Let's talk about Michael Jackson...

soulvengeance

soulvengeance

CAGiversary!
Feedback
195 (100%)
Hopefully this will get some people out of the other thread to discuss whether or not he was a child molester. Just a quick link to wikipedia for general information about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Jackson

I'm sure there will be other links that people will post, and I welcome it. I'll say I'm on the side that he is a child molester, he settled the first case out of court, so either he was trying to protect his career, or he knew he was guilty. The second case I will admit smells like it was a money grab by the parents and kids, but I don't really see how Jackson could have possibly thought it was okay to sleep with underage children, even if nothing happened. Let's try to keep the jokes out of this thread, and discuss!
 
Michael Jackson is one of the most complex human beings I can think of.
 
[quote name='docvinh'] I'll say I'm on the side that he is a child molester, he settled the first case out of court, so either he was trying to protect his career, or he knew he was guilty. [/QUOTE]

Actually for the first trial he refused to settle it when the family first asked for 20 million, then then the family took him to court. Eventually it got so bad that the smartest thing to do would be to settle it and get it over with (Jackson ended up paying 22 million). Looking back I am sure he would paid the family.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='docvinh']I don't really see how Jackson could have possibly thought it was okay to sleep with underage children, even if nothing happened.[/QUOTE]
for the informed, this is the crux of the issue and opinions on it are what divides those who believe he was guilty from those who don't (or are agnostic). i'm agnostic about his guilt, and that's because i believe he might've thought it was okay -- it very well could've been entirely innocent.

undeniably, MJ was eccentric. this is unusually common among artistic geniuses, especially prodigal artistic geniuses that have such unusual upbringings. it's definitely odd, goes against our social norms, to sleep in the same bed as someone elses child and to allow them to drink red wine. in our society, you just don't do that. but he had other eccentricities as well, especially with regard to cosmetic surgery, he made some other very unusual choices, seemingly not understanding at all why people disapproved. people who know him closely say that after the 2003 accusations he learned that what he was doing, however innocent, bothered people and were against social norms, so he vowed to stop... that in itself is weird as hell. why'd he keep doing it after 1993? i think that sort of points to innocence... if he were actually doing anything wrong, someone close to him had to have known about it, and it seems like they would have told him these kids aren't robots, they're gonna talk, you can't get away with it.

another side to it... that eccentric behavior definitely invites frivolous suits. i think the settlements are not at all any admission of guilt -- plenty of people, especially famous people and corporations, anyone with money & in the public eye, settle all the time. and people know that. look at that finger-chili woman: she had sued her ex-boss for sexual harassment (and settled), sued her car company for 'a wheel falling off' and fired her attorney and dropped the case when they wouldn't settle, then tried to sue wendy's (probably hoping to settle) until the police proved she was a fraud... there are many many people like her launching frivolous suits to make a quick buck, and one of the world's highest paid entertainers, whose speaks constantly of philanthropy for our children, acts odd, and spends time with ill children at his amusement park... pretty easy target.


regardless, i dunno what happened and i think few if any do, so i'll just remember him for the entertainment legend he was. allegations do not warrant condemning a legendary entertainer and great philanthropist.
 
[quote name='Koggit']for the informed, this is the crux of the issue and opinions on it are what divides those who believe he was guilty from those who don't (or are agnostic). i'm agnostic about his guilt, and that's because i believe he might've thought it was okay -- it very well could've been entirely innocent.
[/QUOTE]

That's definitely possible. I would definitely say his upbringing sort of stunted his social growth, where he might think that was still acceptable as an adult. Someone around him should have told him that it was inappropriate, or at least that it would be viewed as inappropriate. It's too bad no one did, or if they did, that he didn't listen because he probably could've avoided the whole fiasco that became the last few years of his life.

[quote name='62t']Actually for the first trial he refused to settle it when the family first asked for 20 million, then then the family took him to court. Eventually it got so bad that the smartest thing to do would be to settle it and get it over with (Jackson ended up paying 22 million). Looking back I am sure he would paid the family.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson[/QUOTE]

Either way, I would say it wasn't a wise decision to pay, because it made him look bad regardless, and it didn't seem like the family was keeping their mouth shut even after the settlement.
 
It looks like (going by the wiki article) that everyone who had something bad to say about him did so for monetary gain.

