Michael Jackson

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How is any of that relevant?

Yes, precisely.

Society put them in place to deal with it. If you are not authority, it's none of your business. If we are just gonna poke our nose in and keep getting involved, why have authorities?

The man was found not guilty on multiple counts by a court of law. I'm not saying courts are perfect, but like authorities, they exist for a reason. If you're going to question the outcomes no matter what, why even have them? The point of having them is coming to an acceptable judgement, which is more often than not.

There simply isn't enough opposing evidence to claim otherwise.

-AC [/B]

First off, "authorities" are very much subject to the wants of society. Lawmakers don't keep their positions unless they meet the wants and needs of society.

You also admit that courts aren't perfect, yet you say we can't question the outcome. If something is proven to make mistakes, we have every right to question it...indeed we should.

It seems you just have a different political view here. You seem like an intelligent person, but you're advocating intentional ignorance. I couldn't ever agree with that. Our government is what we make it, and it's continually changing to meet our needs.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Fail.

Seeing a man abuse your son or daughter and WALKING AWAY is not ignoring a "blatant sign", it's being a c*nt of a parent. That goes beyond "blatant sign".

Furthermore, it's not outlandish as what I said. During war times, hosepipe bans were frequent and neighbours were advised to save water by bathing with trusted friends. It's not an uncommon thing.

It's also possible that if they were together THAT much, that he saw him getting out of the shower or whatever. Many reasons.
-AC

Parents ignore abuse all the time. Wives stay married to, and lie for, abusive husbands every day. Parents don't report abuse by priests. That is not an assumption, it's a statement of fact. It doesn't have to make sense to you, because it isn't up for debate. It's a fact, it happens, too often.

Anyway, that's all I'll post on the subject. No one here is going to be changing their mind so I don't see a point.

Originally posted by Robtard
The birth mother of his children came forward and stated that MJ was not the natural father to his children, a [Caucasian] sperm donor was used. Which isn't a surprise, since his children look completely Caucasian.

More oddness to his life.

I was just discussing this yesterday. very odd indeed

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You're saying he "pursued" teenage boys, but again, if the pursuit (Which is a bit of an implicit way to put it) didn't end in abuse, we've got no issue.-AC

And you.............see no problem with a grown man "pursuing" young boys? May I ask why?

Originally posted by Impediment
And you.............see no problem with a grown man "pursuing" young boys? May I ask why?

whats wrong with that? as long as the child isnt being abused why is there a problem?

I think that grown man might have been mentally unstable with a child like brain.

Originally posted by Impediment
And you.............see no problem with a grown man "pursuing" young boys? May I ask why?

Where is your evidence?

He was proven innocent in court.

Next time Channel 4 or More 4 show that "what really happened" special, have a gander. They detail some there. It goes back to his Thriller days.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Where is your evidence?

He was proven innocent in court.

I have no evidence.

Still, would you let your adolescent son (existing or hypothetical) sleep over at a grown man's house?

Sadako, you're seriously suggesting...Channel 4?

Watch Channel 4, the U.K.'s shittest tabloid TV channel. Don't listen to the court ruling.

Channel 4, the channel that televised Teen Big Brother, on which they co-erced young teens, barely of age (If they even were), into having sex on live TV.

A channel to be trusted, because THEY aren't after ratings more than truth. Oh no.

Originally posted by grimify
First off, "authorities" are very much subject to the wants of society. Lawmakers don't keep their positions unless they meet the wants and needs of society.

You also admit that courts aren't perfect, yet you say we can't question the outcome. If something is proven to make mistakes, we have every right to question it...indeed we should.

Question it if there is suspicion of foul play. There isn't in this case. There IS evidence to suggest these people are after his money, there IS evidence and sworn quotes that say these men and kids lied under oath, there are many quotes from other celebrity youngsters such as Macauley Culkin, who have said that he never once inappropriately touched them.

He WAS accused of doing so, by the way.

In fact, one of my father's close friends was his lawyer at one point. It was one of two guys, Eric Sauter or Steven Marcelino. I had the pleasure of meeting Eric (I think) during a visit to New York and he said that his wife, rather embarrassingly, ran up to Culkin and asked him "Did he touch you, really?", and Culkin flat out denied it. This was without any cameras around.

