Official - Michael Jackson was scum

[Foolmewunz]

No.

But we are talking about Jackson. Not others

We're talking about Michael Jackson as being in a particularly vile sub-set of h. sapiens sapiens... paedophiles. You can't make generic "paedophiles do the following" statements in order to link those behaviors to MJ and then claim "we're not talking about the others, we're talking about MJ".

You have to twist yourself into logical pretzels to accept any of the arguments you're offering.

 

[Foolmewunz]

It comes down to

"He didn't do it!"

"Nobody saw him do it!"

"You can't prove he did it!"

The first of those precludes the second and third. The first has been proven. Those who are accusing him in this thread insist on ignoring that first point, so we're trying to get them to support their arguments from incredulity, positions 2 and 3 in your post.

 

[cullennz]

No I haven't

The "art" shown is in my opinion kiddie porn

 

[cullennz]

We're talking about Michael Jackson as being in a particularly vile sub-set of h. sapiens sapiens... paedophiles. You can't make generic "paedophiles do the following" statements in order to link those behaviors to MJ and then claim "we're not talking about the others, we're talking about MJ".

You have to twist yourself into logical pretzels to accept any of the arguments you're offering.

No.

Unless your saying one of the biggest stars in history with his own zoo and theme park can be compared to Dave from over the road who downloads the odd porn video or two

 

[cullennz]

We're talking about Michael Jackson as being in a particularly vile sub-set of h. sapiens sapiens... paedophiles. You can't make generic "paedophiles do the following" statements in order to link those behaviors to MJ and then claim "we're not talking about the others, we're talking about MJ".

You have to twist yourself into logical pretzels to accept any of the arguments you're offering.

I'm not the one generalising.

The dude was one of the richest most doted on dudes in the world. General examples don't match

 

[Foolmewunz]

No.

Unless your saying one of the biggest stars in history with his own zoo and theme park can be compared to Dave from over the road who downloads the odd porn video or two

I'm not the one generalising.

The dude was one of the richest most doted on dudes in the world. General examples don't match

One of the biggest stars in history with his own zoo could afford live sex shows and a 70mm projection theater in his house. I mean, with all that money, what's he doing with run-of-the-mill Playboys and Hustlers? Again, what of the other 9500 titles in his library. Jackson was an avid reader and book collector. Why aren't there more porn titles? You are claiming he's a "porn addict". Seems to me that Richie Rich could just buy himself into porn heaven, yet less than 5% of his books/periodicals were porn.

General examples do matter. You have to show that you even know what a "porn addict" is, much less that MJ fits into that category. Dave from over the road, might have one title but watches it fourteen of his fifteen waking hours every day.

Oh, and "that art is porn to me" has no credibility whatsoever. It your personal opinion. You have no standing as an authority on art. I'm now giving you a chance to give yourself a standing on "porn". I have every suspicion that you will fail at this, too.

 

[cullennz]

And he chose to go to bed with little boys who say they watched porn

 

[cullennz]

Simple.

Tomorrow (it's late) I shall post the images and have a poll asking if it is art or kiddie porn

That should clarify it

 

[Foolmewunz]

And he chose to go to bed with little boys who say they watched porn

Which was refuted in the trial you refuse to read.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Simple.

Tomorrow (it's late) I shall post the images and have a poll asking if it is art or kiddie porn

That should clarify it

You might want to run that by the mods. In the members only section with a NSFP, not safe for prudes, warning it might be acceptable.

 

[cullennz]

Which was refuted in the trial you refuse to read.

I read it.

And his million dollar legal team.

Let's just see who says your art is art

You could be right

Who knows

 

[cullennz]

You might want to run that by the mods. In the members only section with a NSFP, not safe for prudes, warning it might be acceptable.

So you are saying it isn't safe to look at

I thought it was art?

 

[Foolmewunz]

So you are saying it isn't safe to look at

I thought it was art?

I think it's fine to look at. I'm not the mods. Stop playing with words, you're just digging yourself in deeper.

 

[cullennz]

I think it's fine to look at. I'm not the mods. Stop playing with words, you're just digging yourself in deeper.

It's all cool. Will chuck WARNING in the title and spolier them.

Is that ok mods?

 

[Ryokan]

No I haven't

The "art" shown is in my opinion kiddie porn

You should report Amazon to the police then. If you're a serious vigilante against kiddie porn and pedophiles, why don't you? If they're selling kiddie porn, aren't they pedophile enablers? You can live with that, having done nothing?

 

[cullennz]

You should report Amazon to the police then. If you're a serious vigilante against kiddie porn and pedophiles, why don't you? If they're selling kiddie porn, aren't they pedophile enablers? You can live with that, having done nothing?

No

Just doing a poll tomorrow.

If the mods ban it then we have an answer.

If the poll goes either way we have an answer

 

[DragonLady]

No

Just doing a poll tomorrow.

If the mods ban it then we have an answer.

If the poll goes either way we have an answer

Ughm.... MJ was a US citizen, and so only subject to US laws. This is an international forum, and laws may vary a lot from one country to another.

Here in the USA, the legal definition is:

https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-pornography

Images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law.

My bold.

It may well be that any image of a nude minor is illegal somewhere, so you really might want to approach the mods to ask them before you post any image that might be illegal for other members here to view.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Ughm.... MJ was a US citizen, and so only subject to US laws. This is an international forum, and laws may vary a lot from one country to another.

Here in the USA, the legal definition is:

https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-pornography


My bold.

It may well be that any image of a nude minor is illegal somewhere, so you really might want to approach the mods to ask them before you post any image that might be illegal for other members here to view.

I think that's the idea. Get the mods to bin the thread and he has support, viz argument via authority.

 

[Foolmewunz]

It's all cool. Will chuck WARNING in the title and spolier them.

Is that ok mods?

The mods don't read all threads. To ask a question, either go to the Questions area of Forum Management, or report your own post. I think Forum Community has less restricted standards than the public areas, so my guess - having seen the picture in question - is that the thread would be allowed.

 

[cullennz]

No worries.

It will be spoilered apparentl art