No doubt he was weird though. Remember he held the baby over the balcony or whatever? Like when Steve Irwin brought his baby near the alligator...What's up with people doing crazy shit with babies?
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']I think the South Park episode sums this up perfectly; he was strange and eccentric, but not a child molester.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103885
(completely legal fyi)[/QUOTE]
post reported

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but it seems like the first case was a money grab also. The tape recording by Evan Chandler where he says, ""If I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever...Michael's career will be over" seems to point to the possibility the dude was just trying to get money out of him.

I don't know if he was a pedophille, but it's my belief that he was just a really, really goofy bastard that didn't care about the social norms, as Koggit put it, and just did whatever he felt was okay, even if it didn't come off looking good.
 
Wow, first this is the only forum which is talking about MJ and is shorter then 1 page!!!

Anyhow, as others have said I do believe he was a pedophile which along with his mental and physical appearance issues stemmed from a fucked up childhood. He was good at the musical art and was a good business man, but unfortunately surrounded himself with a bunch of leeching financial advisers which added to his self-destruction.

RIP MJ, hopefully you can find the peace you never had in life.
 
watched this video and it kinda sums up how i feel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU5GfCsb9gA

he was never convicted, and yes he was a weird guy. we will never know for a fact what happened. there was no concrete evidence.

however, we do know for a fact that he donated to the most charities ever of any single person and made the most amazing songs ... many about poverty and racial equality that made a massive difference in millions of lives.

Rest in Peace
 
I already used up my obligatory cruel joke in another thread, so I'll play nice now.

I don't think he was a child molester. I think he had Peter Pan Syndrome (kinda like Miyamoto...flashbacks to him dressed up in a Link costume). He played with kids because in his mind he was still an eternal child. The fact that it was odd for a grown man to play with children (play, not babysit) naturally led people to immediately label him a pervert. Was he sick? Yeah, but probably more of a social sickness than a perversion. It was the way he looked now (another unrelated syndrome) that caused his troubles. Because back before all the surgeries when he was taking monkeys and Corey Feldman to red carpet events, people just rolled their eyes rather than break out the torches and pitchforks.

But if you set aside that the families might have just been out for a payday and believed them, then Jackson maybe was just a hair shy of molesting a kid. Still, I only recall that he might have simply showed the kid some dirty magazines...but probably more of a "Hey, look what I found in my dad's sock drawer!" moment (again, because of his Peter Pan syndrome) than trying to seduce the kid.

It didn't help that his first act after being found not guilty was to move to a country that was more open to his behavior. It just cast further suspicion on him. I think he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. When you reach that level of eccentricity, there's not much you can do to defend yourself in the public eye.
 
[quote name='evanft']$20 million is a LOT to just get someone to settle if there is no real evidence. Just sayin'.[/QUOTE]
He was also filthy rich, at one point. Are you referring to the '93 case when you say the 20 million?
 
i've been reading his wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson - not done, it's pretty lengthy

leading up to the '93 accusations he was making over $100 mil a year from his music career alone, about $2 mil per show plus huge endorsement payouts and album/merchandise royalties -- and even in the mid 00's, when everyone was talking about his debt and financial trouble, he was making $75 mil a year from his investments and holdings. he & sony, jointly, owned a huge part of the entertainment industry.

although the damage to his image was definitely the most harmful of the whole ordeal, i guarantee you the time he spent in that case was worth more than the money he ultimately gave them. when you can make $2 mil per performance, it doesn't make much sense to spend months in a courtroom fighting $20 mil.
 
[quote name='evanft']$20 million is a LOT to just get someone to settle if there is no real evidence. Just sayin'.[/QUOTE]

Not if you're Michael Jackson.

I would be more convinced that he was possibly a child molester if the cases didn't seem to be brought by complete money-grabbing bastards who had mental issues themselves.
 
Michael Jackson was a very troubled, disturbed individual who lived a very eccentric lifestyle which may have seemed strange to you and I, but was not terribly far out of the norm for people of his stature and income level. He had a very sheltered childhood combined with the alleged abuse from his father, which ended up leaving his mind in almost a child like state, forever searching to find that childhood he had been denied. Couple this with the fact that he had almost limitless financial resources, and it's not very hard to see how his behavior eventually got out of hand. He was a very sad, very lonely, very rich person who didn't have much of any clue of what to do with himself.

