Official - Michael Jackson was scum

[TragicMonkey]

Are any of the people posting here members of NAMBLA? The tortured lengths some of you are going through to defend pedophiliac behavior is quite disturbing.

Have you ever read "The Crucible"? The tortured lengths some of you are going through to believe any accusation, no matter how spurious and disproven, is quite disturbing.

 

[PhantomWolf]

But when he spent personal time with any of the children who visited the ranch, it was heavily weighted toward young boys. His close affectionate touchy-feely sessions were exclusively with boys of a particular age range, as were the special private slumber-parties in his bedroom.

And this can have no other reason than sexual? Have you considered that having missed out on his childhood he wanted to be a kid again, and based on that, he did what he thought boys do, you know, have other boys over, play games, and have parties? Do you think that such a thing would heavily weight towards boys of the age group he desired to be and that they allowed him to live the childhood he never had vicariously?

Have you also considered that according to those that knew him he was affectionate and touchy-feely with all the kids he knew, girls and boys, and used terms of endearment with them all, gave them all presents, and pet names?

 

[Checkmite]

What convinced you?

Already explained earlier in the thread; but for your benefit:

IIRC, Jackson owned an "art book" comprised entirely of artistic nudes of prepubescent boys, and the book was kept together with a supply of actual (adult) pornography. I think this is rather strongly suggestive of the artistic material's actual purpose for Jackson; and I'm even going to go further than Babbylonian and opine that in conjunction with all of the other unfortunate facts about the man and his tastes and habits I think it makes a case beyond any reasonable doubt that he was a male-fixated pedophile. Given that, and with Jackson's regular access to and frequently arranging special "alone times" specifically with young boys, it would be quite surprising to me if he had actually not molested at least some of them. As to whether he molested the specific ones who accused him, obviously there's no concrete proof.

Not to belabor the point, but the parallels between Michael Jackson's alleged grooming process and that of Jerry Sandusky are striking. Both had an ostensibly above-board interface that by its nature provided access to children of some vulnerability (Sandusky's foundation for at-risk youth vs. Jackson's backyard amusement park for kids with medical issues). Of all the children their respective interfaces gave them access to, both Jackson and Sandusky tended to gravitate towards and single-out children of a specific sex and age-range to engineer more personal relationships with. Both took time to ingratiate themselves with their (alleged, in Jackson's case) targets' parents and families, while still creating regular opportunities to be alone with the children themselves. And both used those opportunities to slowly acclimate the children to progressively more physical closeness and affectionate touching. As in the Sandusky case, even the kids who report that Jackson never fully progressed to the abuse stage with them, still describe this same escalation of contact.

As I said early on, I think the material they uncovered combined with what we already know about Jackson's activities establishes his attraction beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson was infatuated with prepubescent boys. He rather blatantly favored their company in comparison even to other children; he needed to have access to them, to be close to them, to physically touch them. He needed to spend time alone with them and privately express love and affection for them, and have that affection accepted if not reciprocated by them. He went to unusual and very extensive lengths to accommodate these wants or needs.

 

[Fudbucker]

I wouldn't let my kid stay with YOU for a weekend, either. Doesn't mean that I think that you are a child molester. I'm getting a little tired of this rhetorical device. It's not an argument, it's a "Gotcha!" statement with zero relevance.

I let my kid go to sleepovers all the time. Not once has a father of one of his friends tried to climb into bed with him, and if it did happen, that would be the last my kid ever set foot in that house.

The relevance is obvious: you wouldn't let your kids around Jackson because he (was) almost certainly a pedophile.

 

[p0lka]

MJ is a classic example of someone who might have been taking advantage of younger people, but

I have not seen anything that actually proves it though, that would need the victims to speak about it.

He fits the profile though.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Already explained earlier in the thread; but for your benefit:

Let's take these one at a time.

Do you have proof that the "art book" (OMG scary quote marks) actually wasn't an art book, hence the need for the scary quote marks, and that it was actually with the adult porn collection, rather than just being found in the same room. I mean I have my whole collection of porn (like 1 DVD) in the middle of my Apollo collection, does that mean I have a thing for Astronauts?

