Does Michael Jackson belong at WDW?

[Evil Genius]

To a certain level, sure they are. But there is a common standard that holds true for all of humanity.

Column A (Objective)
Murder
Rape
Incest

Column B (Relative)
Premarital "relations"
Homosexuality
War

You can debate column "B" until you're blue in the face, but there should be no doubt that Column A is just plain wrong. Make your choices in column B but there should be no doubt whatsoever about A. IMO, Michael's actions fall in column A.

Ok there you go! You used the big "O" word! That's what I was looking for.

It is an opinion! As is mine. My whole point has always been is people can't thrust their opinions on others. You want to avoid the attraction because of your opinions...that's fine. But recognize that yours just might not be the correct opinion. Mine most certainly may not be either and in all honestly the truth could fall somewhere in between.

 

[VeggiFruitFruit]

Not to de-rail the thread but morals and ethics are a very relative (man I've used that word a lot in this thread!) topic.

I am a cannibal and your child looks tasty. In my culture this is the norm. Could you not tell me that what I was about to do was wrong? You might not like it, you might ask me to stop because you didn't like it, but you couldn't say I was wrong for wanting to eat your child? According to your beliefs, I would be doing right because that is what I chose to believe, and whatever a person chooses to believe is right. Would you tell me I have bad morals? Would you tell me I was wrong? Why? Aren't you judging me?

Food for thought.:slurp:

Beliefs and Truth are very absolute.

 

[Evil Genius]

I am a cannibal and your child looks tasty. In my culture this is the norm. Could you not tell me that what I was about to do was wrong? You might not like it, you might ask me to stop because you didn't like it, but you couldn't say I was wrong for wanting to eat your child? According to your beliefs, I would be doing right because that is what I chose to believe, and whatever a person chooses to believe is right. Would you tell me I have bad morals? Would you tell me I was wrong? Why? Aren't you judging me?

Food for thought.:slurp:

Beliefs and Truth are very absolute.

No

That's an apples and oranges comparison. You cannot compare the simple possibility of sharing a bed with munching on Junior. It's an invalid argument.

 

[steviej]

I simply don't have time to read over 100+ replies, so all I got to say is this. The 1st accuser has admitted that nothing inappopriate went on, and Michael was found not guilty when it came to the second accuser, and I think there's a reason he was found not guilty.

Now, guilty or not, the fact is, Michael Jackson, love him or hate him, is probably the greatest entertainer to ever live. Again, he was found not guilty, and I think he should be honored.

 

[Eyorefan]

I didn't vote in the poll because I would have voted - C: Michael Jackson was a performer and the presence of his film in Epcot does not bother me.

At the same time, I can honestly say that I would NOT go to the attraction or buy the merchandise for the same reason I don't watch Woody Allen or Roman Polanski movies. I understand that they are/were great artist. Its just that I personally feel that these guys came off as creepy and I don't hang out with creepy guys.

 

[wizards8507]

Ok there you go! You used the big "O" word! That's what I was looking for.

It is an opinion! As is mine. My whole point has always been is people can't thrust their opinions on others. You want to avoid the attraction because of your opinions...that's fine. But recognize that yours just might not be the correct opinion. Mine most certainly may not be either and in all honestly the truth could fall somewhere in between.

No matter how much of an opinion it may be, the fact remains that (according to this admittedly un-scientific poll), 50% of a group of Disney enthusiasts find the attraction to be inappropriate. While 50% of people might think the Great Movie Ride needs to be updated, or that Small World might be irritating, is there any other attraction that HALF of the people polled actually find offensive?

 

[Evil Genius]

No matter how much of an opinion it may be, the fact remains that (according to this admittedly un-scientific poll), 50% of a group of Disney enthusiasts find the attraction to be inappropriate. While 50% of people might think the Great Movie Ride needs to be updated, or that Small World might be irritating, is there any other attraction that HALF of the people polled actually find offensive?

Which quite honestly I think proves both our points.:shrug:

Regardless. I hope the attraction is only around a short time because I think the space could be used for much better purposes than a retro attraction no matter what my personal feelings are.

 

[VeggiFruitFruit]

No

That's an apples and oranges comparison. You cannot compare the simple possibility of sharing a bed with munching on Junior.

OK. You don't like the comparison. Could you still answer the questions posed?

 

[Evil Genius]

OK. You don't like the comparison. Could you still answer the questions posed?

I can answer it, but it doesn't prove anything!

No I don't want cannibals eating my child. But again the comparison is faulty.

 

[VeggiFruitFruit]

I can answer it, but it doesn't prove anything!

No I don't want cannibal eating my child. But again the comparison is faulty.

I wrote:
I am a cannibal and your child looks tasty. In my culture this is the norm. Could you not tell me that what I was about to do was wrong? You might not like it, you might ask me to stop because you didn't like it, but you couldn't say I was wrong for wanting to eat your child? According to your beliefs, I would be doing right because that is what I chose to believe, and whatever a person chooses to believe is right. Would you tell me I have bad morals? Would you tell me I was wrong? Why? Aren't you judging me?

Could you answer these questions please? I'm curious. :veryconfu
I already know you don't want a cannibal eating your child, that wasn't the question.