I firmly believe, and always have believed, that he did not have any inappropriate relations with any children, and any behavior or activities related to any children were completely innocent, at least in his mind, but not illegal. Celebrities of Michael Jackson's stature are often the target of criminals, extortionists, and other looking to make a quick buck off of him, and I really do feel that any accusations of child molestation made against him were simply that, attempts at extortion. He settled in 1993 because he didn't wish to continue to get his name dragged through the mud. He was tired of being a target for the tabloids, and simply wanted to put the whole thing behind him. He was acquitted in 2005 due to the child making the claims unwillingness to testify. If Jackson had touched children inappropriately as had been alleged, it wouldn't have been difficult for the prosecution to find at least someone, if not multiple people, to take the stand and attest to it, and that never happened.

When Jackson's assets were excised from Neverland a few months back, we all had a good laugh at how strange and bizarre much of it was, but my reaction to it was, yeah it may be strange for a grown man to have all this weird shit, but is his collection really that much different than the types of things you would have seen owned by you or I if we had the kind of money Jackson did? If I had the financial resources he did, I'd have an arcade collection that would have dwarfed his 10x over, along with whatever other toys, gadgets, and other weird shit I could get my hands on.

In life Michael Jackson was an easy target for the media who misinterpreted his strange behavior and cast him out as a sinister character, all but leaving his talent and influence behind him. I hope (and would bet my money on) him being remembered for his music and iconic status, rather than his bizarre personal life, as has happened with Elvis these past 30 years. Michael Jackson will inevitably transcend popular culture and become a being in and of himself, the Elvis Presley of our time, and god bless him for it.
 
[quote name='spmahn']Michael Jackson was a very troubled, disturbed individual who lived a very eccentric lifestyle which may have seemed strange to you and I, but was not terribly far out of the norm for people of his stature and income level. He had a very sheltered childhood combined with the alleged abuse from his father, which ended up leaving his mind in almost a child like state, forever searching to find that childhood he had been denied. Couple this with the fact that he had almost limitless financial resources, and it's not very hard to see how his behavior eventually got out of hand. He was a very sad, very lonely, very rich person who didn't have much of any clue of what to do with himself.

I firmly believe, and always have believed, that he did not have any inappropriate relations with any children, and any behavior or activities related to any children were completely innocent, at least in his mind, but not illegal. Celebrities of Michael Jackson's stature are often the target of criminals, extortionists, and other looking to make a quick buck off of him, and I really do feel that any accusations of child molestation made against him were simply that, attempts at extortion. He settled in 1993 because he didn't wish to continue to get his name dragged through the mud. He was tired of being a target for the tabloids, and simply wanted to put the whole thing behind him. He was acquitted in 2005 due to the child making the claims unwillingness to testify. If Jackson had touched children inappropriately as had been alleged, it wouldn't have been difficult for the prosecution to find at least someone, if not multiple people, to take the stand and attest to it, and that never happened.

When Jackson's assets were excised from Neverland a few months back, we all had a good laugh at how strange and bizarre much of it was, but my reaction to it was, yeah it may be strange for a grown man to have all this weird shit, but is his collection really that much different than the types of things you would have seen owned by you or I if we had the kind of money Jackson did? If I had the financial resources he did, I'd have an arcade collection that would have dwarfed his 10x over, along with whatever other toys, gadgets, and other weird shit I could get my hands on.

In life Michael Jackson was an easy target for the media who misinterpreted his strange behavior and cast him out as a sinister character, all but leaving his talent and influence behind him. I hope (and would bet my money on) him being remembered for his music and iconic status, rather than his bizarre personal life, as has happened with Elvis these past 30 years. Michael Jackson will inevitably transcend popular culture and become a being in and of himself, the Elvis Presley of our time, and god bless him for it.[/QUOTE]

well said, very well written
 
[quote name='spmahn']Michael Jackson was a very troubled, disturbed individual who lived a very eccentric lifestyle which may have seemed strange to you and I, but was not terribly far out of the norm for people of his stature and income level. He had a very sheltered childhood combined with the alleged abuse from his father, which ended up leaving his mind in almost a child like state, forever searching to find that childhood he had been denied. Couple this with the fact that he had almost limitless financial resources, and it's not very hard to see how his behavior eventually got out of hand. He was a very sad, very lonely, very rich person who didn't have much of any clue of what to do with himself.

