Does Michael Jackson belong at WDW?

[Timekeeper]

I don't remember any of the accused witches doling out a $20 million settlement.

You're right. Instead, they were executed. I'm sure that if they had the money, they would have offered it in exchange for, oh I don't know, their life? :brick: It is why even innocent people confess and plea bargain, and why parties (like Disney) settle out of court. "It," being, that litigation can really ruin even an innocent person's life. Plenty of divorcees are well aware of this. Life is short. You don't get the time back. Trials are always a gamble for both sides. Sometimes getting even a small piece of your life back with "worth" the cost.

 

[VeggiFruitFruit]

It seems to me that people can fall into more than just two camps, just as how forcing someone to choose between the labels of Democrat or Republican can prove problematic. For example, there who might believe:

(A) MJ is guilty of the crimes charged, or
(B) MJ acted in a morally wrong way but may not be criminally liable, or
(C) MJ is "wacko" but undecided as to criminal guilt and moral culpability, or
(D) MJ may have acted wrongly but if he did it was through no fault of his own due to the psychological effects of his own upbringing, or
(E) MJ did nothing morally or criminally wrong and merely lacks some common sense, or
(F) MJ did nothing wrong and our perceptions of him as provided by the media are misinformed, etc.

And determining which camp a person falls into might facilitate an understanding of their opposition to (or support of) Captain EO returning to the parks.

By "camp" do you mean Democrat/Republican or A-F?:lookaroun

 

[Timekeeper]

By "camp" do you mean Democrat/Republican or A-F?:lookaroun

Oh, "camp" meaning which of the MJ descriptions do they most closely fall into (A-F). I am not particularly interested in the correlation between political party and Captain EO opinions.

 

[Evil Genius]

Yes. As you mention, discerning between good and bad are a necessary part of parenting.



Yes.



Yes.



(Most) Adults can distinguish fantasy from reality. Children cannot. How many children think the characters in costumes are real?



Agreed. It is also the responsibility of a parent to train up a child in the way they should go. MJ on the screen as a hero, with his past, does not aid me in this endeavor in any way. In fact, it undermines my instruction.

My children will learn to distinguish fantasy and reality, and I have every intention of helping them along the way. I have discerned that EO is not a worthwhile curriculum choice in this lesson.

I guess I as a fallable human being myself cannot condemn another, especially when nothing was ever proven as fact, and as such can seperate the person from their work.

 

[Thrill Seeker]

Let me first say that I am sick of these debates... Does it really matter?

With that being said, let me say that I am thrilled that Captain EO is back. I've seen it 6 times since it re-opened and loved it each time. The truth of the matter is EO is a far superior show to HISTA and is a much welcome change to that pavilion. It's also a classic on it's own right. I'd honestly be happy if it stuck around for longer than 2 years because of the fact that it's very enjoyable.

EO is back and it's here to stay...at least for a little while... I'm done with these debates...

 

[sweetpee_1993]

I currently put the "yeses" in the lead. The Captain EO movie is funny, really corny, it has some good music, (some that was not heard anywhere but at Disney when Captain EO first came out.), with some good 3D. It is an attraction that was made by someone that is now dead. Wow, sort of like a number of the scenes on the Great Movie Ride. Sometimes things can be overthought.

The actual number of votes seen isn't exactly accurate because early in the thread prior to the legal debates there were some who said no but not for the reason stated so those people opted to not submit a vote.

 

[stlbobby]

You're right. Instead, they were executed. I'm sure that if they had the money, they would have offered it in exchange for, oh I don't know, their life? :brick: It is why even innocent people confess and plea bargain, and why parties (like Disney) settle out of court. "It," being, that litigation can really ruin even an innocent person's life. Plenty of divorcees are well aware of this. Life is short. You don't get the time back. Trials are always a gamble for both sides. Sometimes getting even a small piece of your life back with "worth" the cost.

My point about the witches, was there is a bit more damning evidence in the MJ case than in the Salem witch trials.

