Argue About Michael Jackson - Here's Yer Thread

[Revoltingest]

I created this sandbox to avoid derailing another thread.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well why are you biased? Given that all the indications were that he was a paedophile. I have no reason to see this either way but I do look at the evidence and what psychologists are likely to say about this matter. I still listen to his music regardless of what I think of him.

I'm not "biased". There's just no evidence that he was abusing children. If you're molesting multiple kids, there's usually evidence. Now unless you know something, there's no point in going on about this.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I'm not "biased". There's just no evidence that he was abusing children. If you're molesting multiple kids, there's usually evidence. Now unless you know something, there's no point in going on about this.

Apart from the five boys who accused him you mean?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Apart from the five boys who accused him you mean?

Since when are accusations evidence? It seems pretty obvious their parents put them up to it. It's not like as if the media and the public were on his side, either. They wanted him to be guilty as he was widely viewed as a freak and being made a fool out of in the press. I personally think the industry had something to do with this as MJ was rebelling against Sony, his label, during the '90s and '00s and saying all sorts of explosive things about what really goes on. He obviously wanted out of the industry and despised it. Then he ends up murdered by his doctor, and they get to continue to make bank off of his catalogue. There were multiple reasons for those people to lie about him and seek to destroy him.

 

[fantome profane]

Since when are accusations evidence?

Since the evolution of language, 150 000 years ago.

Testimony has always been considered evidence.

Whether or not it is good evidence is a different question.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Since when are accusations evidence? It seems pretty obvious their parents put them up to it. It's not like as if the media and the public were on his side, either. They wanted him to be guilty as he was widely viewed as a freak and being made a fool out of in the press. I personally think the industry had something to do with this as MJ was rebelling against Sony, his label, during the '90s and '00s and saying all sorts of explosive things about what really goes on. He obviously wanted out of the industry and despised it. Then he ends up murdered by his doctor, and they get to continue to make bank off of his catalogue. There were multiple reasons for those people to lie about him and seek to destroy him.

Accusations aren't necessarily but behaviour certainly counts. The trouble is that we have the issue of wealth contaminating this - given that he is reputed to have paid off many boys and his estate will be doing everything to paint him as innocent. That some might want to make money out of him is one thing, but the fact that children might not tell all truthfully when questioned is another. Hence perhaps why the two made the later documentary. The FBI apparently cleared him but how much do you trust the FBI?

 

[Callisto]

I'm not "biased". There's just no evidence that he was abusing children. If you're molesting multiple kids, there's usually evidence. Now unless you know something, there's no point in going on about this.

Since when are accusations evidence?

No offense, but you are aware there are thousands of priests who've molested thousands upon thousands of children for decades, hiding in plain sight and never punished by the Church (until exposed), it would just relocate them to an all-new, unsuspecting hunting ground congregation? It wasn't until the press took notice that the years of victims and accusers were listened to.

Michael Jackson was a victim of his own fame and an abusive father. He was mentally ill and never was properly treated, he was making far too much money for the people around him. I don't think he was just a pedophile, I think the pedophilia was an offshoot of primary problems like Peter Pan Syndrome, narcissism, BDD, and possibly a few other things.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Accusations aren't necessarily but behaviour certainly counts. The trouble is that we have the issue of wealth contaminating this - given that he is reputed to have paid off many boys and his estate will be doing everything to paint him as innocent. That some might want to make money out of him is one thing, but the fact that children might not tell all truthfully when questioned is another. Hence perhaps why the two made the later documentary. The FBI apparently cleared him but how much do you trust the FBI?

That Leaving Neverland doc didn't prove anything. I personally turned it off when it was just turning out to be hearsay. It was no Surviving R. Kelly, that's for sure. Of course they waited until he was dead, too. Just like they smeared Bowie when he died and wasn't able to respond to it. But they cheer on and give standing ovations to the actual child rapists like Roman Polanski. There's a sort of internal politics at work here, obviously.