I firmly believe, and always have believed, that he did not have any inappropriate relations with any children, and any behavior or activities related to any children were completely innocent, at least in his mind, but not illegal. Celebrities of Michael Jackson's stature are often the target of criminals, extortionists, and other looking to make a quick buck off of him, and I really do feel that any accusations of child molestation made against him were simply that, attempts at extortion. He settled in 1993 because he didn't wish to continue to get his name dragged through the mud. He was tired of being a target for the tabloids, and simply wanted to put the whole thing behind him. He was acquitted in 2005 due to the child making the claims unwillingness to testify. If Jackson had touched children inappropriately as had been alleged, it wouldn't have been difficult for the prosecution to find at least someone, if not multiple people, to take the stand and attest to it, and that never happened.

When Jackson's assets were excised from Neverland a few months back, we all had a good laugh at how strange and bizarre much of it was, but my reaction to it was, yeah it may be strange for a grown man to have all this weird shit, but is his collection really that much different than the types of things you would have seen owned by you or I if we had the kind of money Jackson did? If I had the financial resources he did, I'd have an arcade collection that would have dwarfed his 10x over, along with whatever other toys, gadgets, and other weird shit I could get my hands on.

In life Michael Jackson was an easy target for the media who misinterpreted his strange behavior and cast him out as a sinister character, all but leaving his talent and influence behind him. I hope (and would bet my money on) him being remembered for his music and iconic status, rather than his bizarre personal life, as has happened with Elvis these past 30 years. Michael Jackson will inevitably transcend popular culture and become a being in and of himself, the Elvis Presley of our time, and god bless him for it.[/QUOTE]
Excellent post.
 
Not too mention if I was a parent and someone touched my kid, no amount of money would stop me from having my hand wrapped around their throat
 
[quote name='SpeedyG']Not too mention if I was a parent and someone touched my kid, no amount of money would stop me from having my hand wrapped around their throat[/QUOTE]

But you're assuming everyone is a good parent. Too many people would sell their children for a shiny car... Even then, 'good' parents (and I mean that loosely) might "justify" it by thinking "What's done is done - 20 Million Dollars will buy a lot for the kid and a shot at a great education..."
 
[quote name='62t']but think of it this way too, if you have a son would you let hims sleep at Neverland Ranch?[/QUOTE]

If you want to make 20 mill, you do. Unfortunately, too many people view rich people as money grabs. When that rich person is legitimately eccentric and does weird things with kids it's like easy money to them.

It's not like they're the first people to prostitute their children. Look at the beauty pageant crowd. They do horrible things to their children in the name of beauty aka cash money. How's that any different than letting your kid go to Neverland once or twice in the hopes that MJ would take them to his bedroom and give them some red wine?

Let me be clear. I love Michael Jackson the recording artist but he went to far and allowed himself to be viewed as a pedophile/child molester. He was never convicted but, in the public's eye, he's guilty as hell. It's the new guilty until proven innocent mindset that's been provoked by the media. So many tabloid shows out there that just put anyone on regardless if their stories check out. It's a bigger issue than just MJ.
 
"allowed himself to be viewed as a pedophile/child molester"

Wow. Damn you, Michael Jackson - how dare you not build a machine that lets you control the minds of millions, preventing them from viewing you in a bad light.
 
[quote name='Malik112099']When OJ Simpson dies are we all gonna rant and rave about how great an athlete he was?[/QUOTE]
He was convicted of armed robbery.

Jackson was never convicted of anything.
 
[quote name='Quillion']He was convicted of armed robbery.

Jackson was never convicted of anything.[/QUOTE]


Dont dance around the subject....other pro players have been caught for DUI, dog fighting, etc but the vast majority will be remembered for their pro career....when OJ dies everyone will bring up the murders even though he was never found guilty
 
[quote name='UncleBob']"allowed himself to be viewed as a pedophile/child molester"

Wow. Damn you, Michael Jackson - how dare you not build a machine that lets you control the minds of millions, preventing them from viewing you in a bad light.[/QUOTE]

You don't have to build a machine. It's a simple as not sleeping with young boys after offering them "Jesus Juice". I'm sure America would view you as a pedophile if you did the same.

And if you read the rest of my post, you'd see that I blame the media for propogating a guilty until innocent viewpoint for everyone these days.
 