 

[PhantomWolf]

I let my kid go to sleepovers all the time. Not once has a father of one of his friends tried to climb into bed with him, and if it did happen, that would be the last my kid ever set foot in that house.

Other than allegations that have fallen over under scrutiny, is there any proof that Jackson did climb into bed with any of the kids? The stories I have heard when the bed was shared have been pretty much the other way about, that the kids got into his bed. In other cases where the Kids slept in his bed, the reports are that he slept on the floor.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Already explained earlier in the thread; but for your benefit:

IIRC, Jackson owned an "art book" comprised entirely of artistic nudes of prepubescent boys, and the book was kept together with a supply of actual (adult) pornography. I think this is rather strongly suggestive of the artistic material's actual purpose for Jackson; and I'm even going to go further than Babbylonian and opine that in conjunction with all of the other unfortunate facts about the man and his tastes and habits I think it makes a case beyond any reasonable doubt that he was a male-fixated pedophile.

This one, at least, is another fiction. Jackson had a couple books depicting children doing child things that included SOME pictures of naked children AS WELL AS pictures of fully clothed children. The prosecutor tried impute some predatory meaning from this and the media spun them as pornographic. The books were discovered in a locked closet containing a metric ton of random junk including a great deal of random artwork and personal memorabilia. Amongst the things seized there were indeed a couple adult magazines.

But the essential significance of the collection is very different from the slant you seem to take at face value.

 

[PhantomWolf]

MJ is a classic example of someone who might have been taking advantage of younger people, but

I have not seen anything that actually proves it though, that would need the victims to speak about it.

He fits the profile though.

Male, likes being about kids, is a bit strange. Quick, better lock up all the male teachers that deal with Kids!

 

[Tony Stark]

MJ had a huge collection of books, including lots of art photography ones. The couple that had photos of nude boys were a small fraction of his collection. Also, at least one of them was sent to him by a fan.

 

[p0lka]

Male, likes being about kids, is a bit strange. Quick, better lock up all the male teachers that deal with Kids!

No, that isn't what i said at all.
I said

He fits the profile though.

Actually I should clarify, I meant he fits my experience of people who would take advantage of younger people for sexual reasons, so its the profile I have in my head,

I shouldn't have said 'the profile', I take that back.

I meant 'a profile'.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I let my kid go to sleepovers all the time. Not once has a father of one of his friends tried to climb into bed with him, and if it did happen, that would be the last my kid ever set foot in that house.

Certainly. I agree 100%. So, we are back on topic then, yes?

 

[Checkmite]

And this can have no other reason than sexual? Have you considered that having missed out on his childhood he wanted to be a kid again, and based on that, he did what he thought boys do, you know, have other boys over, play games, and have parties? Do you think that such a thing would heavily weight towards boys of the age group he desired to be and that they allowed him to live the childhood he never had vicariously?

Let's hypothetically agree that you're right about this. This is essentially the exact argument that Dragonlady was making earlier. But it doesn't make what Jackson did "okay". It just makes what he did somewhat less wrong.

Children are not an ointment, or a pill, or a prosthesis to be used by adults to cope with or work out their head-issues. If Jackson had hangups and psychological problems or longings relating to his admittedly horrible childhood, then he needed to address those with a doctor, or an actual trained therapist, or use any one of the myriad private and legitimate avenues that extremely wealthy people have help them deal with problems of this nature. Instead, he used his money to essentially buy the trust of certain families so that he could use their specially-selected children as props to soothe his personal neuroses, under the pretense of doing something nice for them.

