"What did he say that contradicts what specific contents of this thread?"
Well, for one, you said: "Well, unlike Elvis, this guy was a pedophile."
Peikoff says in contradiction: "what inclines me to be favorable of him is the flimsiness of the accusations that were hurled at him about child molestation."
You also said: "I'm not sure I can agree that's always the case. Convicting someone requires evidence beyond reasonable doubt, presented during that one trial, by a competent prosecutor, and heard by a competent judge and jury. Criminals don't always get caught, prosecutors aren't always perfect, jurors can be irrational and stupid, etc."
Peikoff went on to say that in talking with a prosecutor he knew, and I would assume respected, that the prosecutor said "I would never have brought charges based on the evidence that was presented."
In other words, you have no basis for your contention that the "guy was a pedophile," unless, you know of some evidence that the prosecution was too retarded to bring to court when they had the chance, or have knowledge of evidence that the prosecution couldn't find. I am open to the possibility, so please let me in on the "secret evidence" that you withheld from the prosecutors; which, would be an awful thing to do--if you didn't let the prosecutors know about evidence that would have saved their case, and thus, punish a pedophile.
"What I got out of it is that Peikoff is not interested in the slightes in MJ's brand of music, so there's nothing for him to care about."
I disagree that there was "nothing for him to care about," since, he obviously sought the opinions of other people that he thought intelligent or knowledgeable enough, because, he himself hadn't "followed that field for a long time, except for sporadic performance here and there."
"As for Michael's character, that is defined by his life and actions, not by his music, and it was quite twisted."
How do you define "twisted?" What were the actions that he took within his life; that you know of to be true; that, are congruent with this definition of yours?
"The only thing Peikoff said that was favorable to your position is that you should separate an artist's work from his life or actions, and mourn the loss of that work, if it meant something to you."
Based on what, do you know my "position?"
My position is that people like you are disgusting, in that you require so little evidence when making decisions about a person's guilt of heinous crimes. I actually was inaccurate; people like you require no evidence, you only need an accusation. You are no different from the crowd in Salem, MA during their famous witch trials, or any mob of southern racists when hearing a black man "raped" a white woman. At least that's how one could build a case that you are; since, you haven't presented the evidence that you kept secret from the prosecution, here, in the discussion thread.
Is that what you meant by my "position?"
I don't think anyone here told you you can't do that, all I said is that I personally don't care, because I wasn't into his music, and that you can't judge his character by dismissing his actual life, based on music.
No. Again, what my issue--with you in particular--is, is that it is repugnant that so-called objectivists don't require much more in the area of proof, and then reduce themselves to slander; where, the slander is against the greatness within our species.
