Umm yeah sure.
Ack, I just realized who I'm defending. Even if hes Michael Jackson I stand by everything I said. THat being said I think I'm gonna take a shower now. =/
Printable View
Umm yeah sure.
Ack, I just realized who I'm defending. Even if hes Michael Jackson I stand by everything I said. THat being said I think I'm gonna take a shower now. =/
Fury, that's an admirable quality you have, standing by your convictions so strongly. But sometimes it can work against you as well. It can blind a person to other ways of thinking, and sometimes it can blind a person to the truth. You should stand by your convictions, but you should also not be so stubborn as to entertain other ways of thinking.Quote:
Originally posted by Fu�y
I'm never one to abandon my points so here goes.
I dont think its right to determine hes a pedophile because of these things. Yeah,I'll admit hes a weird guy. And for Cyberxion, i will repeat yes he slept with children but how is it fair to determine hes a pedophile from this. Yeah its sure is odd, but still you cant just determine that.
I'll reiterate my post once more, so as to clarify my stance. Hopefully you'll consider what I'm saying.
I merely said that it's just as reasonable to believe he's done something wrong, as it is to believe he's innocent. You can no more assume his innocence then the next person can his guilt, especially given what we know about the man. You seem to be convinced that there is absolutely no reason to suspect Jackson of being a pedophile, and that's clearly not the case. He is a 45 year old man that's admitted to sleeping with young children. If that's not enough to raise a red flag, then what is? Given that he is indeed sleeping in the same bed as children 30 years his junior, it's not at all unreasonable for one to wonder wether or not his actions extend beyond just sleeping with them. In fact, it may be more of a stretch to say he's not guilty, as it's highly unusual for a person of that age to be sleeping with young children. Sure, his sleeping with children doesn't automatically label him a pedophile, but it's not unreasonable for people to wonder, given the facts at hand.
Yeah, im surprised that everyone just hates him. according to the votes though, many fined him, let him off the hook, or gave him a short jail sentence and a fine. :|
Cybers EDIT: I've taken care of the smiley for ya'. Next time just use the edit button below your post. :)
I actually find Micheal Jacksons music to be very entertaining. I've been a fan since I was a kid. That said, I find Michal Jackson as a person to be a strange individual, and I wouldn't put the pedophilia past him. He's admitted to sleeping in the same bed as children, and that doesn't strike me as a very normal thing to be doing. I also think he's not fit to be a father, and his children should be removed from his custody and put in a home that's able to better care for them.
Anyway, I honestly don't care wether or not he's guilty. That's up to the courts to decide, and they'll do so based on evidence and not media here-say. That is, if justice exists. I'm not too sure it does here in America anymore. If it ever did.
Quote:
Originally posted by Cyberxion
Fury, that's an admirable quality you have, standing by your convictions so strongly. But sometimes it can work against you as well. It can blind a person to other ways of thinking, and sometimes it can blind a person to the truth. You should stand by your convictions, but you should also not be so stubborn as to entertain other ways of thinking.
For instance, you have succeeded in missing the entire point of my post, because you are too stubborn to give my views consideration.
I'll reiterate my post once more, so as to clarify my stance. Hopefully you'll consider what I'm saying.
I merely said that it's just as reasonable to believe he's done something wrong, as it is to believe he's innocent. You can no more assume his innocence then the next person can his guilt, especially given what we know about the man. You seem to be convinced that there is absolutely no reason to suspect Jackson of being a pedophile, and that's clearly not the case. He is a 45 year old man that's admitted to sleeping with young children. If that's not enough to raise a red flag, then what is? Given that he is indeed sleeping in the same bed as children 30 years his junior, it's not at all unreasonable for one to wonder wether or not his actions extend beyond just sleeping with them. In fact, it may be more of a stretch to say he's not guilty, as it's highly unusual for a person of that age to be sleeping with young children. Sure, his sleeping with children doesn't automatically label him a pedophile, but it's not unreasonable for people to wonder, given the facts at hand.
Well allow me to reitterate, while i do find it odd that he did sleep with children, I dont think this alone can determine whether he did it or not. Your're sure as hell right in saying that is definately not usual, I'll giv you that, the point I'm trying to make is that alone isn't enough to decide whether he is guilty or not.
On another note, through my time here you've always been the one I enjoy arguing with most. We've gone at it several times and not once do I think its ended on a bad note.
Oh, I understand man, and I agree. I can understand that you'd be against someone stating it as a matter of fact that he's a pedophile, as his sleeping with children alone is not enough to come to that conclusion. But on the same note, one cannot be chastised for suspecting him of being a pedophile, given his penchant for sleeping with the kiddie crowd. So is he a pedophile? Who knows? Is it unreasonable to suspect him of being guilty? Absoltuely not. :)Quote:
Originally posted by Fu�y
Well allow me to reitterate, while i do find it odd that he did sleep with children, I dont think this alone can determine whether he did it or not. Your're sure as hell right in saying that is definately not usual, I'll giv you that, the point I'm trying to make is that alone isn't enough to decide whether he is guilty or not.
