Official - Michael Jackson was scum

[cullennz]

Rolph Harris was way into art.

Doesn't make him any less a kiddy fiddler

 

[Fudbucker]

If you're a prude, yeah it does.

Yeah, how prudish of me being turned off by sexualized young children. Jacko sure was a free spirit, lightyears ahead of the rest of us straitlaced puritans. In 100 years who WON'T be sleeping with little boys???

Foolmewunz, how many strange kids do you sleep with at night? None? *********** prude.

 

[DragonLady]

To argue against myself, or play Devil's advocate, I think one could -maybe- craft an argument for his using that book to scare kids into bed with him.

Of course, that would open the floor for discussing that claim in light of the evidence, and the nightmares and other problems that would be expected afterward if he did any such thing.

 

[cullennz]

To argue against myself, or play Devil's advocate, I think one could -maybe- craft an argument for his using that book to scare kids into bed with him.

Of course, that would open the floor for discussing that claim in light of the evidence, and the nightmares and other problems that would be expected afterward if he did any such thing.

Why scare?

It is kids

He just had to manipulate

 

[Foolmewunz]

Yeah, how prudish of me being turned off by sexualized young children. Jacko sure was a free spirit, lightyears ahead of the rest of us straitlaced puritans. In 100 years who WON'T be sleeping with little boys???

Foolmewunz, how many strange kids do you sleep with at night? None? *********** prude.

You're a prude. We get it. You can't examine a piece of art without finding salacious tidbits. You have no evidence, you haven't read the trial transcripts, you are just here arguing the "Ewwww..." factor.

I live in a country where family sleeping is quite common. And "family" means a vastly different thing. You'd be surprised how many kids adults sleep next to, here. We try not to **** 'em, but being in bed simultaneously with a child is merely an indication that you were in bed simultaneously with a child. Western morals snicker at "Bed? Tee Hee? Wink wink, nudge nudge."

My son and his friend Frankie fell asleep in my bed, with me, while watching cartoons during a sleepover. I was exhausted and they wanted to do what seven year olds want to do.... stay up as late as possible for the adventure of doing so. I fell asleep about midnight; they woke me a couple of times running back and forth to the bathroom, but eventually went to sleep and when my alarm went off, I had two pre-pubescent boys using my calves for a pillow.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Why scare?

It is kids

He just had to manipulate

Ah, the OP has returned? I didn't see the part where you reported back on having actually read the evidence. Are you now ready to explain which parts of the trial testimony you think contradicts the conclusions reached by the jury and those here who've actually read through the evidence?

 

[DragonLady]

Rolph Harris was way into art.

Doesn't make him any less a kiddy fiddler

Yeppers. Correlation is causation, every time.

I larnt that real goodly on forums just like this one.

 

[DragonLady]

Why scare?

It is kids

He just had to manipulate

Fine. Show us some evidence he did that? It is my firm understanding the kids wanted to sleep in his bed, and he allowed it.

There's been nothing to show he did anything at all to manipulate or pressure them into it.

 

[cullennz]

Ah, the OP has returned? I didn't see the part where you reported back on having actually read the evidence. Are you now ready to explain which parts of the trial testimony you think contradicts the conclusions reached by the jury and those here who've actually read through the evidence?

I read enough to realise I was wrong about a couple of points to do with payments.

Not enough to convince me the kids are liars and Micky the porno king can't be.

 

[cullennz]

Fine. Show us some evidence he did that? It is my firm understanding the kids wanted to sleep in his bed, and he allowed it.

There's been nothing to show he did anything at all to manipulate or pressure them into it.

I'm talking about what they did in the bed

 

[DragonLady]

I'm talking about what they did in the bed

Okay; so what has convinced you that he did?

What, for you, is the smoking gun or the definitive piece of the puzzle?

 

[Foolmewunz]

I read enough to realise I was wrong about a couple of points to do with payments.

Not enough to convince me the kids are liars and Micky the porno king can't be.

But not enough to spell realize correctly? Colonial.

I figured as much. You went looking for items to support your argument, shot yourself down and didn't bother to read the transcripts at all, right? I say that with the assurance that anyone with a fifth grade education who reads those transcripts will see what a feeble attempt at railroading MJ this was.

So you want to just move over there to the Fudbucker table under the "He just seems icky to me" clock?

