" it safe if I'm unsure.

Beginning:

I am not here to "paint" myself in any manner. I am here to exchange Ideas and discuss issues with other "like-minded" people. Unfortunately, so far this group falls short of my expectations. If there are some here who believe that black people are "looking for racial boogie men" if they mention racism expressed by a white person, then fuck it; I don't give a shit what such shit thinks about me.

"There might be people with racial biases here, but this is the one place where you are least likely to find them."

So? I agree that most forums have racial bias, and that the level of bias here is probably less. However, it is most appalling to me and quite distasteful that such racial bias is directed negatively at one of mankind's best, as opposed to some face in the crowd--among "objectivists." Just say I hit the lottery, and in spite of overwhelming odds, I found the "needle in the haystack" racial bias here.

"My suspicion is that you could be a great contributor to these forums..."

If you would get in your place, and let us write on your mind what to think and how to express it. --Not going to happen.

"Michael Jackson was a great talent, but people here have various opinions. Your job, if you want to be above the fray, as you claim to be is to sway them by logic."

Your assumption this time! I am not trying to "sway" anyone. I will quote my purpose: "I will pick out a few of the most ridiculous quotes—and ridicule them."

I used logic to ridicule, not persuade. It is fine with me that marcus and company have their opinions, and it is fine with me that they express them. However, just as they can express their opinions about Michael, I reserve the right to express my opinions about what they say. I don't see anything unfair about this. The ONLY unfair thing, is your and other's attempt to get me to "take it easy" on people that were so hard on someone else themselves.

When I was in the fifth grade, there was a really big bully in our class. I think Barry had been kept back more than once, because he had a mustache, and was bigger and taller than any two of us in the entire school. Anyway, Barry would bully, and beat up kids in the class at will, until one day he started a fight with me. I ran. I ran off the playground. I ran right out of the front of the school. I ran right to where there was construction going on in the street, and the diggers had dislodged hunks of street into big chunks. I grabbed a good sized piece. I ran back around the school. I ran back to the playground. I ran right up to Barry. As I ran towards Barry, I started to swing the hunk of street I had in my hand towards Barry's face. I landed the blow. Barry lay on the ground, with a need for stitches.

I don't like bullies.

Michael Jackson was a great dancer, singer, composer; but, he was a timid and child-like nerd. He was such a timid fella that he allowed himself to be ground under. It is sad--to me--that people such as him, sometimes don't develop or create within themselves the will to fight back. But what is much more horrible--to me--is that there are so many people that will beat up on people like him.

Over the years, I watched the sea of maggots bite at Michael, slander the man with obvious bullshit charges, and rake him over the coals for being different. It was OK for him to be different in the ways that pleased them: dancer, singer, musician; but, he had better be just like everyone else otherwise. As Scott said, him building an amusement park on his property marked him some sort of delusional deviant, open for slander and scorn. Such people as Scott--of course--could care less about the fact that as a child he didn't get to enjoy these things. Crude, cruel bastard.

I satisfied my desire to beat down the bullies here in this discussion thread, as I would have liked to beat down the bullies who tore at such a wonderful person as Michael Jackson; who themselves, were all mediocre; who themselves, were all nobodies by comparison.

Since you were semi-respectful I explained this to you. Not to get your permission, but to put down any misconception that you might have of me as some "angry black man." I am angry. But as a human being; and, one of the great ones within this species.

"Trash talking and using racial ad hominems aren't likely to sway anyone. You are an intelligent person, but you aren't worth a damn here if you keep this up."

In the discussion on this board, where I am involved, I am the ONLY one who addressed what was stated, and dealt with the premises and conclusions... Including you. In case you didn't know, I will give you the definition of ad hominem:

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject."

Now, if you retrace the thread, you will see conclusively that I am the only one who actually replied to the arguments, and claims. I indeed addressed the "substance" of the arguments presented, and produced counter examples, etc. Yes, after laying proper premises, I formed conclusions that attacked certain people's character; but, this is NOT ad hominem unto itself. The requirement of ad hominem is that the name calling be the ONLY aspect or main aspect of the presentation, where no support or evidence is offered.

For example:

Sandi said the following: "When you say "I do worship Michael Jackson, as I worship Muhammad Ali; as I worship Michael Jordan; as I worship Mozart; as I worship Ayn Rand." You use the term worship in the same sentence as equating Michael Jordon and various others in the same light as Ayn Rand, which quite frankly is an absolute INSULT to her; and most disturbing to read."

I retorted:
"Now this beat all! I thought marcus was the MOST bigoted and retarded thing since Pat Robertson, but sandi takes the prize. Why NOT equate Ayn Rand to any of the aforementioned? Just in case you would possibly try and construct an intelligent answer to that question, I will give you a philosophic condom and tell you that context plays a major part here. I did not say that Michael Jordan is Ayn Rand's equal as a philosopher, he is AT LEAST her equal in his field of expertise. I refer you to the lesson I already gave marcus on "context dropping" in an earlier post. You should read it. In lieu, I offer the following quote from Leonard Peikoff:

"Whenever you tear an idea from its context and treat it as though it were a self-sufficient, independent item, you invalidate the thought process involved. If you omit the context, or even a crucial aspect of it, then no matter what you say it will not be valid . . . .

A context-dropper forgets or evades any wider context. He stares at only one element, and he thinks, “I can change just this one point, and everything else will remain the same.” In fact, everything is interconnected. That one element involves a whole context, and to assess a change in one element, you must see what it means in the whole context."

Now, hopefully, since Leonard Peikoff is more like Ayn Rand and Mozart as opposed to Muhammad Ali, Michael Jordan, Michael Jackson or me, perhaps then, you will pay some much needed attention, and learn once and for all, what context means to true cognition. Your need to evade the greatness of achievements made by people of African descent mandates that you drop the context of greatness within a particular field of expertise, and attempt to judge them all as if they are philosophers or what is termed "classic composers." I believe that this is your way of rationalizing collectivism while not "getting caught" at it.

You believe (i believe) that African American achievement is a threat to some collective notion of superiority possessed by europeans. This is pure humbug! Get over it; Genius comes from individuals purely; not from individuals within a collective such as a race."

THIS is far from an ad hominem approach. If it were ad hominem it would have simply been:

"Sandi is a racist pig, who is jealous of any black person who can dance, because when she attempts to do so herself, she looks like a robotic monster, without grace or style; rather clumsy. Therefore, can't you see that she is wrong in her opinion about Michael Jackson?"

Now, that I explained ad hominem, can't you see that you mislabeled me? Also, when yo say "worth a damn here" what do you mean? "Worth a damn" to who, and for what purpose?

Not that I think that my purpose should be anything YOU would say, I do think that a purpose could be to teach you all a bit about basic philosophic thought, and hopefully graduate into objectivism from there. The misuse and abuse of philosophic terminology, and methods are rampant here, and really need "tidying up".

"We clear now Jason?"

If that is how you want it to be. Though I still have my doubts. Go ahead. Paint yourself as a paranoid loudmouth looking for racial boogie men over a few comments here about Michael Jackson that you don't like. There might be people with racial biases here, but this is the one place where you are least likely to find them. My suspicion is that you could be a great contributor to these forums. Michael Jackson was a great talent, but people here have various opinions. Your job, if you want to be above the fray, as you claim to be is to sway them by logic. Trash talking and using racial ad hominems aren't likely to sway anyone. You are an intelligent person, but you aren't worth a damn here if you keep this up.