Now, I don't expect everyone to believe that, but I am not a liar and I am not a bullshitter.

Originally posted by grimify
It seems you just have a different political view here. You seem like an intelligent person, but you're advocating intentional ignorance. I couldn't ever agree with that. Our government is what we make it, and it's continually changing to meet our needs.

My point, as I was getting to above, is the fact that you seem to feel that a lack of evidence doesn't make the man not guilty. For all intents and purposes, it does. Just like people are wrongly convicted of crimes and put on death row, because sure, there was "enough" evidence to suggest they were guilty.

Originally posted by grimify
Parents ignore abuse all the time. Wives stay married to, and lie for, abusive husbands every day. Parents don't report abuse by priests. That is not an assumption, it's a statement of fact. It doesn't have to make sense to you, because it isn't up for debate. It's a fact, it happens, too often.

Anyway, that's all I'll post on the subject. No one here is going to be changing their mind so I don't see a point.

If what Evan Chandler said is true, then it's highly likely and in fact probable, that he saw nothing inappropriate in a sexual manner, but inappropriate in a manner he deemed too improper for a man to be doing with his son. This obviously caused the court case and what I believe to be the lies.

Originally posted by Impediment
And you.............see no problem with a grown man "pursuing" young boys? May I ask why?

I don't even believe he was pursuing them so much as he was looking for children to be friends with. I honestly do believe the world is not so shitty that a man OR woman cannot be that nice to children that are not his or her own.

I think, at most, Michael Jackson might have considered "You know, people are vultures and are definitely out to get me. Maybe pursuing this course, as innocent as it is, would not be the best course.", and help himself out a little.

However, he didn't have to, if he was genuinely innocent.

Originally posted by Impediment
Still, would you let your adolescent son (existing or hypothetical) sleep over at a grown man's house?

So many things wrong with this line.

1) Why do people keep harping on the sleepovers, as if they are the crime?

2) It'd be the parents' fault.

3) IF he was a paedophile and did abuse that boy, it's still significantly less blame for him. He was just doing what a paedophile does. Wrong, but expected. The more evil, creepy, sadistic folks are the families who sent their kids back, knowing it was possible, just to make money.

Either way, he comes off less bad.

In the WORST case scenario, he fondled children inappropriately. He was still exceptionally caring and loving toward them. He wasn't raping or killing. So let's be thankful for small mercies. The parents are still the worst people in the situation.

This is irrelevant though, as I don't believe he was a paedophile.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So many things wrong with this line.

1) Why do people keep harping on the sleepovers, as if they are the crime?

2) It'd be the parents' fault.

3) IF he was a paedophile and did abuse that boy, it's still significantly less blame for him. He was just doing what a paedophile does. Wrong, but expected. The more evil, creepy, sadistic folks are the families who sent their kids back, knowing it was possible, just to make money.

Either way, he comes off less bad.

In the WORST case scenario, he fondled children inappropriately. He was still exceptionally caring and loving toward them. He wasn't raping or killing. So let's be thankful for small mercies. The parents are still the worst people in the situation.

This is irrelevant though, as I don't believe he was a paedophile.

-AC

1. You, yourself, see no "possible foul play" in a grown man asking if your child can sleep over at his house? Childless or not?

2. I agree with you.

3, I strongly disagree. While the hypothetical parents could be chastised for letting their son sleep over at a grown man's house, is not the (hypothetical) pedophile more to blame for the actual act of molestation?

The hypothetical molester was loving and caring? Small mercies? You're serious?

So, what next? The hypothetical rapist of a young 12 year old girl pulls out so as to avoid impregnation?

Hahahah yes normally beneath me, Much of 4, AC but still...

Tabloidy channel or not, this wasnt very tabloidy, this doc. It was evidence submitted by a US invesigator and other sources, including Jackson's manager, and Jackson acted the way Jackson did in footage it showed, by himself. Like on the Bashir doc.
I recall no gun at his head.

Originally posted by Impediment
1. You, yourself, see no "possible foul play" in a grown man asking if your child can sleep over at his house? Childless or not?