Do you have evidence of him paying off boys? Legal docs or something?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No offense, but you are aware there are thousands of priests who've molested thousands upon thousands of children for decades, hiding in plain sight and never punished by the Church (until exposed), it would just relocate them to an all-new, unsuspecting hunting ground congregation? It wasn't until the press took notice that the years of victims and accusers were listened to.

Michael Jackson was a victim of his own fame and an abusive father. He was mentally ill and never was properly treated, he was making far too much money for the people around him. I don't think he was just a pedophile, I think the pedophilia was an offshoot of primary problems like Peter Pan Syndrome, narcissism, BDD, and possibly a few other things.

Yeah, but there's evidence of it. I'm waiting for evidence of MJ being a pedophile. Do you have any? He was a troubled person with Peter Pan syndrome, for sure, but that doesn't mean he was a pedophile.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That Leaving Neverland doc didn't prove anything. I personally turned it off when it was just turning out to be hearsay. It was no Surviving R. Kelly, that's for sure. Of course they waited until he was dead, too. Just like they smeared Bowie when he died and wasn't able to respond to it. But they cheer on and give standing ovations to the actual child rapists like Roman Polanski. There's a sort of internal politics at work here, obviously.

Do you have evidence of him paying off boys? Legal docs or something?

Of course I don't have any evidence. I'm not that interested in MJ. I did watch the documentary though - some time back - and the two accusers didn't appear to be lying to me. You can try to explain his behaviour how you like but it was obviously not normal and he should have known this - but that didn't stop him. Why? Because he had some compulsion to do so.

 

[Callisto]

Yeah, but there's evidence of it. I'm waiting for evidence of MJ being a pedophile. Do you have any? He was a troubled person with Peter Pan syndrome, for sure, but that doesn't mean he was a pedophile.

Other than a passing interest, I haven't made it my business to gather the evidence as I simply don't care enough. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

If you chose to not believe he's a pedophile, go right ahead. IMO, as with the priests, where there's smoke, there's fire.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Of course I don't have any evidence.

Then there's nowhere to go in this discussion. It's just our opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Testimony has always been considered evidence.

Accusations themselves differ from what's commonly considered evidence.
Imagine....
Bob: You stole my haggis!
Fantome: Have any evidence?
Bob: Yes. My accusation is evidence.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Then there's nowhere to go in this discussion. It's just our opinion.

That's the trouble when money is involved so often. I think there is more investment in him having a clean image though, hence it can be easy to dismiss any accusations. For myself, it is more based on his behaviour but I'm willing to be wrong on this. I don't think I am though.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Other than a passing interest, I haven't made it my business to gather the evidence as I simply don't care enough. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

If you chose to not believe he's a pedophile, go right ahead. IMO, as with the priests, where there's smoke, there's fire.

It's not up to me to prove anything.

 

[Callisto]

That's the trouble when money is involved so often. I think there is more investment in him having a clean image though, hence it can be easy to dismiss any accusations. For myself, it is more based on his behaviour but I'm willing to be wrong on this. I don't think I am though.

Having worked in the entertainment industry, I know firsthand the kind of things representatives bury in order to keep a client's image intact and the deals rolling in.

 

[Callisto]

It's not up to me to prove anything.

So, it's just wrong to assume there's any truth to the accusations but it's right to assume there's truth to the denials? Ok.

 

[fantome profane]

Accusations themselves differ from what's commonly considered evidence.
Imagine....
Bob: You stole my haggis!
Fantome: Have any evidence?
Bob: Yes. My accusation is evidence.

I didn't say it was good or convincing evidence. But it is evidence. Admissible in a court of law and in a logical argument.

btw Fantomes are vegetarian. People who eat haggis are just the Revoltingest people.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So, it's just wrong to assume there's any truth to the accusations but it's right to assume there's truth to the denials? Ok.

You can believe whatever you please, just as I will continue to. You don't have proof of him being a pedophile just as I don't have proof that he wasn't. This isn't Jimmy Savile, Roman Polanski or R. Kelly.

 

[Callisto]

You can believe whatever you please, just as I will continue to. You don't have proof of him being a pedophile just as I don't have proof that he wasn't.

Please see my previous posts.