For all previous posts where I used the term "euro-Americans", substitute "white people." I wouldn't want Jason to be confused, and think that since the white folk I was talking to and about may not have been American, that the meaning was any different.

We clear now Jason?

So? If this is what I have reduced you to, then I can consider myself having done well as crushing this issue!

Funny though, when being right about so much, the little things don't sting too bad, and it's pretty easy to admit when you are wrong.

Jason Quintana was right: I assumed that the majority of the audience was American.

HAHAHA!!!!!

Mr. iGod. Why do you assume you are dealing with "euro-Americans"? Only one of the people who you are going after here is even an American citizen.

-Michael Jackson's funeral coverage, congressional resolution, presidential condolences, and global interest speak to his greatness, magnificence, and beauty as a human being, trapped in a world consumed by pathetic apes like you, marcus.-

"'By this standard, Ayatollah Khomeini and Vladimir Lenin must have been two of the greatest, most magnificent and beautiful human beings who ever lived.'"

Duh... Beginning with the fact that I doubt that even Obama would send presidential condolences to the Ayatollah, nor even Pellosi's congress would introduce a commemorative bill for Lenin, I will go on to add that I only said that these things "speak to his greatness." Michael Jackson's history is in no way laden with droves of human deprivation and starvation and death. His history is in no way is linked to terrorism or women being stoned to death. Michael Jackson's global recognition is the result of free choice by the millions of people such as myself who found value in what he brought into our lives, where Lenin and Khomeini are dictators. Do you REALLY teach philosophy to children? Whew!

How many people were interested in Lenin's passing, other than those who were forced to attend by the government?

Judging by the thousands of people in the streets protesting in Iran, there would probably be jubilation on the part of the Iranians if the Ayatollah died.

Were you serious, or did you think your comments: "cute?"

And as to your "love" of Leontyne Price...

"Some of my best friends are ______________" is the MOST moth-ridden cloak that racists use. Leontyne Price was awesome. She had a beautiful voice. Period. Dance? Composition? Thrilling and memorable performances? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........ Oh! I forgot that "people in the know" never say that Opera is boring... my bad.

"but holding up a tragically inauthentic pop-star as some kind of god is pretty silly" + "And I don't say that because I'm racist, jealous or in need of ripping down "giants" - I say that because IMO the poor guy hated himself - a state of mind I wouldn't wish on any soul." = nonsense.

Do you realize that what you are saying is that Michael Jackson is an "inauthentic pop-star" because he "hated himself?" Perhaps, you meant something else, but, were too hung up trying to be guarded, and not open to me ripping you a new one? You failed.

"Your pulling the racist card in this discussion is very, very wrong-headed. Whatever can you mean by it? Do you think some of us didn't have much respect for Michael because he's black? If so, that certainly wouldn't make much sense of my immense respect for one Leontyne Price."

What is it with some of you folk? You think and so-speak such that life is a "game" where there are "cards" one pulls in order to "win." I guess that this is true of some people, but I don't "pull cards;" sometimes, I choose to talk straight instead of not mentioning what's REALLY going on; I sometimes name racism when the term applies.

As I stated when I made the "racism" allegation, I could have merely dealt with the issues as they came, making no reference as to WHY such rubbish was being stated by marcus. Of course I know that in today's American culture, it is deemed by white people taboo to ever name racism as a cause for the racist things that some white people do, and say. I fully understand that what many euro-Americans want is for African-Americans to at most talk about or address the results of ______________, but never mention that _____________ is the cause. At work, and most of the time in public I do exactly that. Most of the time on various discussion boards I do as well. But my "school girl crush" had my emotions in an uproar on the day of Michael's funeral, and I chose to call shit like I see it. No apologies, and I still stand by my analysis. The cause of marcus' rants is not ______________, but is RACISM. I really don't care that any one or all of you don't agree. I don't see any reasoning amongst you beyond that you don't like to hear the word.

I don't know if any of you are familiar with basic philosophic standards of arguments, and how to properly address them, in order to not fall victim to various fallacies that can occur in such discussions. If you would say something like "I don't think enough of your reasons to even address them," then it was retarded of you to say anything at all. Otherwise, the appropriate thing would have been to address my premises, and then, perhaps you would be in a better position to attack my conclusion.

Your position is obviously that anytime someone of non-european lineage cites racism in any action, or thoughts expressed by a person of european descent, then he is absolutely wrong. There is never a time where such a claim can be made, according to you and others. And you call me silly. Well, I will take that one, since I AM silly as hell, and love to have fun; but, the fact remains that I gave good reasons for calling marcus' remarks racist, but the reasons go unaddressed, and my conclusion still stands.

'As to the racism bullshit, if his meanings are so obvious, perhaps you can illuminate us on that one too, Phillip.'

Again Charles is obvious, Olivia; his charges of racism are obviously bullshit.

what I think he actually *meant* was to berate Marcus and anyone else who didn't hold Michael in high regard.

As to the racism bullshit, if his meanings are so obvious, perhaps you can illuminate us on that one too, Phillip.

'By this standard, Ayatollah Khomeini and Vladimir Lenin must have been two of the greatest, most magnificent and beautiful human beings who ever lived.'

Oh, for Christsake! The global interest and condolences for Jackson were based on the joy that Jackson brought to many people; isn't it obvious that that is what Charles meant?

'I think your school-girl crush on Michael is really quite sweet...'
Oh well, put me down for that same school-girl crush then; he was near-genius, talented beyond belief. And that's enough.

Michael Jackson's funeral coverage, congressional resolution, presidential condolences, and global interest speak to his greatness, magnificence, and beauty as a human being, trapped in a world consumed by pathetic apes like you, marcus.

Dear iGod,

By this standard, Ayatollah Khomeini and Vladimir Lenin must have been two of the greatest, most magnificent and beautiful human beings who ever lived.

I think your school-girl crush on Michael is really quite sweet, but holding up a tragically inauthentic pop-star as some kind of god is pretty silly. And I don't say that because I'm racist, jealous or in need of ripping down "giants" - I say that because IMO the poor guy hated himself - a state of mind I wouldn't wish on any soul.

Your pulling the racist card in this discussion is very, very wrong-headed. Whatever can you mean by it? Do you think some of us didn't have much respect for Michael because he's black? If so, that certainly wouldn't make much sense of my immense respect for one Leontyne Price.

In Galt's name,
Amen.

"As long as you remain correct here..."

You expose your calibre of thinking with every sentence better than any foe could.

Since your type never shuts up, I will reiterate that your accusations of racism against Sandi and Marcus, and now me, are preposterous and unsupported, and your use of insults is unfortunate for someone who occasionally shows a glimmer of wanting to be taken seriously.

You aren't worth any more of my time, and I trust that the other readers here know the essentials about you now.

Scott:

It is a crying shame, that at no point you considered any of the more than valid points that I brought up; but instead, chose to evade them. With all sincerity and hope for you as a human being I ask that one day you really think about this thread, and remember these points that I raised. I already know that if you want to be correct, and fair, then, you will undoubtedly see things as I do.

