ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags michael jackson , sex scandals

Reply
Old 2nd July 2016, 11:51 PM   #561
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,263
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
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.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2016, 11:57 PM   #562
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,263
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
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.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 12:23 AM   #563
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,199
No I haven't

The "art" shown is in my opinion kiddie porn
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 12:26 AM   #564
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,199
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
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
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 12:37 AM   #565
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,199
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
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
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 01:04 AM   #566
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,263
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
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
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
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.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 01:19 AM   #567
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,199
And he chose to go to bed with little boys who say they watched porn
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 01:21 AM   #568
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,199
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
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 01:51 AM   #569
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,263
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
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.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 01:53 AM   #570
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,263
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
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.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 01:53 AM   #571
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,199
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
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
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 01:55 AM   #572
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,199
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
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?
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 02:45 AM   #573
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,263
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
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.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 02:48 AM   #574
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,199
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
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?
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 03:10 AM   #575
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 10,072
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
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?
Ryokan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 03:29 AM   #576
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,199
Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
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
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 04:27 AM   #577
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,278
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
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-ceo...ld-pornography
Quote:
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.
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One

Last edited by DragonLady; 3rd July 2016 at 04:29 AM.
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 04:33 AM   #578
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,263
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
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-ceo...ld-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.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 04:36 AM   #579
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,263
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
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.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 04:40 AM   #580
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,199
No worries.

It will be spoilered apparentl art
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 04:47 AM   #581
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,278
Quote:
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?
This. Considering what's out there in the world, MJ's collection was tame. With his kind of money, I'm certain there were lots of opportunities for him to bring home truckloads of porn, but apparently he didn't.

But a lot of men I've known wouldn't bother with any of that. They would simply hire prostitutes to put on a live show every night.
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 05:02 AM   #582
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,199
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
This. Considering what's out there in the world, MJ's collection was tame. With his kind of money, I'm certain there were lots of opportunities for him to bring home truckloads of porn, but apparently he didn't.

But a lot of men I've known wouldn't bother with any of that. They would simply hire prostitutes to put on a live show every night.
All good. We will see
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 05:06 AM   #583
John Nowak
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,806
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
We keep coming back to the fact that things look different depending on what your point of view is before you see them.

jackson hired million dollar shark lawyers, so not surprisingly, they got him off.

That's exactly what one might expect, and wish impossible, of a rich kiddie fiddler trying to get away with something.

It''s also exactly what one would expect, and wish for, of a rich non-kiddie fiddler being assailed by innuendo.

Both are the case, and neither can be judged meaningful until after the fact.

I think this sums the matter up nicely.

We can't be sure what Jackson did. The fact he was tried twice and the evidence was rejected twice is a matter of public record.
__________________
>Reason being is that you guys appear to have absolutely no field experience in listening for invisible people in the forest. I do.

-historian
John Nowak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 05:25 AM   #584
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,278
Quote:
We can't be sure what Jackson did. The fact he was tried twice and the evidence was rejected twice is a matter of public record.
This. IF he did anything illegal, hundreds of people failed to prove it, despite throwing their very best efforts -and all of his own books- at him.

But none of us can say for certain "No, s/he did nothing wrong" about ANY other person. All we can say is "this person has or has not been convicted" of any particular crime. MJ was never convicted of anything. He was never even charged for many of the things he's accused by the media of doing.
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 06:24 AM   #585
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 10,072
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
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
So you're just interested in winning an argument on the internet, not actually fighting child abuse.
Ryokan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 07:21 AM   #586
John Nowak
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,806
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
No I haven't

The "art" shown is in my opinion kiddie porn
It's fine to have your opinions, but I find it a little hard to credit the notion that "kiddie porn" is legally available in the US, let alone for sale on Amazon.
__________________
>Reason being is that you guys appear to have absolutely no field experience in listening for invisible people in the forest. I do.

-historian
John Nowak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 09:42 AM   #587
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,155
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Perhaps then you can explain the fundamental differences between the arguments that have been presented against MJ and the examples I presented in my post? Owning a perfectly legal book with odd pictures of nude children in it within a huge library including much more adult oriented pornography? Admitting to sleeping with children, but not having sex with them? A joy in the friendship of children and in elements of childhood? And I already described how many wealthy people and institutions settle suits out of court to avoid the financial and public relations costs of a court case.

