Captain EO Soft Open To Public Today

[Mr. Morrow]

That is false. All it takes is an accusation to lead to an arrest, which in turn leads to detention. Many criminal defendants are then released on their own recognizance, or by bail, but there are some who are not. There are plenty of situations in which a criminal defendant might be subject to pre-trial detention, for different reasons. That period of detention can last for months. So, yes, a simple accusation can - and does - land people in jail. :brick:

...And, lest we not forget, there have been plenty of cases of wrongful convictions. Plenty of people argue that we have the best system, but no one can argue that it's perfect; no system is.

Yea you know what I meant here in the US they don't lock you up with out convicting you, If you want to be a smart A** and twist my words go ahead.

Please that was just stupid I guess when I deal with you I need to spell it out.

Also i didn't say arrest read what I said I said put in prison.

 

[wizards8507]

Do you know how the U.S judicial system works? You do know that you don't go to jail for being accused of something right? You realize you have to be convicted first?

Conviction "beyond a reasonable doubt" only applies to the courts. Individual people are free to form their opinions based on "probably." In many states, a prostitute wouldn't be breaking any laws so they wouldn't be "convicted" of anything, but that doesn't make it appropriate for her to be featured in a theme park attraction.

 

[Mr. Morrow]

Conviction "beyond a reasonable doubt" only applies to the courts. Individual people are free to form their opinions based on "probably." In many states, a prostitute wouldn't be breaking any laws so they wouldn't be "convicted" of anything, but that doesn't make it appropriate for her to be featured in a theme park attraction.

Listen I thought the guy was a creep but nothing was ever proven he never was convicted of anything. GET OVER IT.

 

[wizards8507]

Listen I thought the guy was a creep but nothing was ever proven he never was convicted of anything. GET OVER IT.

IT WAS PROVEN. HE ADMITTED IT.

In a series of interviews with Martin Bashir, broadcast in 2003 as Living with Michael Jackson, Jackson was seen holding hands and discussing sleeping arrangements with a 13-year-old boy, who later accused Jackson of sexual abuse. Shortly after the documentary aired, Jackson was charged with seven counts of child molestation and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent in relation to the boy. Jackson denied the allegations, saying the sleepovers were not sexual in nature.

I don't give a damn if he was ever convicted of a crime. Someone who admitedly had "sleepovers" with 13 year old children has ABSOLUTELY no place in WDW.

 

[Evil Genius]

IT WAS PROVEN. HE ADMITTED IT.

In a series of interviews with Martin Bashir, broadcast in 2003 as Living with Michael Jackson, Jackson was seen holding hands and discussing sleeping arrangements with a 13-year-old boy, who later accused Jackson of sexual abuse. Shortly after the documentary aired, Jackson was charged with seven counts of child molestation and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent in relation to the boy. Jackson denied the allegations, saying the sleepovers were not sexual in nature.

I don't give a damn if he was ever convicted of a crime. Someone who admitedly had "sleepovers" with 13 year old children has ABSOLUTELY no place in WDW.

Just to play devil's advocate, just because the guy admits to sleep overs doesn't prove anything sexual took place.

That's doesn't mean that MJ wasn't an odd dude who obviously had emotional issues...but to simply jump to the most extreme conclusion is a bit much for me.

Especially when the 13 later stated that his father prodded him into stating he was molested and in fact said that nothing of the sort occurred.

Again, without being on Neverland Ranch and seeing any of this first hand it's very difficult to throw stones.

 

[Mr. Morrow]

IT WAS PROVEN. HE ADMITTED IT.

In a series of interviews with Martin Bashir, broadcast in 2003 as Living with Michael Jackson, Jackson was seen holding hands and discussing sleeping arrangements with a 13-year-old boy, who later accused Jackson of sexual abuse. Shortly after the documentary aired, Jackson was charged with seven counts of child molestation and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent in relation to the boy. Jackson denied the allegations, saying the sleepovers were not sexual in nature.