[quote name='Malik112099']When OJ Simpson dies are we all gonna rant and rave about how great an athlete he was?[/QUOTE]

This is a poor comparison. I'm actually wondering how you came to think of them as parallel. I have one possibility, but it sets my mind back ten thousand years.

The larger thing that bugs me is that you're so very insistent on making this whole argument present itself as logical from your end zone, when really you're scoring on yourself, if you catch my meaning.

And since you might not, here it is: Your argument - that people are blindly praising a dead guy - is no different from blindly hating him and everyone else in mourning. You're doing what you are so annoyed with, just in the other direction.

It's time to for you to drop the discussion.
 
okay, putting aside the huge differences in the allegations (one was brought on by police to criminal court with evidence, the other by a greedy white-trash family to civil court with no evidence), even if OJ had no criminal history at all, not so much as a speeding ticket, few would care much about his death... he was just a good football player. not legendary-good, just good. mj is the most commercially successful musician of all time, and he contributed a lot to society through both his fame and philanthropy.

if OJ had broken every record in football, had no criminal history, used every press conference to foster peace, and donated huge portions of his wealth to charity... yeah, i'd rave about him quite a bit when he died.
 
O.J. was a legendary good football player. You forget that he was the first player to rush for over 2,000 yards in an NFL season. Don't forget that Heisman he won at USC. Both of those are pretty legendary accomplishments.
 
[quote name='Strell']This is a poor comparison. I'm actually wondering how you came to think of them as parallel. I have one possibility, but it sets my mind back ten thousand years.

The larger thing that bugs me is that you're so very insistent on making this whole argument present itself as logical from your end zone, when really you're scoring on yourself, if you catch my meaning.

And since you might not, here it is: Your argument - that people are blindly praising a dead guy - is no different from blindly hating him and everyone else in mourning. You're doing what you are so annoyed with, just in the other direction.

It's time to for you to drop the discussion.[/QUOTE]


I havent said anything hateful...i loved his music and was a giant fan when I was younger..im not hating at all....i am trying to understand all the praises just because he is dead. I just dont think like that I guess. Dead or alive I feel the same way about the guy right this moment. he wasnt in my life. I hadnt heard about him in years and now that he is dead there has been no direct change to my life. So I dont care either way.

It is like when I hear about a guy from high school who is now dead. Havent seen or heard from this person in over 10 years. They do not exist to me in my world. So when my wife comes to me and says "did you hear so and so died?" I say "nope, that sucks" and move on. i dont run to my yearbooks and resurrect all the good things the guy did just because he is officially dead as oppossed to not existing in my world.
 
[quote name='depascal22']O.J. was a legendary good football player. You forget that he was the first player to rush for over 2,000 yards in an NFL season. Don't forget that Heisman he won at USC. Both of those are pretty legendary accomplishments.[/QUOTE]


yeah but at this moment he is an unconvicted killer in most of the world's eyes. It would be complete bullshit if that changed because of his death.
 
[quote name='Malik112099']I havent said anything hateful...i loved his music and was a giant fan when I was younger..im not hating at all....i am trying to understand all the praises just because he is dead. I just dont think like that I guess. Dead or alive I feel the same way about the guy right this moment. he wasnt in my life. I hadnt heard about him in years and now that he is dead there has been no direct change to my life. So I dont care either way.
[/quote]

You're in no position to govern the lives of others. How do you not understand this concept? It's very simple - check it, like...one, two...ten words. You really can't get lost on a path that short and small.

It is like when I hear about a guy from high school who is now dead. Havent seen or heard from this person in over 10 years. They do not exist to me in my world. So when my wife comes to me and says "did you hear so and so died?" I say "nope, that sucks" and move on. i dont run to my yearbooks and resurrect all the good things the guy did just because he is officially dead as oppossed to not existing in my world.
Click to expand...

*Sigh.* Go get an apple, go get an orange, and stare at them for the rest of the day.
 
[quote name='depascal22']You don't have to build a machine. It's a simple as not sleeping with young boys after offering them "Jesus Juice". I'm sure America would view you as a pedophile if you did the same.

And if you read the rest of my post, you'd see that I blame the media for propogating a guilty until innocent viewpoint for everyone these days.[/QUOTE]

You blame the media - after stating in your post that MJ "went too far and allowed" free willed and free thinking individuals to think bad thoughts about him.
 