I have never argued that MJ's behavior toward children was not crossing a line that most people would be hesitate to even approach, and I posted many times that I believe that MJ's behavior toward children (and in general) was very odd, strange, and frequently creepy (even when compared to most other celebrities and very wealthy people, who often establish new standards in this regard). My entire point has never been to justify MJ's behavior as "normal" or as fitting fully within how most people behave. Instead my point has been to show how elements of even normal people's lives can be extracted out of context, distorted, and selectively cited through bad journalism and greedy people to try to justify a horrible accusation that is, ultimately, lacking true proof.

I'll simplify it further- I am not saying that MJ actions were no more odd than taking out a niece for a movie, sleeping with one's brother at age 10, or owning a copy of a photo of one's kid in a bath at age 1. Clearly MJ's behavior was fully in the weird, not normal, category. But did he actually molest children? No, according to the court case. Was he a pedophile in his head? The facts appear mainly to indicate that he had very unusual and strange ways of interacting with children, and I have no way of knowing if a sexualized interest in children was part of this. But I do I see the evidence that has come to light as not anywhere close to being convincing that such a sexual interest was involved.
To answer the first question - yes, I can explain the fundamental differences. I really have already done so earlier in the thread; but I can do it again within the context of this particular phrasing.

Even though you are willing to acknowledge the fact that they are abnormal, you yet continue to mischaracterize those relevant actions of Jackson's. As strange as they may be, you imply, it is still just as arbitrary to say that for instance Jackson's inviting children over to sleepovers may be indicative of pedophilia as it would be to say that your owning a number of mystery novels is indicative of an interest in committing murder. The problem is, ultimately this simply is not true. People aren't observing "Jackson did this weird thing, and it was something something had to do with kids, so he was probably a pedophile". The reason people look at Jackson's behaviors and come to the conclusion he may be a pedophile is because those are behaviors of a type that it is well-established is common to non-violent pedophiles.

I've already in an earlier post described the striking parallels between Jackson's activities and Jerry Sandusky's. And, it's important to note, there was nothing all that different about Sandusky compared to other known pedophiles, with perhaps the exception that his fame made his job easy - a trait Jackson would've shared, if he was a pedophile.

It might sound counterintuitive to some, but despite how others may feel I actually don't find the two books with the nude photographs in them Jackson owned to be the thing most suggestive to me of Jackson's pedophilia, the "heaviest weight on the scale" to continue the analogy I used earlier. There are at least two other "heavier weights" to me; the first and heaviest being that Jackson had a "type", and the second being his compulsion for physical touch.

By "type", I mean a preference. In Jerry Sandusky's case, his at-risk youth charity put him into frequent contact with many different kinds of children. Yet of all of them, Sandusky would select certain ones to develop a "more close" relationship with - always boys, and always of a certain age; to wit: just a couple of years before puberty might be expected to start. Jackson's ranch likewise was open to children of every kind, and his charities benefited children indiscriminately; and yet the families he selected to become closer "friends" with tended to have the same thing in common - a boy, of pre-teen age. Jackson was friendly toward and did things with the entire family of course, but the special bedroom-invitations were only ever offered to these boys. To be clear, although Sandusky's and Jackson's apparent "type" was the same, it's not the particular type that I find important, but the fact that there is one at all. If Jackson's little sleepovers had been a scattershot mix of boys and girls, ages toddler-through-teen - if there wasn't this persistently common thread - there would be less of an argument to be made here; but that simply wasn't the case. Jackson had access to children of every configuration and could've just as easily pursued special close friendships with absolutely any of them he wanted, but he exclusively initiated these relationships with pre-teenage boys and it's difficult to come up with a credible reason for this preference outside of an attraction.