I don't give a damn if he was ever convicted of a crime. Someone who admitedly had "sleepovers" with 13 year old children has ABSOLUTELY no place in WDW.

You are proving my point for me he was never convicted. You do realize there is a difference between charged and convicted right?

I think it is creepy to have the kids sleep over but there is still no proof that he did anything wrong.

 

[wizards8507]

I don't think a lot of people care whether or not there was any overt sexual behavior. I'm not using that as evidence of sexual misconduct, I believe that the act to which he admitted is significant enough. Even if there was a video tape that conclusively determined that all that happened was a "sleepover," to me, that is so far beyond the realm of acceptable human behavior that there really can be no excuse. If no law was broken, then no prison is appropriate, but standards of decency WERE broken by his own admission, and that should preclude him from being "honored" in certain ways like this.

 

[wizards8507]

You are proving my point for me he was never convicted. You do realize there is a difference between charged and convicted right?

I think it is creepy to have the kids sleep over but there is still no proof that he did anything wrong.

I understand your point. "Convicted" and "proof" are for judges, juries, and prosecutors. "Suspected" and "alleged" should be enough for WDW.

 

[wizards8507]

I think it is creepy to have the kids sleep over but there is still no proof that he did anything wrong.

Edit: There is no proof that he did anything ILLEGAL. There's plenty of proof (again, his own admission) that he did something WRONG.

 

[Evil Genius]

I don't think a lot of people care whether or not there was any overt sexual behavior. I'm not using that as evidence of sexual misconduct, I believe that the act to which he admitted is significant enough. Even if there was a video tape that conclusively determined that all that happened was a "sleepover," to me, that is so far beyond the realm of acceptable human behavior that there really can be no excuse. If no law was broken, then no prison is appropriate, but standards of decency WERE broken by his own admission, and that should preclude him from being "honored" in certain ways like this.

But see...here we get on a slipery slope.

You cannot simply thrust your moral standards on everything claiming they are the end all be all. Just because you (and I for that matter) think it was creepy...weird...any number of adjectives we cannot say just because WE don't approve that we cast him out! We have to allow the judicial system to do its job. And believe justice was served and not allow personal ethics to get involved.

If you want to personally boycott him...I see no issue with that. However you cannot play morality police.

 

[Timekeeper]

When people discuss MJ and the infamous accusations, or any celebrity for that matter, there never seems to be very much conversation about why the parent of the accuser would accept a settlement and indeed go away.

There are plenty of people on this board who are both (1) parents, who (2) disagree with the appropriateness of celebrating MJ and point to child-related crimes as being the worst offense a person can commit. With that said, would any parent that genuinely believed that a person committed that kind of battery on their child seriously allow themselves to be "bought out," at any price? Not only does that bring into question the sincerity of their accusations, but I can't begin to imagine the emotional impact by way of example that would leave on the child-victim.

But we tend to focus more on the accused, and not on the integrity of the accuser, especially when the accused is a celebrity.

Disney attractions have to have long shelf-lives. They are too much of an investment not to. The volatile nature of celebrity reputation is a risk that they run whenever they incorporate a celebrity into an attraction. I would hate to see the Indiana Jones ride at DL shut down just because Harrison Ford is accused of committing a horrible crime, whether true or otherwise. I imagine that would be a tricky ride to re-theme without Indy.

 

[Mr. Morrow]

I understand your point. "Convicted" and "proof" are for judges, juries, and prosecutors. "Suspected" and "alleged" should be enough for WDW.

OK we get your point you hate MJ so do us a favor and stop posting in these threads.

This thread is supposed to about Captain EO not a MJ debate.

 

[Mr. Morrow]

When people discuss MJ and the infamous accusations, or any celebrity for that matter, there never seems to be very much conversation about why the parent of the accuser would accept a settlement and indeed go away.

