Michael Jackson

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Well seeing as we're being overly literal, a child is anyone not of legal age.

You are the one who asked me to refer to a dictionary. And actually a child can be a person between birth and puberty, a son or daughter, or someone who lacks the maturity to be an adult. You see, even thou you are 19 or 20 years old, many could still consider you to be a child.[/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you're 17, you're a child. Blad-ow.

Is "blad-ow" how you emphasize your point? Shouldn't the actual point be enough?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If someone says they can't wait, it means they already have an attraction and cannot wait until it would be legal to do something. They don't automatically get a crush when she hits 18.

Yes, they may be attracted to her because she is pretty, but not because she is young, that is the preference of a paedophile. By acknowledging that they would wait, the are acknowledging that to sleep with someone underage would be wrong and that they prefer adults.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Wake up a little.

This is off base anyway, because you're dodging the fact that all your child porn claims have gone to slack alley.

-AC

Comparing the masturbation over underage porn or the molestation of a 13 year old boy to a person who finds a 17 year old girl attractive yet is willing to wait till she is of legal age is quite a stretch. But if you seem comfortable believing it to be the same thing, so be it.

I find debating with you tiresome, not because I respect your debating ability nor intelligence (as you often seem to think others do) but rather because I find you childish.

A debate is not about winning, it is about making another see your point. You trying to get a victory amuses me, but if you can't see how ridiculous and childish you are, there is no sense debating with you.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
You are the one who asked me to refer to a dictionary. And actually a child can be a person between birth and puberty, a son or daughter, or someone who lacks the maturity to be an adult. You see, even thou you are 19 or 20 years old, many could still consider you to be a child.

Is "blad-ow" how you emphasize your point? Shouldn't the actual point be enough?

Yes, they may be attracted to her because she is pretty, but not because she is young, that is the preference of a paedophile. By acknowledging that they would wait, the are acknowledging that to sleep with someone underage would be wrong and that they prefer adults.

Comparing the masturbation over underage porn or the molestation of a 13 year old boy to a person who finds a 17 year old girl attractive yet is willing to wait till she is of legal age is quite a stretch. But if you seem comfortable believing it to be the same thing, so be it.

I find debating with you tiresome, not because I respect your debating ability nor intelligence (as you often seem to think others do) but rather because I find you childish.

A debate is not about winning, it is about making another see your point. You trying to get a victory amuses me, but if you can't see how ridiculous and childish you are, there is no sense debating with you. [/B][/QUOTE]

haha

be serious... as far as i can remember the guy owned freely available books showing underage boys naked and also had 60's era photo's of nude children.

legal or not, why the hell would a guy like MJ want that sort of material? educational reasons? seriously doubt it...

the jury have actually said themselves they couldn't convict him on this trial but have no doubt he's guilty from previous charges, he possessed photo's of nude children and in 1993 an innocent man wouldn't pay off his accuser (can groan at that all you want, but it's true..) proven or not, there's something foul goin on at the ranch lol

I hope he can avoid another situation like this...to get caught up in this twice can't be good for your career

Originally posted by KharmaDog
You are the one who asked me to refer to a dictionary. And actually a child can be a person between birth and puberty, a son or daughter, or someone who lacks the maturity to be an adult. You see, even thou you are 19 or 20 years old, many could still consider you to be a child.

Yes, so thanks for proving my point even more. If Michael Jackson is a paedophile, it's only by severely literal definition. Great, now we can move on.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Is "blad-ow" how you emphasize your point? Shouldn't the actual point be enough?

Shouldn't your posts be strong enough that you don't have to dedicate a whole line to a two syllable humourous part? Moving on again...

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Yes, they may be attracted to her because she is pretty, but not because she is young, that is the preference of a paedophile.

Yes, I know what you are referring to. I'm just saying that Jackson isn't a paedophile, because he isn't. Unless you want to get extremely literal.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
By acknowledging that they would wait, the are acknowledging that to sleep with someone underage would be wrong and that they prefer adults.