As an aside, more important factors like this one, help put others into focus. The books Jackson owned that had pictures of nude pre-teen boys in them - wholly inconclusive alone and devoid of context, perhaps not even worthy of notice; they're art-books after all, surely many people own them. But add the fact that there's other, completely separate reasons to believe Michael Jackson had an attraction or some other preference for pre-teen boys, and fact he owned books with nude photographs of children of that particular type becomes a little more curious. The probably calculus substantially shifts a little further away from "completely random books he happened to pick up somewhere" and a little more toward "quite possibly sought this material out specifically". The books themselves are legal and not considered pornographic when looked at objectively; but it can hardly be disputed that they are the closest thing to pornography that someone with an attraction to pre-teen boys can easily and legally obtain, and would serve the purpose just as well.

So to reiterate, we're not talking about taking Jackson's weirdness, attaching undue significance to the fact that it so happened to involve children, and weaving an arbitrary suggestion of pedophilia out of that. Jackson's behaviors were far outside the norm but they are not unprecedented - they are consistent with the known selection and grooming behaviors of known pedophiles. There are certainly differences of scale - obviously most pedophiles do not have Jackson's money, resources, fame, the ability to create such wide and unrestricted access to a target pool, and so forth; but the MO nevertheless remains the same within the respective capabilities of the individual offender, and it is interesting how when offenders did have the advantage of resources or fame, as in Sandusky's case, they have often used them in nearly identical ways.

And, it needs to be added, neither are we talking about a "Hitler breathed oxygen" situation where we're taking random and irrelevant things that statistically happen to be common among pedophiles and saying that "Michael Jackson being a fan of Star Trek* is highly suspicious". The behaviors that Jackson happens to have in common with other, known pedophiles also happen to be behaviors that directly help them to select their victims, establish and gain trust, acclimate their victims to non-standard and/or inappropriate adult/child interaction, and ultimately facilitate or otherwise serve any abuse that happens.

Now in contrast to this precedent, people who insist that Jackson's behaviors are most likely to be completely innocent, have very little in the way of precedent to support that assertion beyond of course the fact that it's a simple logical truth that they could be innocent. It's hard to find an example of another man with a completely innocent habit of taking various other people's children into his bed to point to and say "see, it can happen". Walt Disney built an amusement park designed mostly to cater to children and families, that's about as close as I can get - but the park was an expansion of his cartoon animation studio, he didn't build it in his backyard, he ran it strictly as a business, and he didn't single out and invite special lucky young guests to come up to his bedroom and see his Mickey Mouse etchings.

One last thing - I say "last", although it's something I fully expect to have to say again and again - you say, "But did he actually molest children? No, according to the court case." This is wrong; it's a mischaracterization of the trial that you and nearly everyone here continue to persist with.

Michael Jackson went on trial one time, for molesting one child. The jury exonerated him of that one (albeit multifaceted) accusation. He was not absolved of "molesting children"; he was not found innocent/not guilty of ever having molested any child at any time. This should go without saying; in fact it wouldn't even be worth mentioning if people here did not continue to treat the trial's outcome as an effective rebuttal of every accusation ever made against him. It wasn't. The jury's rejection of the criminal charges against Jackson for molesting that one child don't even constitute a rejection of the other claims made during the course of the same trial about other instances of abuse for which Jackson was not charged; and nor do they indicate whether or not the jury believed Jackson was a pedophile - they may have easily believed he was and still decided the case that he molested this particular child was nonexistent. So we really ought to dispense with that nonsense right now. I don't think anybody has really made a claim in this thread that actually contradicts the trial verdict, so that it keeps having to be invoked as some kind of rebuttal of the arguments being made. I certainly haven't, at least.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 09:46 AM   #588
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,739
I chose to not further participate in this thread at this time for a variety of reasons that, if I listed them, would be continuing to participate in the discussion (so I will not list them).

But I did want to be certain that cullennez understands the potential concerns with his (?) professed intent to post samples of what he claims to be MJ's "child pornography" to the Forum. It appears to me that either they are child pornography as he claims they are (like cullennez a Supreme Court judge once defined pornography as "I know it when I see it") or they are not. If cullennez really believes that these are child pornography I do not understand why he would be willing to continue the exploitation of the child (children?) involved by uploading the images to yet another web site just to attempt to support his agreement. But more so, if someone in law enforcement indeed agrees with him (perhaps a person using a definition in a country other than the USA) then cullennez can potentially be charged both with possessing child pornography (on his computer) and posting it to the web (both very serious criminal acts). He would not even be able to plea that he did not know that it was child pornography because he has already claimed multiple times in this thread that he believed it was. This seems like a very high risk for an attempt to buttress one's argument in an Internet Forum.

