A question of morality?

Question

I am so upset with the state of affairs in the U.S. right now that I absolutely have to know if I am the only person who thinks this way. Here goes:

The other day I was discussing music with someone and they brought up R. Kelly as an artist they "loved." This upset me because, as we all know, R. Kelly was caught on tape having sex with a minor AND urinating on her. He's a pedophile. Yet people still buy his albums and support him. Why?!?! I can't figure it out for the life of me. I asked this person the same question and he honestly told me "Yah, but he can sing his @ss off." Is that all it takes to be allowed to be a pedophile, to be able to sing well?

Am I the only one who thinks this guy should be boycotted and banned from all public forums?

Holding a degree in psychology, with a specialization in Abnormal Psychology, I know exactly what pedophilia is. Put simply, pedophilia is being sexually aroused by children. In just about every state, the age at which a person in no longer considered a child is around 17 or 18. R. Kelly having sex with a 14 year old girl makes him both a pedophile and a child molester.

I also feel that by supporting a person like R. Kelly by buying his music is like saying "It's okay that you molested a child, I'm still going to give you my money."

I find it ridiculous to say that just because he molested a child doesn't mean that he isn't talented. Of course it doesn't. But supporting a child molester in avenues that are different from molesting children doesn't mean that you're not enabling them.

Answer 1

I make a habit of boycotting anything and everyone who even inadvertently advocates immorality in any form. Not because I am without sin or, pretend to be, but because the normalization of immorality is perhaps the biggest sin of all.

I once wrote a college essay on the fact that I believe habitual violent child molesters should face the death penalty. Upon getting it back, I was confronted with a 15 minute sermon in front of the entire class concerning the fact child molesters are 'sick' and deserve our sympathy. No where in the lecture did he mention the rights of the child or, the undeveloped souls that are forever subjected to PST, night panics and depression (suicide) at the hands of these predators.

This is a prime example of what is wrong with the 'overly educated' liberal mind.

How dare a professor so adamantly advocate for the rights of a predator's already formulated sick mind over an innocent child's? When he should be stressing the fact that every adult is responsible for every child? Is this what our educational system has truly come to?

It makes not a bit of difference who an adult is or, how talented they are, no child should ever have to endure this type of abuse. The rights of the child always outweigh the rights of the adult. An adult should always willingly face not only sacrifice but also, possible violence on behalf of a child in need.

R. Kelly should be in a jail cell banned from society, period.

BTW, are you familiar with the Cody Posey case out of New Mexico a few years back? It was a classic case of a family, a school and an entire community knowingly turning its back on an abused child. An example of what happens all to often yet, rarely is so clearly defined. The attitudes contained within your answers so reminds me of how easy it is for society to put a child out of mind in order to serve and maintain their own interests.

There is absolutely NOTHING that infuriates me more.

Answer 2

You're confusing several issues.

First, pedophile is not the same as child molester. From what you describe, this person molested a child. That's criminal behavior regardless of the reason.

Second, just because someone is a criminal doesn't mean they are not talented in other areas. Someone can still paint beautiful pictures, or compose music, even if they've committed other crimes.

Nor can you ban artwork that is itself not criminal, just because the person who created it broke other (unrelated) laws.

Finally, nobody is making excuses for this artist and saying what they did was acceptable. Liking a piece of music or artwork does NOT mean you approve of anything else that person did.

If you want to boycott the artist, to avoid them getting any money -- that's your choice. And you have absolutely every right to make that choice, and to advocate that other people join you.

But you can't go around silencing people and forbidding their music or paintings from being available to the public, just beause the person has broken some other unrelated law.

Answer 3

You have every right to boycott and encourage others to boycott and ban. However, music is music. The quality of person a musician is has no bearing on the quality of the music they make.

Michael Jackson is not someone I'd like to hang out with. He may (or may not) have done some unspeakable things to some children. But he's a musical genius. I don't have to like him to appreciate the music he makes.

Now, I don't own much (if any) Michael Jackson music. But I wouldn't bother calling for a boycott. Quite frankly, I don't feel I have any business telling other people what they should and should not buy or listen to.

Answer 4

We love to root for the bad guy, human nature...KOBI BRYANT