On another note, through my time here you've always been the one I enjoy arguing with most. We've gone at it several times and not once do I think its ended on a bad note.
Oh, and thanks. I'm glad we've not gone to the mat on these things. It's fun to argue a point with someone who's able to take it all in stride. I've been to too many message boards where a simple debate can quickly degenerate into a petty argument.
I don't really know much about Michael Jackson or this case or about his custody of those children/s. But gathering that he does have custody I don't see it as pedophilic (is that a word) to sleep in the same bed as them. I don't know the age of the children so that might influence the situation.
Actually, it's not his children we are talking about. If it were, perhaps it wouldn't be as un-natuaral for him to have them sleep in his bed. No, this is other people's children he's sleeping with. Children who'm he invites to his home for sleepovers on the Neverland Ranch.
Another thing though....the parents of this kid have previously accepted a settlement in liew of actually pressing charges before, right? Now what kind of parent would actually take cash (of any amount) rather than following through on charges if they really believed this sort of thing had happened to their kid? If they REALLY believed this had happened, would they not have said "screw your money, you're going to jail"?
It's highly fishy to me
These aren't the same people. Not as far as I've been able to tell.
i don't exactly know the facts of this case but i know that many people are shocked at the fact that he admitted to sleeping with children...however half the world overlooks the fact that a married gandhi used to sleep naked with young women.
i'm not trying to make a point here...i'm just comparing the reaction of society towards different personalities,putting aside their work or reputation.
Anyway, the difference betweem what Ghandi did and what Micheal did may lie with the times. Perhaps back then what Ghandi did was acceptable, whereas today it's not so great for a 45 year old man to admit to sleeping with children, especially ones that are not his. And that are boys to boot.
And even if that's not the case, you do indeed have to take into account their work and repuatations. First off, I doubt Ghandi had ill intentions in mind when he laid down with those girls, whereas with MJ, it's hard to tell. See, he's an eccentric pop-star who's physical appearance has been alterered so much that he's virtually unrecognisable as a human being, who hides his children behind masks, dangles them out of windows and calls them blanket. He's also not someone who was ever inclined to make grand changes in the world, as Ghandi was. Given that, it's not at all hard to imagine he took those children to bed with something more then sleeping on his mind.
Comparing Ghandi to MJ is a stretch anyway, as it's a case of comparing two different people from two completely different backgrounds, cultures and moral/ethical codes. It's pretty much like comparing apples and oranges as I see it.
well oranges have an obvious peel that almost any sane person avaoids eating and is peeled off before eating. Whereas Apples get eaten all but the core and pips, you avoid the pips in an orange too!
oh.... MJ is a sicko..
yeah,i know but in either case we don't know the intention....i'm not defending either case,just pointing a similarity in the action and disimilarity in the reaction.however it is interesting to note,that in both cases the individuals admitted to their deeds,coz if i'm not mistaken gandhi talked about this in his autobiography.as i said earlier i'm not trying to make a point with the example=)Quote:
Originally posted by Cyberxion
Anyway, the difference betweem what Ghandi did and what Micheal did may lie with the times. Perhaps back then what Ghandi did was acceptable, whereas today it's not so great for a 45 year old man to admit to sleeping with children, especially ones that are not his. And that are boys to boot.
And even if that's not the case, you do indeed have to take into account their work and repuatations. First off, I doubt Ghandi had ill intentions in mind when he laid down with those girls, whereas with MJ, it's hard to tell. See, he's an eccentric pop-star who's physical appearance has been alterered so much that he's virtually unrecognisable as a human being, who hides his children behind masks, dangles them out of windows and calls them blanket. He's also not someone who was ever inclined to make grand changes in the world, as Ghandi was. Given that, it's not at all hard to imagine he took those children to bed with something more then sleeping on his mind.
Comparing Ghandi to MJ is a stretch anyway, as it's a case of comparing two different people from two completely different backgrounds, cultures and moral/ethical codes. It's pretty much like comparing apples and oranges as I see it.
this is the best thing i've seen so far besides cyber and fury.. the first people got off on some bullshit, now everyone feels they can do the same to the man.. all they wanted was money and who better to get it from than Michael Jackson.. For the "pedophile-type" actions performed on your child, how can you settle for money..? oh and it's not the same people.. but all the same, they knew he would settle just to keep it out of the air, in a way.. i'm actually shocked that i'm defending him now that i think about it.. i used to crack jokes on him all the time..Quote:
Originally posted by DeathChicken
Another thing though....the parents of this kid have previously accepted a settlement in liew of actually pressing charges before, right? Now what kind of parent would actually take cash (of any amount) rather than following through on charges if they really believed this sort of thing had happened to their kid? If they REALLY believed this had happened, would they not have said "screw your money, you're going to jail"?
It's highly fishy to me