Argue About Michael Jackson - Here's Yer Thread

[Guitar's Cry]

The courts continually side with Jackson (or at least his estate). It appears the evidence is weak. His eccentric behavior likely due to his troubled childhood seems to make him a target. Allegations of sexual abuse should be taken seriously, but I am not sure Jackson was guilty.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The courts continually side with Jackson (or at least his estate). It appears the evidence is weak. His eccentric behavior likely due to his troubled childhood seems to make him a target. Allegations of sexual abuse should be taken seriously, but I am not sure Jackson was guilty.

Money talks. Search around for what many psychologists have views as to his life. And, many who claim that accusers are after money should know that the wealthy have the odds in their favour, so why would anyone do this?

 

[syo]

Perhaps we agree on this - one can't leave a person to rest in peace and at the same time allow any accusers (possible victims) to express what happened to them. And such has always been the case.

You're messing with his ghost? Good luck! You'll need it.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You're messing with his ghost? Good luck! You'll need it.

Yeah, I and no doubt the accusers will take that into consideration.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Apart from the five boys who accused him you mean?

Accusations aren't evidence.
Accusations require evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

No.

But last time I've checked, in a civilized country one is to be considered innocent until guilt is sufficiently demonstrated.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And, as you indicate, a fan will believe what they want to believe. For many, no amount of evidence would change their mind, anyway.

As a fan, I don't actually care tbh.

If tomorrow it's sufficiently demonstrated that he abused kids... let's even go further and say he not only abused kids but also sacrificed them to some mayan god and buried them underneath his mansion ... i'll be the first to accept it and condemn the dude.

But it wouldn't change anything about his brilliant musical talent.

Regardless of the person he was, his music and talent was phenomenal. The likes of which most of us won't get to see again within our lifetime.

I'll happily condemn the man and remember the artist.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Michael Jackson is not guilty. Very few people are actually pedophiles. People who abuse children usually are not pedophiles and tend to be interested in domination and in helpless targets. This does not match Michael's profile, and since there is little to no evidence I must conclude he is innocent. In addition he is sexually under developed, sort of like a castrated choir boy. He lacks the aggressive qualities which most abusers have. Correct me if I am wrong about his decreased aggression.

He is more comfortable making friends with children than with adults not due to some sexual attraction or wish to dominate but because he is lonely and a mutated freak. The best arguments against him are that he sees himself as a child, however that is consistent with the hormone therapy put upon him by his parents and the brown nosing of the adults around him as he grows up. His adulthood has been taken away. All people see him as effeminate and/or childish, because he is both. He also is not safe from adult women and cannot make friends with them as he might like, because there are so many gold diggers after his fortune and fame. That he has never fit in with society is to be expected, and his silly game of shocking people in public underwrites his feelings of isolation. His unconcern for what people think is evident in his neverland ranch. His hope of making friends with children is pathetic but believable.

 

[VoidCat]

He’s dead.

There's a Facebook account that reminds everyone of that daily called daily updates on Michael Jackson's health condition.

Everyday the person running it posts: He's dead.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

There's a Facebook account that reminds everyone of that daily called daily updates on Michael Jackson's health condition.

Everyday the person running it posts: He's dead.

Hah, has it many followers?

 

[VoidCat]

Hah, has it many followers?

151K followers

 

[Callisto]

No.

But last time I've checked, in a civilized country one is to be considered innocent until guilt is sufficiently demonstrated.

Then please check again. Innocent until proven guilty is a legal principle that pertains to the court system, it does not apply to public opinion. If we were discussing an impending or ongoing court case, it would apply.

 

[Callisto]

As a fan, I don't actually care tbh.

If tomorrow it's sufficiently demonstrated that he abused kids... let's even go further and say he not only abused kids but also sacrificed them to some mayan god and buried them underneath his mansion ... i'll be the first to accept it and condemn the dude.

But it wouldn't change anything about his brilliant musical talent.

Regardless of the person he was, his music and talent was phenomenal. The likes of which most of us won't get to see again within our lifetime.

I'll happily condemn the man and remember the artist.