There are plenty of people on this board who are both (1) parents, who (2) disagree with the appropriateness of celebrating MJ and point to child-related crimes as being the worst offense a person can commit. With that said, would any parent that genuinely believed that a person committed that kind of battery on their child seriously allow themselves to be "bought out," at any price? Not only does that bring into question the sincerity of their accusations, but I can't begin to imagine the emotional impact by way of example that would leave on the child-victim.

But we tend to focus more on the accused, and not on the integrity of the accuser, especially when the accused is a celebrity.

Disney attractions have to have long shelf-lives. They are too much of an investment not to. The volatile nature of celebrity reputation is a risk that they run whenever they incorporate a celebrity into an attraction. I would hate to see the Indiana Jones ride at DL shut down just because Harrison Ford is accused of committing a horrible crime, whether true or otherwise. I imagine that would be a tricky ride to re-theme without Indy.

You are in the minority look at the long lines in DL for EO.

 

[Evil Genius]

When people discuss MJ and the infamous accusations, or any celebrity for that matter, there never seems to be very much conversation about why the parent of the accuser would accept a settlement and indeed go away.

There are plenty of people on this board who are both (1) parents, who (2) disagree with the appropriateness of celebrating MJ and point to child-related crimes as being the worst offense a person can commit. With that said, would any parent that genuinely believed that a person committed that kind of battery on their child seriously allow themselves to be "bought out," at any price? Not only does that bring into question the sincerity of their accusations, but I can't begin to imagine the emotional impact by way of example that would leave on the child-victim.

But we tend to focus more on the accused, and not on the integrity of the accuser, especially when the accused is a celebrity.

Disney attractions have to have long shelf-lives. They are too much of an investment not to. The volatile nature of celebrity reputation is a risk that they run whenever they incorporate a celebrity into an attraction. I would hate to see the Indiana Jones ride at DL shut down just because Harrison Ford is accused of committing a horrible crime, whether true or otherwise. I imagine that would be a tricky ride to re-theme without Indy.

This my friend...was a brilliant post!

 

[Timekeeper]

You are in the minority look at the long lines in DL for EO.

Oh, I'm not suggesting that disfavor outweighs favor for the attraction. Disney obviously re-opened it because they calculated that the thousands of happy guests per day that the show cycles through will outweigh the occasional guest letter in disagreement with a show featuring MJ in light of the ex post facto accusations made against him. I am merely commenting that there appears to be, at least on this message board, a sufficient number of individuals who take reservation with the decision to bring EO back. We just have to remember that this is a board full of Disney die-hards who are probably much more critical of Disney decision-making than the average park guest.

I, for one, am glad that the show is seeing success and appreciation. :sohappy:

 

[Mr. Morrow]

Oh, I'm not suggesting that disfavor outweighs favor for the attraction. Disney obviously re-opened it because they calculated that the thousands of happy guests per day that the show cycles through will outweigh the occasional guest letter in disagreement with a show featuring MJ in light of the ex post facto accusations made against him. I am merely commenting that there appears to be, at least on this message board, a sufficient number of individuals who take reservation with the decision to bring EO back. We just have to remember that this is a board full of Disney die-hards who are probably much more critical of Disney decision-making than the average park guest.

I, for one, am glad that the show is seeing success and appreciation. :sohappy:

Ok we have an understanding, I never liked his music but am happy to see a Epcot Center attraction return. But that is just part of me most me views this as taking a wrong step back for EC.

 

[EpcotServo]

I swear to god there must a river of slime underneath WDWmagic or something...

 

[Evil Genius]

I swear to god there must a river of slime underneath WDWmagic or something...

Sublime Ghostbusters 2 reference!

 

[wm49rs]

I swear to god there must a river of slime underneath WDWmagic or something...

But hey, where else can you get a thread making both MJ and WDW to be accused p#dophiles, and a discussion of the American legal system, all wrapped up in the return of a glorified music video from the 1980's?

 

[Evil Genius]

But hey, where else can you get a thread making both MJ and WDW to be accused p#dophiles, and a discussion of the American legal system, all wrapped up in the return of a glorified music video from the 1980's?

But it's a music video with lasers...and ROBOTS!