I presume as others that cullennez is actually hoping that the moderators will take down such an upload and that he intends to use this removal as an argument that the images in question were indeed pornographic. Well, the act of posting it in the first place before it is removed would place him at potential risk if indeed it is viewed as child pornography somewhere in the world- having it taken down later by the mods would not help his case. Further even if the mods are uncertain and only worry that it might be viewed as child pornography by someone "out there, apparently the mods will feel obligated to report it to the criminal authorities. Quote from the MA:

"1. You will not post anything that can be considered to be potentially criminal. The posting of computer viruses, child pornography, or links to computer viruses or child pornography is strictly prohibited. As are posts made under circumstances indicating a considered likelihood of inciting a violent or felonious act, or an intention or knowledge that its content will be used for, or in furtherance of, any criminal purpose. (Such posts will be moved offline and referred to the appropriate authorities.)"

In addition the mods remove content for a variety of reasons that fall far short of pornography. This includes certain words and images that might simply lead to the ISF being blocked by nanny software in schools and public library. For example, I suspect that a medical photo in a urology journal of a naked adult's genitals would not last long long on this forum. So simply having the images removed by the mods would not prove cullennez's argument and would still potentially land him in legal trouble.

In summary I see this as a real lose/lose for cullennez no matter what the outcome. His best hope would be that subsequent events prove his opinion of the images as pornography is wrong (as indeed their availability through Amazon in the USA and the results of the MJ trial would indicate). But even in this circumstance, posting the images on an International forum may still lead to legal questioning and lengthy entanglement for the poster by an overzealous USA prosecutor or by some other legal authority elsewhere in the world. Conversely if they really are child pornography in the USA, as cullennez appears to believe, attempting to post them, or even having them in his possession as he does now (ironically the same basis on which cullennez accuses MJ of being a pedophile) may well open a big can of worms for cullennez. The strongest evidence that cullennez is correct as to the images would be him ending up in jail- would that be worth it?

And to clarify- IANAL and I am by no means threatening legal action against the Forum or cullennez. This is just such a sensitive topic for many people that I am only suggesting that cullennez obtains a proper legal understanding of the situation from resources that do understand these things before doing anything risky. If cullennez is thinking, "Why is Giordano so concerned about my welfare?" I will note that my first response on reading his intent to post these images was, "Fine- let him do it and let's see what happens." But then the small remnants of conscience I still possess kicked in. I don't agree with a lot of people, but I would still put out if they set themselves on fire. Call me a bleeding heart liberal if you must...

Anyway, "I must be going..."

Last edited by Giordano; 3rd July 2016 at 09:49 AM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 10:32 AM   #589
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,155
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
All good. We will see
How about not.

This ill-conceived game of nuclear-missile-Chicken will probably not end well for you. You are correct that imagery of nude children is likely to be removed by the mods, as to my knowledge it always has been - but you're failing to consider the fact that when it has happened in the past, the poster has often usually if not always been removed from the forum also, and the fact that you were only posting it to "prove a point" is not going to save you from a similar fate. Falling on your sword like this to win an argument about Michael Jackson is a very bad decision.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 10:38 AM   #590
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,278
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
How about not.

This ill-conceived game of nuclear-missile-Chicken will probably not end well for you. You are correct that imagery of nude children is likely to be removed by the mods, as to my knowledge it always has been - but you're failing to consider the fact that when it has happened in the past, the poster has often usually if not always been removed from the forum also, and the fact that you were only posting it to "prove a point" is not going to save you from a similar fate. Falling on your sword like this to win an argument about Michael Jackson is a very bad decision.
I agree. This thread isn't worth the potential risks.
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 10:42 AM   #591
Fengirl
Graduate Poster
 
Fengirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,278
nvm
__________________
"'Tis with our judgments as our watches, none
Go just alike, yet each believes his own."