Stop asking me that question when I've given you and many others a clear cut, reasonably answer with backing.

You're not Rain Man.

Originally posted by Impediment
3, I strongly disagree. While the hypothetical parents could be chastised for letting their son sleep over at a grown man's house, is not the (hypothetical) pedophile more to blame for the actual act of molestation?

The hypothetical molester was loving and caring? Small mercies? You're serious?

So, what next? The hypothetical rapist of a young 12 year old girl pulls out so as to avoid impregnation?

Let's weight it up:

Man is to blame for molestation, one count of wrong doing.

Parents are to blame for knowing it could happen and still placing child there. Parents then continue to do it despite it being alleged. Parents force children to lie under oath. Parents take pay off.

That's four counts of child exploitation, using paedophilia as a willing sacrifice.

You're asking me if I think they're worse? F*cking right I do. If Michael Jackson was a paedophile, he's clearly not the worst kind of paedophile. You'd be a fool to think otherwise. He never physically seemed to hurt a child, never abducted a child, never killed. So IF...IF he molested them, he should be blamed, but that's it.

The parents did much worse than a guy simply thinking with his dick. You should know that as a parent, protection of your kid comes before anything else. You don't point the finger at everyone but yourself.

-AC

Originally posted by Impediment
I have no evidence.

Still, would you let your adolescent son (existing or hypothetical) sleep over at a grown man's house?

I would even let him touch my son's willy for 22 million

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Stop asking me that question when I've given you and many others a clear cut, reasonably answer with backing.

You're not Rain Man.[/B]

Defintely not. No. No, definitely not. Uh-oh.

I have not, in fact, read your retort. Care to give me a link?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Let's weight it up:

Man is to blame for molestation, one count of wrong doing.

Parents are to blame for knowing it could happen and still placing child there. Parents then continue to do it despite it being alleged. Parents force children to lie under oath. Parents take pay off.

That's four counts of child exploitation, using paedophilia as a willing sacrifice.

You're asking me if I think they're worse? F*cking right I do. If Michael Jackson was a paedophile, he's clearly not the worst kind of paedophile. You'd be a fool to think otherwise. He never physically seemed to hurt a child, never abducted a child, never killed. So IF...IF he molested them, he should be blamed, but that's it.

The parents did much worse than a guy simply thinking with his dick. You should know that as a parent, protection of your kid comes before anything else. You don't point the finger at everyone but yourself.

-AC [/B]

You're, of course, talking about the parents of the children who knew MJ and, still, let their kids sleep over at the house of MJ, right? Okay. I agree with you 100% that these parents where, in fact, money vultures with nothing more than dollar signs in their eyes.

My penultimate question to you, AC, is:

If you knew Michael Jackson as an individual, beit rich or poor, you're honestly gonna sit here and say to me that you actually feel 100% comfortable with letting your child(ren) stay at a grown man's house? Honestly?

This is not about the greed of dumb ass parents. It's about setting boundaries AS A PARENT.

Originally posted by GCG
I would even let him touch my son's willy for 22 million

22? Why not just for 20?

Originally posted by Impediment
My penultimate question to you, AC, is:

If you knew Michael Jackson as an individual, beit rich or poor, you're honestly gonna sit here and say to me that you actually feel 100% comfortable with letting your child(ren) stay at a grown man's house? Honestly?

This is not about the greed of dumb ass parents. It's about setting boundaries AS A PARENT.

I would if I trusted him, or her, yes.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I would if I trusted him, or her, yes.

-AC

Ah, but: putting that much trust into an individual can be one's downfall, no?

Precisely, but bearing in mind I'd have no reason to distrust.

If I did, I would no longer allow the visits.

-AC

But doesnt that strike you as a bit of 'sticking your dick in the mains outlet, when the power may or may not be on flipping the switch, and saying "well if my dick isnt burned off, I'll do it again tommorrow" ' logic....?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Precisely, but bearing in mind I'd have no reason to distrust.

If I did, I would no longer allow the visits.

-AC

Umm......isn't that a little like saying "I'm gonna put my hand into the piranha tank. If my hand isn't eaten, then I'll do it again. If it IS eaten, then I won't do it again."

So..............where does common sense prevail here?