I understand that sometimes, many times in fact, a plea bargain or settlement is the easy way out, but $20 million isn't a pittance, and it would take a long time to run up that kind of legal fee to make it economically expedient. He would have also known that the payout would have labeled him as guilty in the eyes of the general public, so he had little to gain there. I just cannot believe an innocent man would have paid that kind of money just to avoid the inconvenience of a trial.

When you combine that with his admission to having regular sleepovers with children in his bed, the fact he was accused by other children of unsavory behaviour, and his general demeanor indicating he didn't really understand personal boundaries or the difference between right and wrong I believe he violated those children.

Like I said in a previous post, it may not be proof, but it is enough for me.

For the record I never liked MJ. I hate his music and have since everyone in my junior high was singing PYT. And I think they easily could have found something better to put in the space. But I will go see EO when I visit in December because I am a Disney enthusiast and Lucas and Coppola fan, and I've never seen it.

 

[Evil Genius]

I understand that sometimes, many times in fact, a plea bargain or settlement is the easy way out, but $20 million isn't a pittance, and it would take a long time to run up that kind of legal fee to make it economically expedient. He would have also known that the payout would have labeled him as guilty in the eyes of the general public, so he had little to gain there. I just cannot believe an innocent man would have paid that kind of money just to avoid the inconvenience of a trial.


Like I said in a previous post, it may not be proof, but it is enough for me.

By that same token, I find it hard that parents would simply accept a plea bargin no matter the dollar amount if they truly believed their children have been sexually violated. If they did then basically they have placed a price tag on their child's emotional and psychological health which to me as equallly as a deplorable act as those MJ was accused of.

 

[Horizons1]

MJ is already at WDW, and is going to be there for another year and a half, so there's really no point in debating this. It's like beating a dead horse.

If MJ really did touch those kids, yea, that's horrible. But you know what? Constantly bringing this up is worse. The guy is dead and he can't reach children anymore, if he did (unless his ghost comes back). You people are keeping the horror of what he did alive by constantly bringing it up.

EO is a part of WDW and Epcot history. You can't erase history, no matter how ugly it is. And if you attempt to, you oughta be shot.

Personally, I don't care about what the man did. His music is awesome, this film was done at a time prior to the accusations that he touched young boys, it has nothing wrong in it, and is a fun little film.

If you don't like MJ or anything to do with him, don't go see the film. It's that simple. Don't try to make yourself feel better about your decision by trying to get everyone else on your side. If you make that choice, stand with it, and stop yelling it out to everyone else.

 

[stlbobby]

By that same token, I find it hard that parents would simply accept a plea bargin no matter the dollar amount if they truly believed their children have been sexually violated. If they did then basically they have placed a price tag on their child's emotional and psychological health which to me as equallly as a deplorable act as those MJ was accused of.

I have read that sentiment, but I can't agree. $20 million is a huge, life changing sum. It isn't a car, or a house, or college education. It is complete freedom and a lifetime of opportunities. $20 million pays for the best therapy and can heal a lot of wounds. Would putting him in jail be more satisfying, more healing, that can only be answered by those individuals, and since they could only choose one path they may not even know for sure.

And as Timekeeper stated a trial can be a crap-shoot, especially when the defendant can hire an army of the best lawyers. The parents may have thought the bird in the hand was the safest play.

I can easily understand a parent choosing to take generations of financial security for the entire family over seeking possibly ephemeral justice.

What I don't understand is a parent letting a young boy sleep over at an obviously disturbed man's home.

 

[the-reason14]

MJ is already at WDW, and is going to be there for another year and a half, so there's really no point in debating this. It's like beating a dead horse.

If MJ really did touch those kids, yea, that's horrible. But you know what? Constantly bringing this up is worse. The guy is dead and he can't reach children anymore, if he did (unless his ghost comes back). You people are keeping the horror of what he did alive by constantly bringing it up.