Alexander Pope: An Essay on Criticism lines 9-10

Last edited by Fengirl; 3rd July 2016 at 10:44 AM.
Fengirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 10:47 AM   #592
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,278
Originally Posted by Fengirl View Post
I'm just at the stage in the transcripts where I am reading Officer Robel's testimony regarding the search of the Neverland ranch. I've read it several times over. There was no vast porn collection. The only items seized were a couple of adult mags and a book, none of which was illegal, as was stipulated in the officer's testimony. What exactly are you talking about?
I suspect this was a reference to an article that's been floating around that supposedly lists all of his porn.

But there's a .pdf that was linked to upstream a couple of pages ago that listed the stuff the Sheriff's office seized and cataloged.

Either way, the collection wasn't vast. It was mostly notable for being varied, and for the percentage of very rare collector's items.
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 10:50 AM   #593
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,278
It's not safe for work -or anywhere else, really.

But the article is called "Mikey, you let me down".

Warning: very graphic descriptions of porn books, and magazines. I believe there are a few pictures of the covers, and there may be more images further down the page; I only skimmed partway through.
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 11:04 AM   #594
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Forget the Porn for it is a non-issue. Had MJ had real porn the cops would have busted him for it and the courts found him guilty. But they didn't.

But MJ was still a creep Pedo.

Here's my favorite poster of MJ: http://www.suprmchaos.com/jackothrilla11_joes.jpg

Last edited by Jules Galen; 3rd July 2016 at 11:07 AM.
Jules Galen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 11:54 AM   #595
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,199
I was never going to post the images.

It is child exploitation

And enough posters have opined the same
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

Last edited by cullennz; 3rd July 2016 at 12:24 PM.
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 12:56 PM   #596
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,739
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
I was never going to post the images.

It is child exploitation

And enough posters have opined the same
Oh, now I remember when in the cis/trans thread you indicated that you didn't really believe an entire series of posts that you had created, posts that went on for pages, and that you were just amusing yourself by having a little joke. How could I have forgotten, because that is why I dropped out of that thread? Well, carry on then.

And just to clarify, my quick scan up thread indicates that I was the only one to state anything about child exploitation, and it was by bringing up the question of if you felt it was child porn, why would you seek to exploit the child by desseminating it further. I clearly have indicated that unlike you I do not believe it to be child porn or child exploitation. Enough posters have now opined the same in response to your faux "threat"? Would that be one, as in yourself?

Last edited by Giordano; 3rd July 2016 at 01:07 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 12:58 PM   #597
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,199
You wanted me to post them?

It is kid porn ffs
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 01:24 PM   #598
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,199
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Oh, now I remember when in the cis/trans thread you indicated that you didn't really believe an entire series of posts that you had created, posts that went on for pages, and that you were just amusing yourself by having a little joke. How could I have forgotten, because that is why I dropped out of that thread? Well, carry on then.

And just to clarify, my quick scan up thread indicates that I was the only one to state anything about child exploitation, and it was by bringing up the question of if you felt it was child porn, why would you seek to exploit the child by desseminating it further. I clearly have indicated that unlike you I do not believe it to be child porn or child exploitation. Enough posters have now opined the same in response to your faux "threat"? Would that be one, as in yourself?
That thread started as a joke and morphed into something interesting.

The very fact you have people worrying about posting Jackson's images on a public forum says more about the images and him than me.

The fact I know there exploitative and sick while you seem to write it off as art is, while just your opinion, frankly a bit naive
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 01:54 PM   #599
cow_cat
Mr. Parodied
 
cow_cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Between the Sun and the Stars
Posts: 1,639
"How do you know he is a paedophile?"

"He looks like one!"
...
...
...
"Buuurrrrnnn him anyway!"
"BUUUUUUURRRRNNN"
__________________
Now that is Scientific Fact. There's no real evidence for it, but it is Scientific Fact.
-'Dr' Neil Fox, speaking on brasseye

Used to have another username, but I hated it.
cow_cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 02:25 PM   #600
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,199
Originally Posted by cow_cat View Post
"How do you know he is a paedophile?"

"He looks like one!"
...
...
...
"Buuurrrrnnn him anyway!"
"BUUUUUUURRRRNNN"
Nope.

Just don't make out he was some sort of "Peter Pan" because he is dead
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:13 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.