Debate on rights and wrongs, kinda!

[Neoni]

Well,

Last night while out some randomer decided to get into a "debate" with me and some friends, it turned into more of a nasty argument to be honest...he was talking about music and it got into the conversation on his accord that Pete Doherty is "Amazing". I simply said anybody who takes drugs on that kind of level and exploits it is a scumbag. He then tried bringing it back with well Michael Jackson is a pedophile Theres no argument there as i see it, its too completey different things, surely?

He went onto saying that he doesnt exploit drugs in anyway, but all we see recently is drugs, and more drugs from this fool, pictures of him handling needles in collapsed girls, (whether he was giving her drugs, or taking the needle out, its still unacceptable behavior) its the same with kate moss, there smashed all the time. MJ has never been proved to have sexual intercourse with children so i cannot comment really, the subject of Amy Winehouse too, he said if Pete Doherty is a scumbag, so is she, that maybe but i dont see her showing it off really, she just cannot handle the drugs.

He then went onto saying (you muso's amongst us will love this) that leeds festival is just commercial tosh, same as reading.... and he would never ever play a support slot for any of the bands, as im typing this im soon coming to a conclusion this guys a complete tard' but ah well.

So whats your opinion on doherty, and jackson its not that really its what you think of the person, and has that person taken it to far, and if so is it really about the music anymore with that artist?

-Neoni

 

[JBuk]

taking drugs or being addicted to them doesn't make people scumbags, Doherty can do watever he likes to his own body.


Jackson has never been proven to be a paedo and as such he shouldn't be classed as one

 

[shauncr91]

taking drugs or being addicted to them doesn't make people scumbags, Doherty can do watever he likes to his own body.


Jackson has never been proven to be a paedo and as such he shouldn't be classed as one

^This

 

[neocon]

Jackson is a paedo for sure, and much worse than Pete.

 

[Neoni]

taking drugs or being addicted to them doesn't make people scumbags, Doherty can do watever he likes to his own body.


Jackson has never been proven to be a paedo and as such he shouldn't be classed as one

But exploiting it like he does makes him a scumbag thats my point, if he kept himself to himself fine but he doesnt.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I'm still not entirely sure what you're asking here but I'll answer what I think it is.

If Pete Doherty is still releasing music then it is about the music, even if it is just a means to an end (getting enough money to fund his habit). I'm not keen on his music and never have been, irrespective of what he does in his leisure time as I try and keep them separate. It would seem a shame to dismiss great music because of the views or idiosyncracies of the individuals who make it.

But exploiting it like he does makes him a scumbag thats my point, if he kept himself to himself fine but he doesnt.

He's a drug addict, they aren't always known for their rationality. If he is doing it cynically then it obviously isn't good but I'm undecided about whether he is doing that or has even thought about it in those terms.

 

[Carzy]

I fail to see how Doherty is "exploiting" his drug habit.

 

[Neoni]

I'm still not entirely sure what you're asking here but I'll answer what I think it is.

If Pete Doherty is still releasing music then it is about the music, even if it is just a means to an end (getting enough money to fund his habit). I'm not keen on his music and never have been, irrespective of what he does in his leisure time as I try and keep them separate. It would seem a shame to dismiss great music because of the views or idiosyncracies of the individuals who make it.



He's a drug addict, they aren't always known for their rationality. If he is doing it cynically then it obviously isn't good but I'm undecided about whether he is doing that or has even thought about it in those terms.

Thats the kinda thing i was looking for, you make valid points, i just generally wanted to know at where you draw the line in terms of right and wrong, yea its wrong he does drugs etc, but is it worse that he uses the music industry, if you look at it that way to fund habits, and push it on others.

 

[JBuk]

But exploiting it like he does makes him a scumbag thats my point, if he kept himself to himself fine but he doesnt.

I'm not sure how hes exploiting it?

what benefit does it bring him other than to get wasted?

as long as hes harming no one else then he can do what he likes, in a moral sense

its not like hes going out robbing old ladies or burgling houses to pay for his addiction

 

[Moredhel]

Jackson is a paedo for sure, and much worse than Pete.

He was found innocent by a court of peers. That would indicate otherwise, no?

 

[semi-pro waster]

Thats the kinda thing i was looking for, you make valid points, i just generally wanted to know at where you draw the line in terms of right and wrong, yea its wrong he does drugs etc, but is it worse that he uses the music industry, if you look at it that way to fund habits, and push it on others.

Right and wrong are pretty subjective with a lot of levels between them. For what it matters I'm happier if he is peddling music than peddling drugs or mugging people to fund his habit as the 'victims' of his music are willing consumers rather than being addicted or having violence inflicted on them. Kind of a lesser of evils approach if you will.

His managers, the media and consumers probably should also shoulder some of the blame here, they are also exploiting him to an extent but again on a scale of right and wrong it isn't easy to pinpoint how much blame to attribute to each if it is even possible to do so.

He was found innocent by a court of peers. That would indicate otherwise, no?

A bit of a tangent but I'd draw a distinction here, in a Scottish court I suspect the decision would have been Not Proven rather than Not Guilty as there was evidence of inappropriate behaviour (as a minimum) but not enough to conclusively prove guilt which is what you need to do.

It's also a bit of a funny expression "court of peers", you're correct to use it but it's difficult to make a case for Michael Jackson having any peers, his life has made sure of that. Not to make any excuses for him but I would guess a life such as his would mess almost anyone up.