"You will probably conclude that there are too many white people on thee website and that their refusal to waste time on you is racism, since it is a favorite pet accusation of yours. I would suggest that you reconsider that, and consider other possibilities, but we both know that isn't going to happen."

I have found it to be quite true that there are many euro-Americans such as yourself that cringe and howl anytime someone notes a glimmer of racism among other euro-Americans; however, these nowadays, seem to be the vast minority. You now almost seem to be racist against euro-Americans; that, you believe you have 'em all figured out. I would say--once again--that you are quite wrong. There are many, many euro-Americans who see things clearly, and don't view reality as some sort of personal affront, where another euro-American simply exihibits a collectivist tendency that can be called "racist." Your paranoia in this regard clearly speaks to your own inner being, and I for one, would caution you against reckless exposure within circles of higher IQ such as this one.

As far as you not being one to "engage" me any further: humbug! You don't have any choice in the matter. If you would recall, it was I who responded initially to the retarded things that you and marcus wrote here. The fact that I totally crushed you both on your BS is what inspired the "dialogue," and leaves you now with your tail between your legs; licking your wounds. As long as you remain correct here on this board moving forward, you won't have any problems from me. Just remember: if you are wrong, and can't take it being pointed out, I will quote--quite appropriately--Michael Jackson and leave it alone:
"Your Butt Is Mine
Gonna Take You Right
Just Show Your Face
In Broad Daylight
I'm Telling You
On How I Feel
Gonna Hurt Your Mind
Gonna Shoot To Kill."

Charles:

You must have missed this part: "After having gotten to know you as well as I care to, it is good to know that my instinct about people remains sharp as ever."

I suspect that no one is going to be able to help you any further on any of these issues. Your last response is just more dirt on the grave where your credibility and worthiness to engage is buried.

Since your type never shuts up, I will reiterate that your accusations of racism against Sandi and Marcus, and now me, are preposterous and unsupported, and your use of insults is unfortunate for someone who occasionally shows a glimmer of wanting to be taken seriously.

You aren't worth any more of my time, and I trust that the other readers here know the essentials about you now.

You will probably conclude that there are too many white people on thee website and that their refusal to waste time on you is racism, since it is a favorite pet accusation of yours. I would suggest that you reconsider that, and consider other possibilities, but we both know that isn't going to happen.

"I am most interested as to how in epistemological terms, you integrate your instincts."

There are actually already some interesting things written on the subject, but as I think I have made clear, you are worth no more of my time.

Good luck with your anger, rudeness and racist outlook.

"First, I was ugly, and now, I'm fat?"

No. You are both of these things at the same time, I just mentioned each of them on separate occasions. This time I am talking about how dumb you are, and how your picture looks like someone caught taking a shit.

"Yes, you are the very soul of cleverness and wit."

Agreed.

"It does not change what YOU are, or what your "discourse" is.
Does it make sense for someone who is anti-theist to give himself a moniker with the capitalized "God" in it? Or to describe his own "style" as 'god-like?'"

Dummy taking a dump, the term "God" is talking about me, not the "holy", or numinous. If I were to say that you have a monstrous head, it does not mean that I believe in Godzilla. What such a statement would convey to those of greater intellect than yourself, is that your head is big as hell. Now is it OK that I state by my screen name that I consider myself my god?

"Your accusations towards Marcus and Sandi are unsupported by ANY evidence AT ALL. You have attempted to psychologize about them based upon their bare statements which in no way can be stretched by a fair and balanced mind to suggest racism."

You admit that there are some "bare statements" that exist, that I at least, consider to indicate racist "thinking". Dood, FYI, I am not one to stretch anything, nor am I one to ignore shit either. When a woman who is white states that Muhammad Ali, or Michael Jordan being compared to Ayn Rand is an insult to her and disturbing, while excluding Mozart from the list... well, anyone other than YOU will probably see where I'm coming from. I believe that you do too, and you did before your read that sentence. You are full of shit, sir, and lame as hell. You are the type white dood that insists that the overwhelming majority of death row inmates being freed by DNA evidence being black, is simple coincidence, having nothing to do with race. You funny as that look on your face would have me to believe!

"Come on, admit it. You are one of those brothers who likes to play that race card and watch whitey squirm, right?"

Not at all true of me. I REALLY am an objectivist. I don't get any pleasure from watching white people at large squirm, nor think that any non-racist white person WOULD squirm when one guilty of being racist is called on it.

AND, I resent you calling me a "brother."

"Congrats, you are a dick, and probably a black, anti-white racist. See, there is actual EVIDENCE for that. One of the bits of evidence is that you see racism everywhere. It is a tell-tale sign of the terms you think in."

Damn, you actually think I see racism everywhere? I have only responded to one topic here, and you claim that on all issues, on all topics, in all circumstances, I see racism. I see racism in my car; behind the toilet; next to the pink elephant even! Well, all I can say to that is: not.

I would also like to say to you that me seeing racist thinking on one issue does not mean that I think that the person is indeed a member of the Klan, or holistically a racist.

Also, the fact that I pointed out what I think to be racist thinking by two people in this discussion thread is shoddy "evidence" at best that I "see racism everywhere."

"The adults will go about their business taking ideas seriously and ignore your attempts to white-wash a deeply troubled man because his original skin color matches yours, as you are apt to do."

Where is the quote where I attempted to "white-wash" anything about Michael Jackson; and, when you dig up this quote, please place within its context where it is evident that I did so because his original skin color matches mine. I think that this is a fair request, don't you?

"The first clue about you should have been your possibly-pathologic inability to sense anything queer about Michael Jackson, his (chosen) appearance, his choices, and/or his behavior."

Again, I ask you to dig up a quote of mine to support this alleged "inability" on my part. I will give you a little help though: I only questioned your statement, I never made one of my own. I questioned why you said: "Everything about Michael Jackson the person is twisted, tragic, and delusional.", which is not at all unreasonable. YOU are the one who said that EVERYTHING about the man is blah, blah, blah; I only asked you to say why you think so. I also, said in harsher terms, that what he did to his face was his business. I will go further and say to you that you are retarded if you actually believe that how he ended up was his intention. He went too far, and couldn't fix what he broke. This mistake in my view, does not deem the man delusional, or twisted.

"After having gotten to know you as well as I care to, it is good to know that my instinct about people remains sharp as ever."

Write a book on Objectivist instincts. I am most interested as to how in epistemological terms, you integrate your instincts. You are a riot!

OK. I believe you are sincere with your questions, and I will gladly answer and have the discussion with you.

The standard by which I judge Michael Jackson is born of what I consider Michael Jackson to be: A Musical entertainer. Given that I believe him to be more than a singer, more than a composer, more than a dancer, more than an actor, I kinda' combine his attributes as one, and judge him according to the emotional charge that I get when witnessing him "do his thang."

Did he have a better voice? Yes. Compared to most of the artists you mentioned, I would have to say so.

Was he a better dancer? Yes. Sammy was the only artist mentioned, but no matter who the artist is, except possibly Usher, Michael Jackson is superior.

Was he more courageously and consistently committed to his artistic vision?

Certainly. In spite of all the hating, jealously, slander, false accusations, etc., Michael Jackson consistently kept doing his work, and fighting those who would have him silenced.