 

[Fudbucker]

You're a prude. We get it. You can't examine a piece of art without finding salacious tidbits. You have no evidence, you haven't read the trial transcripts, you are just here arguing the "Ewwww..." factor.

I live in a country where family sleeping is quite common. And "family" means a vastly different thing. You'd be surprised how many kids adults sleep next to, here. We try not to **** 'em, but being in bed simultaneously with a child is merely an indication that you were in bed simultaneously with a child. Western morals snicker at "Bed? Tee Hee? Wink wink, nudge nudge."

My son and his friend Frankie fell asleep in my bed, with me, while watching cartoons during a sleepover. I was exhausted and they wanted to do what seven year olds want to do.... stay up as late as possible for the adventure of doing so. I fell asleep about midnight; they woke me a couple of times running back and forth to the bathroom, but eventually went to sleep and when my alarm went off, I had two pre-pubescent boys using my calves for a pillow.

Did you tell your son's friend "Look, if you love me you'll sleep in the bed'?

Would you let your son stay at Neverland ranch with MJ?

 

[cullennz]

Okay; so what has convinced you that he did?

What, for you, is the smoking gun or the definitive piece of the puzzle?

The fact he slept alone with little dudes and they said he did.

The fact he had some of the best legals in the world to twist it doesn't change this

 

[Dr. Keith]

But not enough to spell realize correctly? Colonial.

I figured as much. You went looking for items to support your argument, shot yourself down and didn't bother to read the transcripts at all, right? I say that with the assurance that anyone with a fifth grade education who reads those transcripts will see what a feeble attempt at railroading MJ this was.

So you want to just move over there to the Fudbucker table under the "He just seems icky to me" clock?

Shades of Boo Radley.

 

[Fudbucker]

Shades of Boo Radley.

I don't think Boo Radly was accused by multiple people of child molestation and admitted to sleeping with little boys.

But you know Harper Lee was just itching to go there. "Jem, if you love me, you'll sleep in my bed."

 

[Dr. Keith]

I don't think Boo Radly was accused by multiple people of child molestation and admitted to sleeping with little boys.

But you know Harper Lee was just itching to go there. "Jem, if you love me, you'll sleep in my bed."

Do words not mean much in your world? Because I can't see how my words led to the response above.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It wasn't a book filled with Renaissance Paintings of cherubs, Greek gods, and other nude and naked people though?

whats your point?

What is the difference? Why should Renaissance Paintings be acceptable, but Contemporary Art works not be?

For example why is this painting acceptable, but this photo not acceptable?

Beware that both might be considered NSFW by some people.

 

[PhantomWolf]

" Many of the manipulated photographic pictures portray sexualized young children. For example, "Untitled #81. 1999" is a black and white photo of a young girl in a bare room except for a rudimentary Christmas tree in the corner. The girl is holding up maracas in both hands and, with a large toothy grin, she seems to be enjoying shaking them. Judging from her face, she looks about five years old, but it is hard to judge, because she has a very high forehead, which makes her face look more baby-like, and she has long fine windswept blond hair flowing down from her head in supermodel fashion. Her arms are short, again those of a young child. But her torso, which is nude, has budding breasts of a pubescent girl."

The blond boy looks about four years old, and is wearing a wet tight fitting pair of swimming trunks -- he seems to have a rather large penis for his age.

Yeah, I think what I wrote holds up pretty well.

Have you seen the pictures yourself? Can you actually create an argument without the use of Copy and Paste?

These are similar to the described ones and from the same book, what makes you believe that these are sexualized and used for sexual gratification?

Again NSFW labels for all of the below do apply.

NSFW - first pic

http://www.yossimilo.com/artists/sime_joha/images/large-sj-16.jpg

http://journal-files7.foto.ua/uploads/2015/10/Simen-Johan-18.jpg

And how are they and worse than this one... or this one...

Edited by Loss Leader: 

NSFW tags added to one pic. No tags for artwork from the 16th century.

 

[Fudbucker]

Do words not mean much in your world? Because I can't see how my words led to the response above.

You don't see how bringing up Boo Radly, in a Michael Jackson thread, could turn into morbid speculation about Harper Lee writing a different kind of Kill a Mockingbird Book?

Well that's the chain of logic, anyway.