And can we stop acting like a judgment from 12 schleps is proof of anything? It's only proof of what those 12 people think. How many people have been released from deathrow? Over 150 now? Does anyone have the slightest doubt that OJ murdered Nicole and Ron?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Official - Michael Jackson was scum
- Thread starter cullennz
- Start date
quixotecoyote
Howling to glory I go
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2006
- Messages
- 10,379
Anything's possible.
But beyond that, you need specifics.
But beyond that, you need specifics.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Yeah! Why trust the judgment of twelve people who've looked at evidence when we could just go by the gut feelings of randos on the internet?
I wish I had your faith in our justice system. Those without the capital get the punishment.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
I have more faith in the justice system than I have in your prejudices, yes.
You think I think the way I do because MJ was black? That has nothing to do with it.
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
The links I gave where to the Amazon listing (Do you believe that Amazon would sell books of child porn?) and to a reviewer (Do you think that main stream reviewers would review a book of kiddie porn?) Just because I linked to it doesn't mean I have any belief on the accuracy of the reviewer, merely that they reviewed the book.
Having viewed a number of the photos I'd say that they were right, in a way, but not the way that you believe it and continue to take it. This is why you belief is not skeptical. You made up your mind without seeing the evidence for yourself, then you blindly parrot other people's words believing that they back you up. This is no better than those that parrot the Truther Movement's arguments about 9/11 being an inside job, or Bill Kaysing and co's arguments that Apollo was hoaxed. You are not being skeptical, in fact you are being as far from skeptical as it is possible to get.
For instance, the photo you steadfastly refuse to view, even though Google Images will find it happily display it (Do you believe that Goggle would allow this if it was Kiddie Porn?)and I also believe that posting a link to kiddie porn would get me banned without even a warning (Do you believe I'd be that stupid?) is of a topless girl playing hula hoop. Is there a sexual nature to it, yes, a) she's topless, and b) the hoop appears to have left marks on her that an adult would likely associate with bondage. Is it an image that you would use to get off with? Not unless you were a really warped individual, and I mean far more warped that just into preteen girls, I mean messed up in the head to the point you are psychopathic. Though it has a sexual nature, the image is not sexy in any way, it is certain not porn in any way shape or form. Porn is clearly designed to titillate and arouse, these images are far from that, they are disturbing and thought provoking. The only thing that they have in common with Kiddie porn is that they have naked children in them, and unless you are planning to argue that any naked child is kiddie porn, at which point you will have to also argue that the paintings I posted of the Christ Child are also kiddie porn.
Two me, I'd say that the painting I posted of the Baby Christ being breast feed is far more of the sexual nature designed to titillate as it not only shows a full frontal naked child, but an adult female with a bared breast and an erect nipple, with the child about to feed from it, yet that painting is well and truly considered both art, and acceptable. If I wanted to manipulate things as the Prosecution did though, I could describe it as a painting with both adult female and male child full and partial nudity in which the naked male child appears to be arousing the adult female. Makes it sound a whole lot worse right? I mean, anyone with that painting needs to be arrested when you put it that way right?
The fact of the matter is that until you get off your high horse and unblock your mind, admitting that perhaps you don't know it all, and actually look at the evidence, you are going to be locked inside of your belief zone and from someone that claims to be a skeptic, that is a really bad place to be.
ETA: I'd also note that even the prosecution declared these books not to be Kiddie Porn, so you really are on your own on this one.
Last edited:
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2007
- Messages
- 14,103
Skin color isn't the only source of prejudice, it's just one of the most common.
OK, I'll look at the photos.
ETA: I would be in big trouble if that was found on my school computer, but those aren't beyond the pale. The first one DOES look like something a pedophile would have in his "collection".
As far as the link to the book you provided, I assume if the reviewer thinks some of the pictures of the kids are sexually stylized, that's probably accurate, and he went into great detail describing some of the pictures. Based on his descriptions, it sounds like something a pedophile would enjoy.
ETA: I would be in big trouble if that was found on my school computer, but those aren't beyond the pale. The first one DOES look like something a pedophile would have in his "collection".
As far as the link to the book you provided, I assume if the reviewer thinks some of the pictures of the kids are sexually stylized, that's probably accurate, and he went into great detail describing some of the pictures. Based on his descriptions, it sounds like something a pedophile would enjoy.
Last edited:
Then what other prejudice would be at play? I might have a stronger than normal predisposition to view men as pervs. I work in a field that attracts them (education). My own District has had two cases of teachers sleeping with underage kids.
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
Yes because some anonymous guy on the internet who steadfastly refuses to look at the evidence because he "Knows" he is right, is a much better judge than 12 people that looked at detail at all the evidence that was provided.
Tony Stark
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2014
- Messages
- 9,626
If those images were child porn, MJ definitely would have been charged with it. He wasn't charged with child porn because the prosecutor, who wanted to nail MJ badly, knew that they were not child porn.
Yes because some anonymous guy on the internet who steadfastly refuses to look at the evidence because he "Knows" he is right, is a much better judge than 12 people that looked at detail at all the evidence that was provided.
I made up my mind years ago, when MJ admitted to sleeping with boys. If any guy admits to such behavior, I would think they're a pedophile (unless it's a case of extreme poverty, or immigrant with totally different cultural mores).
Technically, they're probably not. You could probably find pics from nudist families that aren't technically child porn, but they still show naked kids.
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
Sleeping in the same bed as a young boy = Pedophile... wow.
Why do you assume that is a adult male sleeps in the same bed as someone else, that equates to sex or sexual attraction?
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
You don't know the literal meaning of the word 'prejudice' and you think you're qualified to judge someone?
I don't equate it, but MJ admitting to sleeping with little boys raises the probability to something like 80%.
A male, in America, (esp. a rich one) just doesn't do that, unless they're perverted.
OK, you tell me. What's the prejudice at work?
HenryLee
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2014
- Messages
- 753
Also the book being discussed(Simen Johan's Room To Play) was discovered in a sealed package with two other books in the cellar of the arcade area, not in the main house. Jackson may not have even known it was there and it may not have been his.
Or it was so dementedly perverted he had to hide it! One or the other.
Or it was so dementedly perverted he had to hide it! One or the other.