Was he more innovative musically and otherwise?

Hell yeah! No artist before him or really since him have taken music videos to the levels that he did. His concerts are magnificent spectacles of genius and theatric splendor. In dance, he was a god.

I'm not even 100% sure he was actually more popular at his peak than any of the others.

Well, I think that the best way to clear you up on this point is to tell you that the man has sold over 750,000,000 records as a solo artist. He is the top grossing performer of all time in live performances as well.

I would like to ask you something now: What works of Michael Jackson are you familiar with? What music videos of his have you seen? What songs have you listened to?

"How would it be "helpful," and who would be helped? What would be the ultimate goal of all this help?" [Charles Lester]

Right now I have no idea by what criteria or standards you're evaluating Michael Jackson's value as an entertainer. If he's superior to all those I listed, including Sammy Davis Jr. who probably has the most attributes in common (singer, dancer, popular entertainer), the natural question is "superior, by what standards?" Did he have a better voice? Was he a better dancer? Was he more courageously and consistently committed to his artistic vision? Was he more innovative musically and otherwise? I'm not even 100% sure he was actually more popular at his peak than any of the others. (Not that this last is a valid measure of worth in this context.)

So far as I've been able to ascertain, your sole listed criteria has been that he made more money, or sold more tickets, or something along those lines. I trust you don't think that overrides all other considerations, but I'm not sure, since you don't lay out your standards. (Neither have I, to be sure.)

The ultimate goal, of course, is to have a more objective evaluation - to the degree our present knowledge of the subject permits. I.e. to have a rational view of the subject, not one that comes down only to "well, I like him better." (No, I'm not ascribing this view to you.)

First, I was ugly, and now, I'm fat?

Yes, you are the very soul of cleverness and wit.

Look, you can hide your rhetoric behind patently ridiculous monikers such as "iGod" and describe your tripe as "overwhelming fashion of thorough analysis, sharp wit, eloquence, and god-like style" all you want.

It does not change what YOU are, or what your "discourse" is.

Does it make sense for someone who is anti-theist to give himself a moniker with the capitalized "God" in it? Or to describe his own "style" as "god-like?"

Your accusations towards Marcus and Sandi are unsupported by ANY evidence AT ALL. You have attempted to psychologize about them based upon their bare statements which in no way can be stretched by a fair and balanced mind to suggest racism.

Come on, admit it. You are one of those brothers who likes to play that race card and watch whitey squirm, right?

Well, not everyone squirms, friend, but reading your slimey nonsense makes me want to shower.

Repost your "evidence" and refer to it as evidence as much as you want. They remain, like you, utterly unimpressive.

I have never met either Marcus or Sandi. I agree with them on some issues, and disagree with them on some issues.

Just like you and I are likely to agree on some issues and disagree on others.

The first thing we'd disagree about is the propriety of accusing two good people of being racist on absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Congrats, you are a dick, and probably a black, anti-white racist. See, there is actual EVIDENCE for that. One of the bits of evidence is that you see racism everywhere. It is a tell-tale sign of the terms you think in.

The second would be whether you are likely to impress anyone you meet by use of baseless accusations of racism, or by repairing to the wit of the schoolyard- "you so ugly yo parents should be arrested" type stuff that you evidently misidentify as wit.

For someone who attempts to lecture on context, and to make light of people's appearance, maybe some time in front of a mirror, reflecting, would do you some good?

It is clear to me that you have non-rational methods of proof that would not make sense to fellows like me, so I'll tell you what.

You just go on ahead accusing good people of attributes not in their character, based on magical "god-like" evidence which exists in your own mind exclusively.

The adults will go about their business taking ideas seriously and ignore your attempts to white-wash a deeply troubled man because his original skin color matches yours, as you are apt to do.

The first clue about you should have been your possibly-pathologic inability to sense anything queer about Michael Jackson, his (chosen) appearance, his choices, and/or his behavior.

After having gotten to know you as well as I care to, it is good to know that my instinct about people remains sharp as ever.

"This is the second time you have accused someone on this site of being racist. Based on a conclusion with no evidence."

I guess this is your "clever" way of "scaring" me. Instead of addressing the evidence I offered in support of my conclusion, you pretended that none existed. This is corny as hell! In my typical overwhelming fashion of thorough analysis, sharp wit, eloquence, and god-like style I did indeed offer evidence.

Rather than type it all again, I will simply copy and paste Sandi's initial statement, and my rebuttal... As if you didn't see it the first time.

----------- Begin Sequence for Chunky Boi -----------

Sandi,
"When you say "I do worship Michael Jackson, as I worship Muhammad Ali; as I worship Michael Jordan; as I worship Mozart; as I worship Ayn Rand." You use the term worship in the same sentence as equating Michael Jordon and various others in the same light as Ayn Rand, which quite frankly is an absolute INSULT to her; and most disturbing to read."

Now this beat all! I thought marcus was the MOST bigoted and retarded thing since Pat Robertson, but sandi takes the prize. Why NOT equate Ayn Rand to any of the aforementioned? Just in case you would possibly try and construct an intelligent answer to that question, I will give you a philosophic condom, by telling you that context plays a major part in this. I did not say that Michael Jordan is Ayn Rand's equal as a philosopher, he is AT LEAST her equal in his field of expertise. I refer you to the lesson I already gave marcus on "context dropping" in an earlier post. You should read it. In lieu, I offer the following quote from Leonard Peikoff:

"Whenever you tear an idea from its context and treat it as though it were a self-sufficient, independent item, you invalidate the thought process involved. If you omit the context, or even a crucial aspect of it, then no matter what you say it will not be valid . . . .
A context-dropper forgets or evades any wider context. He stares at only one element, and he thinks, “I can change just this one point, and everything else will remain the same.” In fact, everything is interconnected. That one element involves a whole context, and to assess a change in one element, you must see what it means in the whole context."

Now, hopefully, since Leonard Peikoff is more like Ayn Rand and Mozart as opposed to Muhammad Ali, Michael Jordan, Michael Jackson or me, perhaps then, you will pay some much needed attention, and learn once and for all, what context means to true cognition. Your need to evade the greatness of achievements made by people of African descent mandates that you drop the context of greatness within a particular field of expertise, and attempt to judge them all as if they are philosophers or what is termed "classic composers." I believe that this is your way of rationalizing collectivism while not "getting caught" at it.

You believe (i believe) that African American achievement is a threat to some collective notion of superiority possessed by europeans. This is pure humbug! Get over it; Genius comes from individuals purely; not from individuals within a collective such as a race.

Yes, Michael Jackson as a musical entertainer is not the inferior to Ayn Rand within the context of personal achievement, and actualization of their potential at what they did for a living. She is the best philosopher; Michael is the best musical entertainer. Get it?

------------------- End Chunky Boi Sequence -------------------

Chunky Boi,

If you are going to confront me, at least acknowledge what I said, and address it without silly parlor tricks, such as, hanging one sentence out of three paragraphs in space, and pretending that the other three paragraphs don't exist.

