beddo said:
Octorok said:
Anything I would have to say has already been said before, and probably better than I could put it. People who claim that they don't care - have some goddamn respect. The man's dead. He had a messed up life and a bad childhood. It doesn't matter if he went a touch nutty towards the end, he was a massive influence in the world. He was third most famous person ever, behind Jesus and Elvis. No matter whether the courts were right, or whether random speculation is right, he's dead. Let him have a little dignity, and show some respect for the fact that he died at fifty.
Personally? I don't have a wave of emotion at his death. I do not giggle with glee and yell "Good riddance" either. But it does affect me, because a major part of the world is dead. R.I.P.
Why should these people care? They didn't know him. Who are you to assume that because they don't subscribe to public hysteria that they are somehow glad he's dead?
Also, where did you get the idea that he was the third most famous person ever? What about Jesus, Ghandi, Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jnr and so on. In any case it's irrelevant. Does the widespread knowledge of a person someone make their life more worthwhile than the lives of others? It's not like he did anything significant to further mankind. From what I saw he made a lot of money and spent it mostly on himself and his pursuit to maintain a perpetual childhood. He didn't lead a people from repression, he didn't save lives through political activism, not in a way that the great people named above did.
Why do you think he is a major part of the world? Perhaps he was a major part of your world. His best years were well behind him. Yes he was a fantastic performer, I don't doubt that for a second. Does this mean his life is worth more than the thousands of other people who die everyday? No.
I feel sympathy for his family, and it's sad that he had what seemed to be a largely miserable life but I didn't know him and I'm not going to pretend that it has a big affect on my life. Does this mean I lack compassion? No, I'm more concerned with people who live under poverty and oppression, these are the things that the media should address, not the personal matters of the Jackson family.
I never said that they were glad he was dead. Not once. And there is a difference between not subscribing to public hysteria, and being an ass. They are posting to say that they don't care, a stupid act in itself, but they are declaring that they don't care if he's dead. In a sense, I don't. It doesn't affect me at all. I never liked much of his music, and I never met him. However I acknowledge the fact that he's dead with some respect. When all is said and done, he deserves as much respect as anyone else. If you read in the paper that someone has died, do you just say "I don't care"? If you do then that is extremely sad, but I'm assuming you're not a complete ass, and feel sorry for them. Acknowledging that death is sad, no matter who has died, is just common courtesy, and it is very disrespectful to those who will miss the one who has died to not even acknowledge that their death is a sad occasion.
I actually said that he was third most famous behind Jesus, so putting him in your list of famous people is redundant. That fact is taken from a worldwide survey, from 2006. It took thre years to complete, but they polled a staggeringly vast number of people, and Jackson was third, behind Jesus Christ and Elvis Presley.
His life wasn't more worthwhile than anyone else's nor did he do anything to further mankind. However he was still a human and deserves some respect and dignity now he's dead. Those people you mentioned are all great figures among humanity, but are they're lives worth more than anyone else's, because of what they accomplished?
Are you really asking why Michael Jackson was a major part of the world? Seriously? I'm not even answering that, it's so damn obvious. Regardless of what he accomplished or did, he was very famous and a talented musician.
He wasn't a major part of my world, I'm too young to have really seen him in his prime anyway, but he was a major figure.
His life is worth just as much as anyone else's, including Mother Teresa or Nelson Mandela, mine or yours. But we cannot mourn every one of the thousands who die daily, but we can show some compassion for them. Thing is, they're different from a celebrity. Not because they're life was worth anything more or less, but because we know who they are. It's that simple really. We have heard of them, know a bit about them, and know who they are. From that we show sadness that they are dead.
Your final paragraph corresponds with my views in places. His death does not affect me, but I have sympathy for his family and the fact that he didn't lead a very long or happy life. I care about poverty and death more than I do about Michael Jackson, however, his death will affect a lot of people more than me.
And this is big news. Don't just say that people die each day, because this is obviously different. He has had a gigantic impact on the world, far greater than anything that the unmourned by the media may have done. This isn't just the personal matter of the Jackson family, as his death is such a major news report. And the media aren't going to talk about this for months to come, it is just a big event. If anyone else famous died, they'd report that too. Whereas such things as poverty, famine and death are given monumental media attention, because they are constant problems, as oppose to a singular event such as this.