[quote name='Strell']*Sigh.* Go get an apple, go get an orange, and stare at them for the rest of the day.[/QUOTE]

While I agree with what you're saying, it's annoying to me that people are dying for their freedom in Iran and all the news wants to talk about is one (or four...) dead celebrity.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You blame the media - after stating in your post that MJ "went too far and allowed" free willed and free thinking individuals to think bad thoughts about him.[/QUOTE]

You and I both know there are certain things you don't do because it changes the perception of who you are. You don't give wine to kids that aren't your own even though a little is OK and not going to harm the child.

You don't sleep with other people's children no matter what.

Michael did those things. The media blew it out of proportion. They're both to blame I guess.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']While I agree with what you're saying, it's annoying to me that people are dying for their freedom in Iran and all the news wants to talk about is one (or four...) dead celebrity.[/QUOTE]

And that's a false equivalency. I got onto that ish yesterday in the MJ thread, and you're free to go look at it there.
 
[quote name='Koggit']mj is the most commercially successful musician of all time[/QUOTE]


Elvis to this day has still sold more albums...
 
[quote name='Strell']And that's a false equivalency. I got onto that ish yesterday in the MJ thread, and you're free to go look at it there.[/QUOTE]

There's only so much time to air news on the television. When issues like a dead celebrity take up that time, real issues get pushed to the back and get little-to-no coverage. It's annoying.

[quote name='depascal22']You and I both know there are certain things you don't do because it changes the perception of who you are. You don't give wine to kids that aren't your own even though a little is OK and not going to harm the child.

You don't sleep with other people's children no matter what.

Michael did those things. The media blew it out of proportion. They're both to blame I guess.[/QUOTE]

There is nothing wrong with giving reasonable amounts of low-proof wine to children - so long as the parents know and approve of it.

Sleeping with other people's children - creepy - agreed. But that (in-and-of itself) does not make one a child molester and doesn't give people the right to call you one.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']There's only so much time to air news on the television. When issues like a dead celebrity take up that time, real issues get pushed to the back and get little-to-no coverage. It's annoying.
[/QUOTE]

First off, that's bullshit. These news networks have all day - 24 hours - to talk about stuff. But they just repeat the same things over and over. Not the same story, I mean - the actual same material. It's running on loop unless some new breaking item appears. "Man kills self trying to shotgun watermelon in half." That'll interrupt the cycle.

In other words, it's ridiculous that they claim they don't have enough time. So I'm not aiming this at you, but at how you're telling me you don't have the digital real estate. There's absolutely no way you couldn't create a stream of constantly new stories - 24 hours a day would actually seem small if we could do that. But that costs a lot more money, which is why it isn't happening. Even then you could argue "what about the people just tuning in? They have every reason to know what is going on," which is an argument for repetition. There's no way out of this hole.

Secondly, you've got every right, chance, and ability to go look up whatever news you consider real and relevant to you. There's plenty of websites for this sort of thing, plenty of alternative news programs, NPR, etc. So there's no shortage of availability, which means it falls to you.

Really the only thing I agree with - and even then only halfway - is this notion that the news fails to report more "significant" things, due to stupid reasons like spin, ad space, ratings, whatever. But I came to that conclusion a long time ago, because the 24 hour format lends itself too easily toward slanted reporting, personal opinions, and focus on trivial things in the face of "more important" matters.

Which sort of blurs back into reason #2 up there.

News networks are trash, yes. And sadly that means people need to pick up the slack personally. But they won't. So they go back to the trash networks because it's less work.

But we're veering far, far off course in the original discussion here.
 
[quote name='spmahn']Michael Jackson was a very troubled, disturbed individual who lived a very eccentric lifestyle which may have seemed strange to you and I, but was not terribly far out of the norm for people of his stature and income level. He had a very sheltered childhood combined with the alleged abuse from his father, which ended up leaving his mind in almost a child like state, forever searching to find that childhood he had been denied. Couple this with the fact that he had almost limitless financial resources, and it's not very hard to see how his behavior eventually got out of hand. He was a very sad, very lonely, very rich person who didn't have much of any clue of what to do with himself.