Instead of becoming desperate—since I have been kicking the shit out of your buddies—and feeling a need to "say something", why not take a moment, and review the entire set of posts I have made. I don't necessarily believe that you are big enough yet to admit that I am absolutely right about my estimate of Michael Jackson as an artist; however, if you were critical and fair, you would without doubt find that I have made no errors in making solid cases with sound arguments.

Good day to you, too, Mr. Perren.

"How does Michael Jackson stack up, in your view, to such entertainers as:
The Nicholas Brothers, Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughan, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Sammy Davis Jr., or Nancy Wilson?"
IMHO, I believe Michael Jackson to be the superior of all those you mentioned; even though I don't know who the hell The Nicholas Brothers are... and I will--I guess--take that fact as my deciding proof about them.

All others who you mentioned are greats as singers, composers, band directors, and with Sammy: all and plus some more. However, when one compares Sammy to Michael, Sammy comes up a little short... Pardon the pun.

"I realize you didn't generate the phrase "truly great entertainers" on this thread, but it would be helpful if you could try to answer that question as well."

How would it be "helpful," and who would be helped? What would be the ultimate goal of all this help?

"P.S. By the way, we're all of "African descent." Some have more recent ancestors than others, that's all. Not that this matters to the question at hand."

I agree it matters nothing. It doesn't even impress me.

To Sandi:"You believe (i believe) that African American achievement is a threat to some collective notion of superiority possessed by europeans. This is pure humbug! Get over it; Genius comes from individuals purely; not from individuals within a collective such as a race."

This is the second time you have accused someone on this site of being racist. Based on a conclusion with no evidence.

It is also the first refuge of mediocre intellects.

You have charged Marcus with being a racist.

Why don't you show some integrity and apologize, right now, or demonstrate clearly that it is not YOU who are the racist, friend.

Through your oblique bullying and tut-tutting, I suppose that we are to turn from our conclusions based on the tragic man and his tragic life?

Not going to happen.

You say: "What in particular are you saying is "twisted, tragic, and delusional?""

A handsome young man turning himself into, literally, a freak, by choice, is in my opinion, twisted, tragic and delusional.

The veils he had his children wear around in public--bizarre, and some evidence.

A grown man who creates a playland park as his home and prefers the company of young children to adults is a certain sign of, at least, stunted development.

One need only review his life to see many, many more examples of a tragic life.

You do not address any of this, nor even acknowledge it. Since you seem superficially conversant with Ayn Rand, you know what that means, right?

Your go on: "...moaning the image that appears above your posts"

Listen. You can call me ugly if you want to. That doesn't make you dumb, but it does make your behavior rather rude.

What reveals your capacities, using the term loosely, is the fact that you seem not to be able to distinguish what Michael HAD and what he traded it in for.

There are objective standards by which to judge beauty and ugliness. You do not see what he made himself, and cannot acknowledge how handsome he was when he started out?

Since it is seems clear that you did not understand that I did not ~literally~ mean that Michael committed a crime, let me clarify.

It was a crime against beauty that Michael distorted his face. That's all.

And you are wrong again when your write "... I of course would never say such a mean thing, but, it would not be inappropriate."

It is completely inappropriate, and lowers your "discourse" to the level of schoolyard insults. So much for being taken seriously, eh?

What inner ugliness or confusion makes a handsome man do that to himself? We will never know in full detail, but the proof is in the pudding.

I am sorry if my visage offends, my friend, but I am as I am. No consolation, but you aren't my type, either.

Temper tantrums and insults do nothing to dissuade me from acknowledging Michael Jackson's talent and contributions to music and entertainment, but having nothing but sympathy for a poor, tortured soul.

Good day, Mr. Lester.

"Your need to evade the greatness of achievements made by people of African descent mandates that you drop the context of greatness within a particular field of expertise, and attempt to judge them all as if they are philosophers or what is termed 'classic composers.'" [Charles Lester]

Good point. Let's compare apples to more or less apples.

How does Michael Jackson stack up, in your view, to such entertainers as:

The Nicholas Brothers, Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughan, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Sammy Davis Jr., or Nancy Wilson?

"By what standard do you judge the 'pantheon of truly great entertainers'?" [Charles Lester]

I realize you didn't generate the phrase "truly great entertainers" on this thread, but it would be helpful if you could try to answer that question as well.

P.S. By the way, we're all of "African descent." Some have more recent ancestors than others, that's all. Not that this matters to the question at hand.

"I lament the way he altered his appearance. And it reveals a disturbed ego. But I won't lose any sleep over it."

Ross,

For years and years I thought exactly the same thing, but, I have an alternative view of the situation now, and am in process of writing a paper on it. I will be sure to post it here when I am done, and think that you might find it very interesting. I don't think that his ego was disturbed at all is all I will say for now.

"if someone is to be condemned as "detestable slime" for not liking Michael Jackson, or denying his greatness, what words are left for real slime like Adolf Hitler?"

Piece of shit.

Dirty Bastard.

Mutha Fucka.

Asshole.

Satan's Afterbirth.

Jesus.

It seemed like a nice pic of him. And early on, maybe early 80s.

I lament the way he altered his appearance. And it reveals a disturbed ego. But I won't lose any sleep over it.

"And the simple truth is that Michael, while great in his field, was not as uniquely great as you say in the pantheon of truly great entertainers."

By what standard do you judge the "pantheon of truly great entertainers"?

I look forward to the rebuttal.

Not a trick question. What I was getting at is the matter of perspective: if someone is to be condemned as "detestable slime" for not liking Michael Jackson, or denying his greatness, what words are left for real slime like Adolf Hitler?

I'm not unsympathetic. I call musical filth "filth" and get chided for it. See my essay here, Music of the Gods. But I still have many words left for Hitler. And the simple truth is that Michael, while great in his field, was not as uniquely great as you say in the pantheon of truly great entertainers.

I can acknowledge greatness, even if I am not particularly in love with the genre.

Oh, that we could say the same of Linz and thrash metal.

Is this a "trick" question?

Please explain how Adolf Hitler is connected to this.

AND, I did not claim that marcus was "detestable slime" because he does not "like Michael Jackson". Of course, that would be wrong.

For example: I HATE golf. However, I would never say that Tiger Woods is not worthy of mention, or that he is "overblown, etc.". I can acknowledge greatness, even if I am not particularly in love with the genre. Another example would be Larry Bird. Even though he was boring to watch by my standards, I can see the undeniable talent that he possessed, and would never try and argue his records and achievements as "overblown, etc.". Hopefully, I have cleared up my position for you and any others interested.

Now, answer my question if you don't mind:

Were you REALLY confused about all this?

If I envy someone, I don't seek to diminish them but to praise them.

Some you have mentioned: Mozart and Ayn Rand, but also Charles Darwin, George Orwell, Newton, Aristotle and Ian Fleming. (For the dead ones).

For the living ones: Jim Watson, Richard Dawkins and Craig Venter for example. And black ones too: Lewis Hamilton, Thomas Sowell, Will Smith and yes, Muhammad Ali.

Lest you think I'm racist.

Sandi,

"You seem to place a huge value in worship and it appears to me that you also value worshipping other people more than worshipping yourself. Indeed you do sound as if you are religious because a religious person does not recognise the (self) as the highest of all."

???

Do I sound religious; or is it that you see my picture, and ASSUME that I am religious? I am an anti-theist.