No, they're showing that they don't want to be hypocritical and also go to jail possibly, in the same breath. As soon as Lohan became legal, magazines all over the world started calling her sexy instead of cute. That doesn't happen overnight, so there must have been something there before. This is very roundabout and I don't see much point in dwelling on it longer, because you are quite wrong in a majority of people. Most people would say they'll wait purely because they've hated paedophilia before and want to be within the legal safe boundaries.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Comparing the masturbation over underage porn or the molestation of a 13 year old boy to a person who finds a 17 year old girl attractive yet is willing to wait till she is of legal age is quite a stretch. But if you seem comfortable believing it to be the same thing, so be it.

Well:

A) Don't assume I am comfortable believing it is the same thing just to help yourself. Because that simply isn't the case, nor did it seem so from my post.

B) I'm not comparing them. I'm simply stating that while one is a blatant act of paedophila, the other is still an act by technicality and definition. Which is never really used because it's pointless. But seeing as someone took it upon theirselves to label the man a paedophile, I was simply stating that from what we've all seen, he would ONLY be a paedophile by definition if that were the case. If he hasn't acted on it. And acting on it was the charge, he got acquitted. Picking up the breadcrumbs, Hanzel?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I find debating with you tiresome, not because I respect your debating ability nor intelligence (as you often seem to think others do) but rather because I find you childish.

As childish as twisting a point and trying to gain an edge? Like you did? As childish as referring to the poster, not the post? You've done both, I've done none. Hmm. Funny this.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
A debate is not about winning. it is about making another see your point. You trying to get a victory amuses me, but if you can't see how ridiculous and childish you are there is no sense debating with you.

Like I said above, as childish as doing what you're doing? I'm not trying to gain anything. So that must be you gaining that impression out of nowhere.

If you can't hack it, don't attack it. Simple. You can, and obviously do, interpret my posts in whichever way you believe will suit you and your mind, best. So far be it from me to request a change of ways. However, do yourself a favour and stop making assumptions then telling others to stop being childish. You make yourself look unbelievably hypocritical.

Peace out.

Originally posted by Df02
be serious... as far as i can remember the guy owned freely available books showing underage boys naked and also had 60's era photo's of nude children.

legal or not, why the hell would a guy like MJ want that sort of material? educational reasons? seriously doubt it...

As far as you're aware? I'm still waiting for sources. Where did you hear he owned child porn? Where did you see it? Where is your proof? The above line means diddly squat without it.

Originally posted by Df02
the jury have actually said themselves they couldn't convict him on this trial but have no doubt he's guilty from previous charges, he possessed photo's of nude children and in 1993 an innocent man wouldn't pay off his accuser (can groan at that all you want, but it's true..) proven or not, there's something foul goin on at the ranch lol

Drop the pay off thing, it's faulty, lame and doesn't strengthen your arguement one bit. Why? Because then I can say that the father of a sexually molested child doesn't allow the accused to get away with a pay off.

The man has been cleared and not nailed for 15 years and you're acting like you wish he was guilty. Surely you'd be happy that there's no evidence to suggest the man is molesting children, unless that's what you did want.

Makes you wonder...

-AC

it's funny how much effort you put into arguing your case, then use 'get a life'... then ask for evidence about what we say when you've been watching the same trial as us.

in 1993 he was found to have various pictures of naked children.
recently i'm not sure about - although i'm sure i've heard it mentioned...

if you care, you can look it up

The difference is, this is a thread created to debate a topic and I'm not constantly mulling over the verdict. We're discussing issues involved.

I'm not strolling around textually abusing the man, labelling him horrific things for things he hasn't done to anyone's knowledge.

You are.

Ok so that's the evidence?

One you're not sure about, the other is years and years and years ago, about naked children.

If you look through my family photo album there's pics of me as a toddler in the bath. Are my parents guilty of owning child porn?

You took a leap before you looked and you fell on your face.

-AC

But his music sucks...🙁 .....I don't want him to make another album...

So don't buy it or listen to it.

If you hate the sight of blood and I cut my arm, do you continue to look at it and *****? No. You look away.