A person having some kind of internal fantasy of being a child forever, just like any other kind of internal fantasy, may be fine and harmless as long as that fantasy remains internal, or at the very least private. When a person starts trying to impose or force that fantasy on other people, that's where it starts to become a problem - and it becomes a quite serious and even potentially dangerous problem if the focus of that imposition is a child because now there are questions of real safety at stake. We know very little of what Jackson's child-involved fantasy may have entailed, but one thing that's quite self-evident is that it involved no respect whatsoever for personal space or the socially-accepted boundaries regarding what sort of relationship is appropriate between an adult and a non-related child. Insist that Jackson wasn't a sexual predator himself all you want; fact of the matter is, those things - a strong concept of boundaries and personal space - are some of the most crucial defenses any child has against people who are sexual predators. The nature of Jackson's "fantasy" play directly attacked and diminished those barriers in his "special friends", which at the very least did them a terrible disservice and left them vulnerable to someone with more sinister motives.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Let's hypothetically agree that you're right about this. This is essentially the exact argument that Dragonlady was making earlier. But it doesn't make what Jackson did "okay". It just makes what he did somewhat less wrong.

According to you? According to society's current norms? What makes these so right. In Victorian times, bachelors were often "Uncles" to friend's children and would take them out on picnics and trips allowing their parents time apart from the kids, it wasn't seen as anything unusual. Why is it so demonic now? Are you falling for the myth that all men are really sexual predators waiting for a chance to strike?

Children are not an ointment, or a pill, or a prosthesis to be used by adults to cope with or work out their head-issues. If Jackson had hangups and psychological problems or longings relating to his admittedly horrible childhood, then he needed to address those with a doctor, or an actual trained therapist, or use any one of the myriad private and legitimate avenues that extremely wealthy people have help them deal with problems of this nature. Instead, he used his money to essentially buy the trust of certain families so that he could use their specially-selected children as props to soothe his personal neuroses, under the pretense of doing something nice for them.

Wow, how dare someone be nice to anyone else and get something out of the relationship themselves.

A person having some kind of internal fantasy of being a child forever, just like any other kind of internal fantasy, may be fine and harmless as long as that fantasy remains internal, or at the very least private. When a person starts trying to impose or force that fantasy on other people, that's where it starts to become a problem - and it becomes a quite serious and even potentially dangerous problem if the focus of that imposition is a child because now there are questions of real safety at stake. We know very little of what Jackson's child-involved fantasy may have entailed, but one thing that's quite self-evident is that it involved no respect whatsoever for personal space or the socially-accepted boundaries regarding what sort of relationship is appropriate between an adult and a non-related child. Insist that Jackson wasn't a sexual predator himself all you want; fact of the matter is, those things - a strong concept of boundaries and personal space - are some of the most crucial defenses any child has against people who are sexual predators. The nature of Jackson's "fantasy" play directly attacked and diminished those barriers in his "special friends", which at the very least did them a terrible disservice and left them vulnerable to someone with more sinister motives.

I pity you the world you live in.

 

[PhantomWolf]

No, that isn't what i said at all.
I said

Actually I should clarify, I meant he fits my experience of people who would take advantage of younger people for sexual reasons, so its the profile I have in my head,

I shouldn't have said 'the profile', I take that back.

I meant 'a profile'.

You know what the most likely profile of a Child Abuser is?

First of all, he's married, just like 77 percent of the more than 4000 child sexual abusers in the Child Molestation Prevention Study. [He] is religious, like 93 percent of the abusers. He's educated. More than 46 percent had some college education and another 30 percent were high school graduates. Like 65 percent of the admitted abusers, [he] was working. Numerous studies of adult victims have sought to link child molestation victims to lower social class and lower family income. All have failed. Child victims and their abusers exist equally in families of all income levels and classes. And, now from the study, we know that child molesters are as equally married, educated, employed, and religious as any other Americans.

Probably not the profile you had in your head, right?

 

[Checkmite]

According to you? According to society's current norms? What makes these so right. In Victorian times...

What the heck does Michael Jackson have to do with "Victorian times"? Nothing. That's an argument about absolutely nothing.

If a parent decides that he or she wants to raise their own child with a not-particularly-standard set of mores or values, and have what an outsider might view as an exorbitantly intimate and cuddly relationship with their kid well into the kid's preteen and early teen years, that's fine. If a parent decides that her family is going to be nudist, and she takes her children to nudist camps or beaches on occasion, that's fine. Do you know why? Because s/he is the kid's parent, and has the right and wherewithal to make a decision like that.