How does one who proclaims to worship great men end up being construed as being one who "does not recognise the (self) as the highest of all"? Did I say for instance that I worship these men as greater than myself (to me), or more important to me than me? Did you have half the pages of Atlas Shrugged missing from your copy? You had better go to the store and buy the book again if this is the case.

Btw: how did you find my website?

I didn't. It was drawn to my attention.

Now: I disagree that marcus is not "the enemy." In my view, anyone who refuses to acknowledges Michael Jackson's undeniable greatness, and "hides" the cause of their alleged "blindness" as "preference," or worse: incompetence on Michael's part is a detestable slime... in my view. If you disagree with my estimate, don't think of me as bigoted, call it an "anti-preference" of mine.

If you call someone a detestable slime for not liking Michael Jackson, what do you call Adolf Hitler?

Sandi,

"When you say "I do worship Michael Jackson, as I worship Muhammad Ali; as I worship Michael Jordan; as I worship Mozart; as I worship Ayn Rand." You use the term worship in the same sentence as equating Michael Jordon and various others in the same light as Ayn Rand, which quite frankly is an absolute INSULT to her; and most disturbing to read."

Now this beat all! I thought marcus was the MOST bigoted and retarded thing since Pat Robertson, but sandi takes the prize. Why NOT equate Ayn Rand to any of the aforementioned? Just in case you would possibly try and construct an intelligent answer to that question, I will give you a philosophic condom and tell you that context plays a major part here. I did not say that Michael Jordan is Ayn Rand's equal as a philosopher, he is AT LEAST her equal in his field of expertise. I refer you to the lesson I already gave marcus on "context dropping" in an earlier post. You should read it. In lieu, I offer the following quote from Leonard Peikoff:

"Whenever you tear an idea from its context and treat it as though it were a self-sufficient, independent item, you invalidate the thought process involved. If you omit the context, or even a crucial aspect of it, then no matter what you say it will not be valid . . . .
A context-dropper forgets or evades any wider context. He stares at only one element, and he thinks, “I can change just this one point, and everything else will remain the same.” In fact, everything is interconnected. That one element involves a whole context, and to assess a change in one element, you must see what it means in the whole context."

Now, hopefully, since Leonard Peikoff is more like Ayn Rand and Mozart as opposed to Muhammad Ali, Michael Jordan, Michael Jackson or me, perhaps then, you will pay some much needed attention, and learn once and for all, what context means to true cognition. Your need to evade the greatness of achievements made by people of African descent mandates that you drop the context of greatness within a particular field of expertise, and attempt to judge them all as if they are philosophers or what is termed "classic composers." I believe that this is your way of rationalizing collectivism while not "getting caught" at it.

You believe (i believe) that African American achievement is a threat to some collective notion of superiority possessed by europeans. This is pure humbug! Get over it; Genius comes from individuals purely; not from individuals within a collective such as a race.

Yes, Michael Jackson as a musical entertainer is not the inferior to Ayn Rand within the context of personal achievement, and actualization of their potential at what they did for a living. She is the best philosopher; Michael is the best musical entertainer. Get it?

Sharon,

I quoted EVERYTHING I responded to in what I wrote, and if you were to read the entire post, I am sure that you would find the analogy I presented to be quite easy to understand. If you are "curious," then, I would think that that burning curiosity would have motivated you to read it. I guess I have to tell you what to do then: READ THE POST, and if you have any questions from there I will answer to the best of my ability.

BTW: Since you didn't understand the argument, how did you conclude that I "take too much for granted"? Just "curious".

Yes, that presentation was done by me. About 4 years ago.

Btw: how did you find my website?

AND: Thanks!

Now: I disagree that marcus is not "the enemy." In my view, anyone who refuses to acknowledges Michael Jackson's undeniable greatness, and "hides" the cause of their alleged "blindness" as "preference," or worse: incompetence on Michael's part is a detestable slime... in my view. If you disagree with my estimate, don't think of me as bigoted, call it an "anti-preference" of mine.

equating Michael Jordon and various others in the same light as Ayn Rand, which quite frankly is an absolute INSULT to her

How is being ranked alongside Michael Jackson, Muhammad Ali, Michael Jordan and Mozart an insult to Ayn Rand?

When you say "I do worship Michael Jackson, as I worship Muhammad Ali; as I worship Michael Jordan; as I worship Mozart; as I worship Ayn Rand." You use the term worship in the same sentence as equating Michael Jordon and various others in the same light as Ayn Rand, which quite frankly is an absolute INSULT to her; and most disturbing to read.

You seem to place a huge value in worship and it appears to me that you also value worshipping other people more than worshipping yourself. Indeed you do sound as if you are religious because a religious person does not recognise the (self) as the highest of all.

I welcome you to SOLO and admire your eloquence, but honestly, Marcus is not the enemy—he's one of the good guys. Take a look at his Global Warming thread in the blue area—one of the best resource kits for freedom fighters there is. I suggest he doesn't boil with envy towards MJ, just doesn't care for him or the current hoopla about him. That's not a crime is it?

On another matter, is this you?:

http://www.aquatiqdesign.com/a...

Enjoyed it greatly.

"...Such a thing is analogous to a comparison between Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson."

IGod, you take too much for granted. What is the purported argument here? I’m just curious.

@Marcus:

I guess that I deluded myself and believed that you would simply "check" yourself by realizing that you are unmasked as the jealous, envious, and mediocre twit that you are. I submit to the error of my thinking. You are not only envious and jealous mediocrity; you can now add stupid to your list of sins.

marcus the Jealous said:

"iGod, I don't know who you are or why I should care whether or not you wish to worship MJ, but you are obviously full of shit."

iGod says:

You do know who I am. I am the one who so eloquently, while using great insight and scholarship, annihilated your pathetic attempts at cloaked racism. I will go back to pretending, and acting as if I can't see what's REALLY going on, but I thought it "cute" to throw that one out there, since today we bury a beautiful man that died before he discovered Ayn Rand. If HE could have been exposed to her philosophy, then, I believe his story would have ended quite differently; you worm.

As far as wether or not you care of my worship of MJ, I have to ask you when did I say that you should? What inspired this remark? I guess that you wanted to say something, and really couldn't, so you just said... something. "Something" with no purpose; "Something" with no context; "Something" with no meaning... "iGod did such a good job of pointing out how retarded my remarks really were... I gotta say 'something'." Once again marcus: You funny!

As for me being "obviously full of shit," I will take that as your "obvious" intellectual defeat. You are a barrel of laughs... seriously.

marcus the Envious said:

"'Never have I EVER heard delusions of grandeur so grand!'
And you call yourself, iGod?
MJ did have some talent, I've said so before.
You worship him if you want to, but don't expect me to join in with your MJ-God delusion!"

iGod says:

What?!!! I guess that I should have created the identity of "MarcusMyGod", nothing less would do; would it? This isn't at all surprising, since you are the one who expressed earlier his sorrow over the fact that people don't like the same things that you do. How much more pathetic can one be, than someone who "hangs out" amongst objectivists, and, is taken aback by another who proclaims that he is his own god? Are you serious?