EO is a part of WDW and Epcot history. You can't erase history, no matter how ugly it is. And if you attempt to, you oughta be shot.

Personally, I don't care about what the man did. His music is awesome, this film was done at a time prior to the accusations that he touched young boys, it has nothing wrong in it, and is a fun little film.

If you don't like MJ or anything to do with him, don't go see the film. It's that simple. Don't try to make yourself feel better about your decision by trying to get everyone else on your side. If you make that choice, stand with it, and stop yelling it out to everyone else.

Well said my man, well said.

 

[stlbobby]

MJ is already at WDW, and is going to be there for another year and a half, so there's really no point in debating this. It's like beating a dead horse.

If MJ really did touch those kids, yea, that's horrible. But you know what? Constantly bringing this up is worse. The guy is dead and he can't reach children anymore, if he did (unless his ghost comes back). You people are keeping the horror of what he did alive by constantly bringing it up.

EO is a part of WDW and Epcot history. You can't erase history, no matter how ugly it is. And if you attempt to, you oughta be shot.

Personally, I don't care about what the man did. His music is awesome, this film was done at a time prior to the accusations that he touched young boys, it has nothing wrong in it, and is a fun little film.

If you don't like MJ or anything to do with him, don't go see the film. It's that simple. Don't try to make yourself feel better about your decision by trying to get everyone else on your side. If you make that choice, stand with it, and stop yelling it out to everyone else.

I enjoy hearing everyone's opinions, and although it hasn't happened on this particular thread, these kinds of discussions can change my mind. When posters are civil and present ideas rather than attack eachother they can present new ideas and show me sides of an argument I never considered.

In fact the idea that because the parents took a settlement rather than continued to fight may vindicate MJ never occurred to me. As I have said I don't buy that argument, but it was a new idea that made me reevaluate my own feelings on the subject.

I also don't think civilly posting on an internet thread counts as "yelling it out." No one is forced to read the thread or even visit the site. These types of exchanges are what is great about the internet.

 

[Evil Genius]

I have read that sentiment, but I can't agree. $20 million is a huge, life changing sum. It isn't a car, or a house, or college education. It is complete freedom and a lifetime of opportunities. $20 million pays for the best therapy and can heal a lot of wounds. Would putting him in jail be more satisfying, more healing, that can only be answered by those individuals, and since they could only choose one path they may not even know for sure.

And as Timekeeper stated a trial can be a crap-shoot, especially when the defendant can hire an army of the best lawyers. The parents may have thought the bird in the hand was the safest play.

I can easily understand a parent choosing to take generations of financial security for the entire family over seeking possibly ephemeral justice.

What I don't understand is a parent letting a young boy sleep over at an obviously disturbed man's home.

We'll simply have to disagree on the majority of your statement.

However that last thing you said has been my sticking point through all of this going back to 1994. Who WOULD just let their kids sleep over at a stranger's house who despite his celebrity is known to be a little off? To me that adds another wrinkle to the entire thing. I'm not stating that a parent would knowingly place a child in harm's way but as many of these kids came from poverty level homes the cynic in me does wander if there was an alterior motive.

Again that's being very cynical but the thought has crossed my mind.

 

[VeggiFruitFruit]

I guess I as a fallable human being myself cannot condemn another

Just because a person (myself included) is fallable, doesn't mean we can't make value judgments. Making value judgments is not the same as condemning someone. Only judges or those in authority over them can condemn them. We can only decide if their actions and behavior match our values and standards.

 

[stlbobby]

We'll simply have to disagree on the majority of your statement.

However that last thing you said has been my sticking point through all of this going back to 1994. Who WOULD just let their kids sleep over at a stranger's house who despite his celebrity is known to be a little off? To me that adds another wrinkle to the entire thing. I'm not stating that a parent would knowingly place a child in harm's way but as many of these kids came from poverty level homes the cynic in me does wander if there was an alterior motive.