I firmly believe, and always have believed, that he did not have any inappropriate relations with any children, and any behavior or activities related to any children were completely innocent, at least in his mind, but not illegal. Celebrities of Michael Jackson's stature are often the target of criminals, extortionists, and other looking to make a quick buck off of him, and I really do feel that any accusations of child molestation made against him were simply that, attempts at extortion. He settled in 1993 because he didn't wish to continue to get his name dragged through the mud. He was tired of being a target for the tabloids, and simply wanted to put the whole thing behind him. He was acquitted in 2005 due to the child making the claims unwillingness to testify. If Jackson had touched children inappropriately as had been alleged, it wouldn't have been difficult for the prosecution to find at least someone, if not multiple people, to take the stand and attest to it, and that never happened.

When Jackson's assets were excised from Neverland a few months back, we all had a good laugh at how strange and bizarre much of it was, but my reaction to it was, yeah it may be strange for a grown man to have all this weird shit, but is his collection really that much different than the types of things you would have seen owned by you or I if we had the kind of money Jackson did? If I had the financial resources he did, I'd have an arcade collection that would have dwarfed his 10x over, along with whatever other toys, gadgets, and other weird shit I could get my hands on.

In life Michael Jackson was an easy target for the media who misinterpreted his strange behavior and cast him out as a sinister character, all but leaving his talent and influence behind him. I hope (and would bet my money on) him being remembered for his music and iconic status, rather than his bizarre personal life, as has happened with Elvis these past 30 years. Michael Jackson will inevitably transcend popular culture and become a being in and of himself, the Elvis Presley of our time, and god bless him for it.[/QUOTE]

we could end the thread there, that sums it up perfectly...

and, like SpeedyG said, if some kid definitely molested my kid, I would kill them, seriously.
 
[quote name='Strell'][lotta stuff][/QUOTE]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you almost completely. The fact is, however, the major news networks is how most people get their news. I'm just saying I would prefer if they focused less on the death of a celebrity and more on "real news". You're right - they do have time. And if there was 25 hours in the day, they'd just spend that extra hour talking about MJ's death instead of moving on to something more pressing. But they can still (virtually) only focus on one story at any given time. Granted, they could move on to different stories more quickly - but they don't. And spending 23.75 hours on MJ's death with a small blurb about Iran annoys me.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']There is nothing wrong with giving reasonable amounts of low-proof wine to children - so long as the parents know and approve of it.

Sleeping with other people's children - creepy - agreed. But that (in-and-of itself) does not make one a child molester and doesn't give people the right to call you one.[/QUOTE]

But if you casually mentioned doing those things to someone else, don't you think they would treat you differently?

"Yeah, I had Tom's kids over last night. We had a little Jesus Juice and then hit the hay. I gotta give him the wine or kicks the covers off and I get cold."

"What?"

"Huh?"

"What do you mean you get cold when he kicks the covers and why are you giving an eight year old wine?"

"Because we share the bed, silly. And we just had a few sips of Jesus Juice not wine. It helps me get ready for bed. What else did you think I meant?"

Wouldn't you think that was a little weird?

We're both in agreement that MJ isn't a child molester but can't you realize that half of his problems stemmed from casually mentioning doing those things like they were no big deal?
 
[quote name='depascal22']We're both in agreement that MJ isn't a child molester but can't you realize that half of his problems stemmed from casually mentioning doing those things like they were no big deal?[/QUOTE]

Would it had been better if he tried to hide it though? The fact that he was casual about it and acted like it wasn't something to be ashamed of is what makes me believe he had no bad intentions.

Could he have prevented the talk by not doing his crazy stuff - probably. But so long as it's legal, consensual and no one is hurt, why should he?

Could he have prevented the talk by not talking about the crazy stuff he did - doubtfully. Since people were stalking him night and day, someone would have found out, it would have made the news and the fit would have hit the shan all over the place.
 
[quote name='Strell']Secondly, you've got every right, chance, and ability to go look up whatever news you consider real and relevant to you. There's plenty of websites for this sort of thing, plenty of alternative news programs, NPR, etc. So there's no shortage of availability, which means it falls to you.[/QUOTE]

I agree with the general tone of your post, but I don't agree with this statement.

Finding real news nowadays takes a little work. I mean - I'm sure I could find Britney Spears' favorite ice cream flavor in 5 seconds. But if I want to find about how many blackwater employees are currently operating in Iraq it's going to take some digging and probably investigating already out-of-date material.
 
Because Blackwater wants that information to be easily found and known?

Pick a better example, camoor. This is below even your tinfoil hat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top