It is not okay though for that parent to, say, borrow a child from a different, non-nudist family, and take that child to a nude beach with her. That person does not have the right and wherewithal to do that with a kid that isn't hers.

So it goes with Jackson. It's perfectly okay for him to personally hold the opinion that parents should be way more touchy-feely nowadays than they commonly are. In point of fact, Jackson had his own children and was free to raise them in that manner if he chose. But he did not have a moral right, after arranging "trusted" alone time with other people's children, to start working to impose his own ideas about boundaries and appropriate relationships on them. It crosses a bright line.

 

[Magrat]

You know what the most likely profile of a Child Abuser is?

First of all, he's married, just like 77 percent of the more than 4000 child sexual abusers in the Child Molestation Prevention Study. [He] is religious, like 93 percent of the abusers. He's educated. More than 46 percent had some college education and another 30 percent were high school graduates. Like 65 percent of the admitted abusers, [he] was working. Numerous studies of adult victims have sought to link child molestation victims to lower social class and lower family income. All have failed. Child victims and their abusers exist equally in families of all income levels and classes. And, now from the study, we know that child molesters are as equally married, educated, employed, and religious as any other Americans.

Probably not the profile you had in your head, right?

Most molestation occurs from family members or close friends of the family that were entrusted with the child. Not, random creepy celebrities who buy kids. This is correct. Listen to your kids and don't trust someone just because they are your uncle/neighbor/friend.

 

[p0lka]

You know what the most likely profile of a Child Abuser is?

First of all, he's married, just like 77 percent of the more than 4000 child sexual abusers in the Child Molestation Prevention Study. [He] is religious, like 93 percent of the abusers. He's educated. More than 46 percent had some college education and another 30 percent were high school graduates. Like 65 percent of the admitted abusers, [he] was working. Numerous studies of adult victims have sought to link child molestation victims to lower social class and lower family income. All have failed. Child victims and their abusers exist equally in families of all income levels and classes. And, now from the study, we know that child molesters are as equally married, educated, employed, and religious as any other Americans.

Probably not the profile you had in your head, right?

right.
whats your point?

 

[PhantomWolf]

What the heck does Michael Jackson have to do with "Victorian times"? Nothing. That's an argument about absolutely nothing.

It has to do with the declaring of his actions right and wrong. Who gets to decide? Society changes it's mind on these things more often than I change my socks. Why should I accept what society claims is right or wrong? Why should I accept what you declare as right and wrong?

If a parent decides that he or she wants to raise their own child with a not-particularly-standard set of mores or values, and have what an outsider might view as an exorbitantly intimate and cuddly relationship with their kid well into the kid's preteen and early teen years, that's fine. If a parent decides that her family is going to be nudist, and she takes her children to nudist camps or beaches on occasion, that's fine. Do you know why? Because s/he is the kid's parent, and has the right and wherewithal to make a decision like that.

It is not okay though for that parent to, say, borrow a child from a different, non-nudist family, and take that child to a nude beach with her. That person does not have the right and wherewithal to do that with a kid that isn't hers.

So it goes with Jackson. It's perfectly okay for him to personally hold the opinion that parents should be way more touchy-feely nowadays than they commonly are. In point of fact, Jackson had his own children and was free to raise them in that manner if he chose. But he did not have a moral right, after arranging "trusted" alone time with other people's children, to start working to impose his own ideas about boundaries and appropriate relationships on them. It crosses a bright line.

You are aware that the children that spent time with Jackson on the ranch did so with their families? That Jackson didn't just invite the kids, that the parents were present too, that the time he spent with them was done with the approval of the parents that were there at the time?

Even the initial complaint, one of the claimed cases of Micheal and Jordan in bed together, the father of Jordan put Micheal in the boy's room, and Jordan climbed onto the bed with Micheal. What did the father do? He just let them sleep.

You seem to be sticking to a Tabloid version of the events rather then what actually happened.

ETA: Who determines what is morally right?

 

[PhantomWolf]

right.
whats your point?

That the profile you have in your head isn't correct.