It's sickening to me that things like marcus try and smuggle in a false perception of themselves as being objective. marcus attempts this by falling back, and giving ground to truth by issuing statements such as: "he had SOME talent." THIS is where things like marcus become exposed as the thing that they are. marcus, Michael Jackson is not the result of some inborn "talent" that he fooled people into believing to be polished, and perfected performances. A simple "talent" is what YOU may have in the shower at home. What Michael Jackson displays in his music videos, in his concerts, and in his recordings is far beyond simple un-earned talent. Michael took his un-earned talent and perfected it into that which has people from across the globe, watching his funeral and mourning his death.

Your "talents" and sadly--I guess--your full fledged abilities will have perhaps a simple gathering of losers like yourself at your funeral... if they can afford to take off of work to attend. If your family can afford to scrape enough money together, they might be able to buy an obituary in your local newspaper. Michael Jackson's funeral coverage, congressional resolution, presidential condolences, and global interest speak to his greatness, magnificence, and beauty as a human being, trapped in a world consumed by pathetic apes like you, marcus.

I do worship Michael Jackson, as I worship Muhammad Ali; as I worship Michael Jordan; as I worship Mozart; as I worship Ayn Rand. I worship the greatness within this species, who are all too often bogged down by "things" like you. I also long for the day when our species' gene pool has purged the remnants of other lesser-hominids like Java Man and you--marcus--once and for all! What else is there to worship other than Michael Jackson, marcus? You?

Hopefully, marcus, you will simply slither back into your cave, and espouse your boiling envy only to yourself. At minimum, I think, you should take great care before you match minds with the likes of me. Such a thing is analogous to a comparison between Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson.

Unlike you, I check my premises before I open my big mouth. I suggest you do the same; in so doing, I believe that you--for once--might arrive squarely where I am, you will be simply--correct.

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Fri, 2009-07-03 08:59.

Because their vile conscious convictions and vile sense of life were in sync.

Neither should it, and I don't enjoy them. But you should read The Romantic Manifesto to understand how some folk can have a benevolent sense of life that belies their conscious convictions. I'm certain Michael was a case in point.
_____________________________

Agree here all the way Mr. Perigo.

Regards,
Andrew

iGod says: " How do you define "pathetically overblown?"

Ross says: "In his prime he was handsome and magnetic, possessed of an energy and style that few have ever matched

After which face job was that photo taken?

iGod, I don't know who you are or why I should care whether or not you wish to worship MJ, but you are obviously full of shit.

Firstly you quoted Peter Hitichens' words as being my own and secondly you presume to know the mind of Lindsay Perigo.

"The term "colourful" was used within the context of music and musical performers."

I'm sure Lindsay can speak for himself! He's already stated that he didn't like MJ's music!

"Never have I EVER heard delusions of grandeur so grand!"

And you call yourself, iGod?

MJ did have some talent, I've said so before.

You worship him if you want to, but don't expect me to join in with your MJ-God delusion!

Michael Jackson will always be remembered for the work he did. His productive achievements speak for themselves. The vast sea of mediocrity that have all collected in order to pool their puss ridden sores, and shallow voices only serve to magnify his glory and majesty as a human being towering over roaches sprayed by RAID. Those whom history will not remember, who take pleasure when giants fall, who are bland and expressionless "faces in the crowd" make me happy; when, their envy boils over, and the pain of their nothingness inspires such retarded outbursts as those I have read here today.

I will pick out a few of the most ridiculous quotes—and ridicule them.

Marcus said:

"All you've said so far was that Jackson was a 'colourful character'.
Obama and Ahmadinejad are also colourful characters. Completely deluded, but still colourful characters."

iGod says:

Ayn Rand is the only person I have ever read who uses—so I assume that she created it—the concept: context dropping. Marcus' "clever" analogy is a classic case of context dropping. The term "colourful" was used within the context of music and musical performers. In order to demonize and/or diminish Michael Jackson, Marcus evades the context of his profession which is an artistic performer, and (crudely) places him within the context of political power monger. Marcus', context dropping is amateur, shabby, corny, lame, and makes him look like a snotty-smart-ass. I'm not calling you a snotty-smart-ass Marcus; I am only saying, that there are some who might.

Marcus says of Michael:

"No matter how pathetically overblown the adulation for MJ, at least he was a self-made man."

iGod says:

How do you define "pathetically overblown?" What Marcus, are YOU alleged to be the best at doing? And, if anyone on this planet were to give you and your ability honorable mention, is that estimate of YOUR OWN ability "overblown?" What objective standard do you use to judge yourself, and, is that the same standard by which you judge Michael?

I am pretty sure of one thing, and that is, if we counted in dollars the value of YOUR contributions on Earth, and then, compared your stack of dollars to Michael's, your stack would probably come up kinda' short. Is what you mean by "pathetically overblown," that which is considered by millions and millions of people to be worth their hard-earned money? Or, is what you are saying that, since YOU wouldn't have spent any of YOUR dollars on something, that no one else should? You are quite the arrogant twit aren't you? I guess that Brad Pit should switch it up, and get a dorky hair cut like... yours?

I will at least give you credit for acknowledging that Michael was a self-made man. Too bad though, that he made himself by having nothing at all worthy, when he sold hundreds of millions of records and concert seats around the globe. Do you see how silly, and pathetically jealous you sound Marcus?

Marcus says:

"I realise that there are plenty of people who don't share my tastes, who aren't my age, who dislike what I like or are indifferent to it, or who like what I dislike. I'm sorry about that, in many ways."

iGod says:

Never have I EVER heard delusions of grandeur so grand! Marcus, no need to be sorry that the population of earth aren't beating down the door to your barber to get that sporty little "nerd from hell" haircut and goatee you so proudly sport. I guess Michael should dance more like you too huh?

Marcus said:

"completely cut off from the great tradition of English church music that was a normal part of the lives of previous generations?"

iGod says:

Quoting Ayn Rand: "The plea to preserve “tradition” as such, can appeal only to those who have given up or to those who never intended to achieve anything in life. It is a plea that appeals to the worst elements in men and rejects the best: it appeals to fear, sloth, cowardice, conformity, self-doubt—and rejects creativeness, originality, courage, independence, self-reliance. It is an outrageous plea to address to human beings anywhere, but particularly outrageous here, in America, the country based on the principle that man must stand on his own feet, live by his own judgment, and move constantly forward as a productive, creative innovator.
The argument that we must respect “tradition” as such, respect it merely because it is a “tradition,” means that we must accept the values other men have chosen, merely because other men have chosen them—with the necessary implication of: who are we to change them? The affront to a man’s self-esteem, in such an argument, and the profound contempt for man’s nature are obvious."

—Marcus, you are a joke.

Atlas Scott says:

"Everything about Michael Jackson the person is twisted, tragic, and delusional. What he did to his pretty face is criminal. I would be profoundly concerned about the influence he had on young children, with his obvious and profound eccentricities. Unless we are to believe that they were all put-ons for the media, and of-camera he was a normal fellow, he may have damaged his children by contributing to their lives, or being a central figure in their development."

iGod says:

What in particular are you saying is "twisted, tragic, and delusional?" Strong words in my view, should be backed up with factual examples. What he did to HIS face is HIS BUSINESS! Some mean spirited person could say that your parents' pro-creation was criminal, for the result leaves all on this discussion board moaning the image that appears above your posts. I of course would never say such a mean thing, but, it would not be inappropriate. You kinda' open yourself up for such, when you say that Michael committed a "criminal" act by what he did to HIS face.