 

[Evil Genius]

I wrote:
I am a cannibal and your child looks tasty. In my culture this is the norm. Could you not tell me that what I was about to do was wrong? You might not like it, you might ask me to stop because you didn't like it, but you couldn't say I was wrong for wanting to eat your child? According to your beliefs, I would be doing right because that is what I chose to believe, and whatever a person chooses to believe is right. Would you tell me I have bad morals? Would you tell me I was wrong? Why? Aren't you judging me?

Could you answer these questions please? I'm curious. :veryconfu
I already know you don't want a cannibal eating your child, that wasn't the question.

Actually I would say something far more glib along the lines of 'I'm sorry Mr Cannibal, but society frowns on such actions.'.

Yes I would say cannibalism is wrong, but again you cannot compare consuming human flesh and possible sleep over!

 

[wizards8507]

Actually I would say something far more glib along the lines of 'I'm sorry Mr Cannibal, but society frowns on such actions.'.

Yes I would say cannibalism is wrong, but again you cannot compare consuming human flesh and possible sleep over!

Yes you can. We are right now.

 

[GoofyFan1]

I simply don't have time to read over 100+ replies, so all I got to say is this. The 1st accuser has admitted that nothing inappopriate went on, and Michael was found not guilty when it came to the second accuser, and I think there's a reason he was found not guilty.

Now, guilty or not, the fact is, Michael Jackson, love him or hate him, is probably the greatest entertainer to ever live. Again, he was found not guilty, and I think he should be honored.

This is plays into my objection to MJ in Epcot now. There was a time for Capt. EO...in the 80's. In 2010, I don't want a rehashed tribute to someone on the basis that somewhere he proclaimed himself the king of pop and a bunch of sheep decided it was true. I'm not sure why he needs to "honored" in this way but as many also say on this site, If you don't like it, don't see it." I won't.

If HISTA was so bad, put some of that imagineering effort into something new. Not a half-baked tribute to some entertainer that, and I'm no MJ expert, hasn't produced anything but controversy in quite sometime.

 

[VeggiFruitFruit]

Yes I would say cannibalism is wrong

Good.

Now we're a 1/4 of the way there. Would you please put my feelings aside, and continue with the answer to the other three questions? Not for comparison's sake, just for my own curiosity.

Would you tell me I have bad morals? Would you tell me I was wrong? Why? Aren't you judging me?

 

[Tater48]

Now, guilty or not, the fact is, Michael Jackson, love him or hate him, is probably the greatest entertainer to ever live.

Surely you are saying this jokingly?

 

[steviej]

Surely you are saying this jokingly?

Can you honestly say, that if you made a personal top 10 list, of the greatest entertainers ever, not your favorites, but the best entertainers, do you really think Michael Jackson isn't gonna make the cut on most people's lists?

 

[Tater48]

Can you honestly say, that if you made a personal top 10 list, of the greatest entertainers ever, not your favorites, but the best entertainers, do you really think Michael Jackson isn't gonna make the cut on most people's lists?

Reread your post. You didn't say anything about one of the top 10 entertainers, now did you? No you didn't, you said probably the greatest ever. Not by a long shot. And, yes, I say this Honestly.

 

[Adina]

I think it was a good move for WDW to bring back Captain EO. While I do agree they probably wouldn't have brought it back if Michael Jackson hadn't died, it's still better (in my opinion) than Honey I Shrunk the Audience and while it may not be "new", it's still brought some new excitement to Epcot. I don't see any problems with disney bringing it back! In general though, I think Future World is become somewhat outdated and instead of bringing back an old attraction, I really wish they would just come up with a new attraction. But still a step in the right direction I believe. :sohappy:

I realize my post doesn't really address whether Michael Jackson himself has a place in Disney, but in all reality, I don't think it matters. Disney uses various entertainers in their attractions, and just because MJ had some controversy surrounding him, it doesn't make a difference. When little kids watch Captain EO, I highly doubt they're going to care who represents the attraction, they're their simply for the attraction itself.

 

[WDW Monorail]

I do not like MJ as an entertainer.
I do not like MJ as a person.
And I do not like MJ as the star of an attraction in Disney parks.

 

[Timekeeper]

To a certain level, sure they are. But there is a common standard that holds true for all of humanity.

Column A (Objective)
Murder
Rape
Incest

Column B (Relative)
Premarital "relations"
Homosexuality
War

You can debate column "B" until you're blue in the face, but there should be no doubt that Column A is just plain wrong. Make your choices in column B but there should be no doubt whatsoever about A. IMO, Michael's actions fall in column A.

I understand your illustration, but I don't think that it's as "black and white" as you suggest. [Insert MJ reference here]

For example, while murder is generally defined as the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought, there are defenses such as battered person syndrome (also known as battered woman syndrome or battered wife syndrome), or other justifications such as self-defense in which the same act of intentionally killing another person is removed from realm of "murder."

With respect to rape, that's a topic on which literally countless pages of scholarly authority have been written. The topic will always be controversial because of statutory rape laws and issues relating to under-age "victims" who intentionally misrepresent their age, and adult's consent followed by withdrawn-consent, etc. It was not too long ago that a man could not be found guilty of raping his wife - and the fact that the husband/wife law has since changed illustrates that even this topic is not so clear-cut. Even the law's perspective of "right" and "wrong" continues to evolve.

Regarding incest, well, I'll leave this this one alone. Suffice it to say that the issue is largely governed by state jurisdiction (and treated differently by cultures around the world). In Florida, for example, it is legal for first-cousins to get married, but not in some other states.

As you can see, any effort to create a genuinely "objective" list of "wrongs" may be futile.