How talented a person was or was not is irrelevant to what kind of person they were or what things they may have done.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I couldn't care less either as to his guilt or innocence, I'll still listen to some of his songs, but those who accuse him of such obviously do, and have the right to speak out if they believe they were abused by him. And there are enough of them. Paint his behaviour how you like but he should have known that such would raise suspicions. Perhaps he thought his wealth and security would protect him - like Savile did. But ask any psychologist as to this and I doubt many would not see his behaviour as being paedophilic and the likelihood of such becoming abusive - as his accusers described - given his obsession with privacy. And as I mentioned previously, the odds of any targeting a very wealthy person, or their estate, are not very favourable, so why do it other than that they wanted to speak the truth about him?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Michael Jackson is not guilty. Very few people are actually pedophiles. People who abuse children usually are not pedophiles and tend to be interested in domination and in helpless targets. This does not match Michael's profile, and since there is little to no evidence I must conclude he is innocent. In addition he is sexually under developed, sort of like a castrated choir boy. He lacks the aggressive qualities which most abusers have. Correct me if I am wrong about his decreased aggression.

He is more comfortable making friends with children than with adults not due to some sexual attraction or wish to dominate but because he is lonely and a mutated freak. The best arguments against him are that he sees himself as a child, however that is consistent with the hormone therapy put upon him by his parents and the brown nosing of the adults around him as he grows up. His adulthood has been taken away. All people see him as effeminate and/or childish, because he is both. He also is not safe from adult women and cannot make friends with them as he might like, because there are so many gold diggers after his fortune and fame. That he has never fit in with society is to be expected, and his silly game of shocking people in public underwrites his feelings of isolation. His unconcern for what people think is evident in his neverland ranch. His hope of making friends with children is pathetic but believable.

I doubt you know much about paedophilia. It wasn't just children he was fond of - it was young boys.

 

[Callisto]

I doubt you know much about paedophilia. It wasn't just children he was fond of - it was young boys.

And more specifically, hebephilia since IIRC most or all of his accusers were pubescent at the time. (Colloquially, all inappropriate behavior with children is called pedophilia but the term technically pertains to prepubescent children.)

 

[Mock Turtle]

And more specifically, hebephilia since IIRC most or all of his accusers were pubescent at the time. (Colloquially, all inappropriate behavior with children is called pedophilia but the term technically pertains to prepubescent children.)

From what I have read, many were young enough so as his interest being paedophilic - below age 12.

 

[Stevicus]

I couldn't care less either as to his guilt or innocence, I'll still listen to some of his songs, but those who accuse him of such obviously do, and have the right to speak out if they believe they were abused by him. And there are enough of them. Paint his behaviour how you like but he should have known that such would raise suspicions. Perhaps he thought his wealth and security would protect him - like Savile did. But ask any psychologist as to this and I doubt many would not see his behaviour as being paedophilic and the likelihood of such becoming abusive - as his accusers described - given his obsession with privacy. And as I mentioned previously, the odds of any targeting a very wealthy person, or their estate, are not very favourable, so why do it other than that they wanted to speak the truth about him?

I don't know if he is guilty or innocent - or somewhere in between. I haven't really studied these cases, though, or what the actual evidence was. If it's a case of one person's word against another's, then it's a weak case - although it doesn't mean it didn't happen either. But, it's a serious business to bring a criminal charge where someone could lose their freedom for a long time, and there have been too many wrong convictions based on flimsy evidence. So, innocent until proven guilty - but they actually have to practice it, not just say it.

But it's all moot now, since MJ is dead. Only his victims (if there are any) know what really happened, and I can only hope that they're getting on with their lives as best they can. I don't know how much of a role their parents had in it. I can't imagine my parents ever taking me to go play over at some celebrity's house.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I don't know if he is guilty or innocent - or somewhere in between. I haven't really studied these cases, though, or what the actual evidence was. If it's a case of one person's word against another's, then it's a weak case - although it doesn't mean it didn't happen either. But, it's a serious business to bring a criminal charge where someone could lose their freedom for a long time, and there have been too many wrong convictions based on flimsy evidence. So, innocent until proven guilty - but they actually have to practice it, not just say it.

But it's all moot now, since MJ is dead. Only his victims (if there are any) know what really happened, and I can only hope that they're getting on with their lives as best they can. I don't know how much of a role their parents had in it. I can't imagine my parents ever taking me to go play over at some celebrity's house.

One might ask the mother of Mandy Smith that last question or the mother of Polanski's victim or Brooke Shields' mother:

Mandy Smith - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stevicus]

One might ask the mother of Mandy Smith that last question (or the mother of Polanski's victim):

Mandy Smith - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Perhaps. Some people get star-struck and seem to allow things from celebrities they wouldn't ordinarily allow for anyone else. Child stars are also victims where one can find endless stories of abuse and horror.

It's for that reason that I don't have much respect for the entertainment industry, nor do I ever get star-struck.