In conclusion, it seems to me that there is great intellectual development required, still, among many so-called objectivists, and that the mediocre within our ranks, need to come to grips with their respective capabilities and busy themselves: bettering themselves.

If Michael Jackson had philosophic deformities, then, his punishment was the same that it is for us all: destruction to his own life. It occurred, if it was required. However, on the up side, Michael's philosophic milestones were undeniable. His music, his videos endure, and spit in the face of the "Marcus element" within the world, and utterly obliterate the arguments against him as an artistic giant, during an otherwise ugly period of human history. As if to spite the jealous and envious rage that greatness inspires within some people, Michael Jackson's Video: "Bad" says it all. I am so glad that he made it.

Marcus and Atlas Scott: Ya' doin' wrong... Ya' know it!

Marcus and of YOUR kind should view it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

If you make a case I'll listen.
As a preliminary, I suggest you make a case that they even had some conscious convictions

The new video of Michael two days before his death shows him to be just fine and full of beans. Clearly he was killed by the doctor's injection.

Not necessarily. I know of at least one man who dropped dead of a heart attack within an hour of passing an echocardiogram with flying colors.

If you make a case I'll listen.

All you've said so far was that Jackson was a 'colourful character'.

Obama and Ahmadinejad are also colourful characters. Completely deluded, but still colourful characters.

Are you taking the piss?

No.

If not, could you explain why you do not value Slayer, Duchamp or Pollack for their 'conscious convictions' too?

Because their vile conscious convictions and vile sense of life were in sync.

Enjot them if you want to, it doesn't change my opinion of them.

Neither should it, and I don't enjoy them. But you should read The Romantic Manifesto to understand how some folk can have a benevolent sense of life that belies their conscious convictions. I'm certain Michael was a case in point.

Are you taking the piss?

If not, could you explain why those 'conscious convictions' should be of value to me?

If not, could you explain why you do not value Slayer, Duchamp or Pollack for their 'conscious convictions' too?

If every anti-life value you can find that those specimens espoused, I could find just as many for Jackson and Diana.

Enjoy them if you want to, it doesn't change my opinion of them.

You're both overlooking the sense of life that over-rode both their conscious convictions and explained their popularity.

...about the royal bimbo.

She deserved the adulation even less.

No matter how pathetically overblown the adulation for MJ, at least he was a self-made man.

The new video of Michael two days before his death shows him to be just fine and full of beans. Clearly he was killed by the doctor's injection. But the music is hideous. He'd succumbed completely to headbanging caterwauling.

reminds me of the same ridiculous frenzy whipped up over the death of another pop royalty bimbo.

If you mean Princess Diana--well, at least she was actually royalty, the member of the family most identified with by the public. (Anyone who identified with Jackson, OTOH, probably needs to see a psychiatrist stat. )And she probably did more of positive value in her life than MJ did.

But apparently MJ took the phrase "King of Pop" a little too seriously:

http://gotmedieval.blogspot.co...

reminds me of the same ridiculous frenzy whipped up over the death of another pop royalty bimbo.

Jesse Jackson proselytises his belief in god and implores congress to stand for a moment of silence in respect for Michael Jackson. Needless to say, they all stood up.

...so he might well be an intrinsicist.

Nevertheless, I think if you could fuse the brains of Peter and Christopher Hitchens, taking the best of both, you might well produce a like-minded Objectivist }:)

Peter could have been reading your mind here too:

"I don't find it at all amazing that other people are familiar with all this stuff and listen to it, and even seek it out.

I realise that there are plenty of people who don't share my tastes, who aren't my age, who dislike what I like or are indifferent to it, or who like what I dislike. I'm sorry about that, in many ways.

Proper music is far more potent and far better for the soul than the cheap stuff."

Can we actually say for certain that one thing is better than another, or more important than another?

Yes!! Albeit not in the intrinsicist sense Hitchens probably means.

If we can, and only if we can, we can also say that popularity is not a test of goodness, that the majority may be wrong, that education is better than ignorance, thought better than the other thing, order than chaos, beauty better than ugliness.

Galt forbid, however, that an Objectivist should say it about music on his own Objectivist site!

Peter Hitchens in the Daiy Mail...

"Mr Jackson was not Mozart, let alone my model for musical achievement, J.S.Bach, and in my view his work will not endure beyond the age in which it was popular (The reverse is true of Bach. Many of his works, unknown at the time, are now much beloved)...

What's really at issue here is what's really important, and what's really good.

Is it true, as I think it is, that Bach, Handel, Purcell, Gibbons and Corelli can say more in two minutes than Michael Jackson did in his entire life?

Is it true that Durham Cathedral is an immeasurably finer building than Centre Point, that Robert Frost is a better poet by hundreds of miles than Ted Hughes, that Rembrandt is a far greater artist than Picasso, and both of them in a different class from jokers such as Marcel Duchamp?

Can it be stated that Charles Dickens is a better novelist than Salman Rushdie?

Is it a pity that millions of people in this country have never been introduced to good music - and have, for example, been completely cut off from the great tradition of English church music that was a normal part of the lives of previous generations?

Can we actually say for certain that one thing is better than another, or more important than another?

If we can, and only if we can, we can also say that popularity is not a test of goodness, that the majority may be wrong, that education is better than ignorance, thought better than the other thing, order than chaos, beauty better than ugliness.

If we can't, then it's all chaos mingled with conformism, those who won't conform are to be scorned and perhaps punished, and nothing has any point beyond its immediate effect, the past and the future don't matter."

http://hitchensblog.mailonsund...

Michael Jackson is a modern tragedy and proof positive that the contents of your mind can destroy you.

He was a great dancer, and a nice pop singer, and became a sensation, a great entertainer. All true, and we should mourn his passing as a human being, and note his influence on the music industry.

For me, that is where it stops.

Everything about Michael Jackson the person is twisted, tragic, and delusional. What he did to his pretty face is criminal. I would be profoundly concerned about the influence he had on young children, with his obvious and profound eccentricities. Unless we are to believe that they were all put-ons for the media, and of-camera he was a normal fellow, he may have damaged his children by contributing to their lives, or being a central figure in their development.

There was an interview by the Editor of Ebony Magazine, who met with MJ for an interview and noted how completely normal MJ was, how he was not strange or eccentric at all. I just do not buy it. He is gone now--I understand why there are those who want to lionize and normalize the poor man.

My impression is that he is a tragic figure. May he rest in peace.

Yes Marcus and that appears to be how he is regarded in the western world.

I do feel that he is a victim of the level of morality of his parents. And I say that with tongue in cheek because he was born with the ability to reason.

...paranoia, simply because he couldn't come to terms with the facts of reality.

MJ didn't want to believe that that his personal problems were self-perpetuated, therefore he used pathetic excuses of 'child-abuse', 'racism' and being a 'slave' etc...

The guy was simply one complete deluded mess, living in a Nerverland in his head.

People love to defend him by calling him 'childlike', but then turn around and pretend he deserves the respect of an 'adult' artist.

What a load of bull, you can't have your cake and eat it.

It's pathetic!