Again that's being very cynical but the thought has crossed my mind.

People are so blinded by celebrity they will do crazy things and think that just because they like a person's song they somehow know them or they must be a good person. And I imagine MJ was personable in his own weird way so I do believe most of the parents were duped, but it was proven in some of the later cases that the parents let their kids stay hoping something would happen and they'd get a payout.

In fact I won't swear to it, but I remember that being part of what got MJ off in the one case that went to a jury.

 

[Evil Genius]

Just because a person (myself included) is fallable, doesn't mean we can't make value judgments. Making value judgments is not the same as condemning someone. Only judges or those in authority over them can condemn them. We can only decide if their actions and behavior match our values and standards.

So the question then becomes; Should you be able to shove your values and standards down someone's proverbial throat or make your protest personally?

I'm not stating you're doing the former just the question that came to me.

 

[Evil Genius]

People are so blinded by celebrity they will do crazy things and think that just because they like a person's song they somehow know them or they must be a good person. And I imagine MJ was personable in his own weird way so I do believe most of the parents were duped, but it was proven in some of the later cases that the parents let their kids stay hoping something would happen and they'd get a payout.

In fact I won't swear to it, but I remember that being part of what got MJ off in the one case that went to a jury.

I don't know if saying they were "duped" is the right word...but I couldnt' agree more with the celebrity aspect of it.

I won't argue the fact that MJ was an emotionally disturbed person and he did sleep in the same beds as these kids in many instances...but for some reason to me (and this is just personal opinion) his development emotionally was so stunted that he really was just having sleep overs.

Call me naive, but after reading all the accounts and interviews that's what I got from them.

 

[stlbobby]

We'll simply have to disagree on the majority of your statement.

However that last thing you said has been my sticking point through all of this going back to 1994. Who WOULD just let their kids sleep over at a stranger's house who despite his celebrity is known to be a little off? To me that adds another wrinkle to the entire thing. I'm not stating that a parent would knowingly place a child in harm's way but as many of these kids came from poverty level homes the cynic in me does wander if there was an alterior motive.

Again that's being very cynical but the thought has crossed my mind.

Let me also pose this. If a parent is so reckless or heartless to let their child so easily fall into harms way, wouldn't that parent also be the kind of person to take the money and run even if it wasn't in the best interest of the child?

Also a good parent might realize that taking the money and closing the matter, avoiding a trial that could drag on for years where the boy would have to testify, and there would be immense media scrutiny, and could end up in an MJ acquittal, might be the best thing for the child at that point.

I honestly can't say unequivocally what I would do in that situation.

I don't think the parents taking the money proves nothing really happened.

 

[Evil Genius]

Let me also pose this. If a parent is so reckless or heartless to let their child so easily fall into harms way, wouldn't that parent also be the kind of person to take the money and run even if it wasn't in the best interest of the child?

Also a good parent might realize that taking the money and closing the matter, avoiding a trial that could drag on for years where the boy would have to testify, and there would be immense media scrutiny, and could end up in an MJ acquittal, might be the best thing for the child at that point.

I honestly can't say unequivocally what I would do in that situation.

I don't think the parents taking the money proves nothing really happened.

No, it doesn't prove anything. However what it does is create another wrinkle in an already complicated situation that I think further the fact that we will never know.

 

[stlbobby]

I don't know if saying they were "duped" is the right word...but I couldnt' agree more with the celebrity aspect of it.

I won't argue the fact that MJ was an emotionally disturbed person and he did sleep in the same beds as these kids in many instances...but for some reason to me (and this is just personal opinion) his development emotionally was so stunted that he really was just having sleep overs.

Call me naive, but after reading all the accounts and interviews that's what I got from them.

Maybe I'm just more willing to believe the worst in people and when several boys make the accusations I believe it.

I know some of them, or all of them could have been coached, but if he wasn't having sleepovers it wouldn't have been and issue.

Like I said before it may not be proof, but it is enough for me.