Don't understand the big problem.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So don't buy it or listen to it.

If you hate the sight of blood and I cut my arm, do you continue to look at it and *****? No. You look away.

Don't understand the big problem.

-AC

Well yes you are right...but what if my brother suddenly decides that he doesn't like Bullshit Rap anymore and instead buys a new MJ Album...and then he plays it really loud right next to me....that wouldn't be good now would it...

No.

That would be unfortunate.

Again, don't see the big problem. We all hear music we don't like, it's life.

-AC

Yes well....its not a big problem..I just stated what I would prefer...

The thing I find most depressing is that people are pissed off that he is innocent. No reprehensible immoral act on which to vent the frsutration of their meagre lives.

Reminds me of the Bill Hicks line about wars to raise the country's mood.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
The thing I find most depressing is that people are pissed off that he is innocent. No reprehensible immoral act on which to vent the frsutration of their meagre lives.

Reminds me of the Bill Hicks line about wars to raise the country's mood.

Hmm he was found not guilty....but anyways.....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm he was found not guilty....but anyways.....

Oh God. Not again.

Let's again, consult that uncommonly used source of words, the dictionary.

in·no·cent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-snt)
adj.

-->Not guilty<-- of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless: was innocent of all charges.

To prevent further confusion, because undoubtedly this will go on:

INNOCENT meeeans...

-->NOT guilty<-- (as Michael Jackson, popular musical artist, was found)

Of a SPECIFIC CRIME (see the various charges in this case)

and just to clarify that a bit further, the dictionary- not me, mind- but the dictionary, where lest we forget, we defer for the definitive meaning of a word, says ' legally blameless: was innocent of all charges.'

Or as you might say- 'not guilty'.

People are getting mightily confused here. There are other issues to be raised concerning the veracity of the claims, or the integrity of the current legal system.

There is not a debate, however, that the legal sense of 'innocent' is different to 'not guilty'.

Well seeing as we're being overly literal, a child is anyone not of legal age.

If you're 17, you're a child. Blad-ow.

I don't know whether Michael Jackson is innocent or guilty of anything, but I'd like to point out that although a 17-year-old may be a minor, having sex with one would be statuary rape, not child molestation. And the APA defines pedophilia specificially as desiring prebubescent children.

Exactly.

Because that's the only paedophilia worth chasing up.

My point proven.

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Oh God. Not again.

Let's again, consult that uncommonly used source of words, the dictionary.

[B]in·no·cent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-snt)
adj.

-->Not guilty<-- of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless: was innocent of all charges.

To prevent further confusion, because undoubtedly this will go on:

INNOCENT meeeans...

-->NOT guilty<-- (as Michael Jackson, popular musical artist, was found)

Of a SPECIFIC CRIME (see the various charges in this case)

and just to clarify that a bit further, the dictionary- not me, mind- but the dictionary, where lest we forget, we defer for the definitive meaning of a word, says ' legally blameless: was innocent of all charges.'

Or as you might say- 'not guilty'.

People are getting mightily confused here. There are other issues to be raised concerning the veracity of the claims, or the integrity of the current legal system.

There is not a debate, however, that the legal sense of 'innocent' is different to 'not guilty'. [/B]

Look my friend....I don't care for your dictionary although I heard it is a nice book...I will look into it one of these days.....but even you will have to admit that just because you are found "not guilty" in a trial that doesn'T make you innocent...he either was it or not...nothing what a jury says can change the facts.

He might be innocent he might not...but in legal terms he was not found innocent but "not guilty".

No, in legal terms he was found innocent. That's what not guilty means, in legal terms.

I don't actually understand why everyone is so confused.

Innocent = Not guilty.

That's really all there is on the matter.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, in legal terms he was found innocent. That's what not guilty means, in legal terms.

I don't actually understand why everyone is so confused.

Innocent = Not guilty.

That's really all there is on the matter.

-AC

Well yes...but you do realise that being found innocent by the law doesn't mean you didn't do the crime....