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 25th June 2016, 01:11 AM   #81
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,133
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Paying off nuisance law suits is actually a very common practice as defending them in court can often cost more than a pay off does. It is no more an admission of guilt than pleading the 5th.
You may be over-generalizing. Is paying off accusers of sexual abuse or misconduct, specifically, as "very common" as paying off other kinds of nuisance lawsuits? It seems to me that the public views a settlement in such a case very differently from how it views a settlement over say a slip and fall claim, or a patent dispute, and this surely has to have an effect on whether a person chooses to settle.

On the other hand, it's mentioned above by someone that one of the alleged victims was paid off specifically by Jackson's insurance company. Liability insurance companies aren't known for settling arbitrary "nuisance claims" in the hundreds-of-thousands to millions ballpark. Their whole business model is based on paying out only when they absolutely have to and they will fight claims in court that they perceive to be weak, flawed, or frivolous. I find it unlikely that an insurance company would've directly paid a claimant unless their own legal department determined a reasonable case could be made that damage occurred which was covered by the policy.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002

Last edited by Checkmite; 25th June 2016 at 01:13 AM.
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 25th June 2016, 01:34 AM   #82
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,183
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Civil cases aren't about Justice, and as noted previously, which you took no notice of, he didn't settle, and didn't want to settle, his insurance company did.
By proxy he did. What is insurance for
__________________
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 25th June 2016, 01:43 AM   #83
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,266
I have no dog in the race. I never had any connection, and was never a rabid fan by any means -I just saw him as another pampered celebrity.

But thinking back about it, I believe the allegations against MJ probably did more to make me into a skeptic than just about any other world event.

The tide of public opinion just keeps sweeping over the same ol' beach, and the facts just get washed out to sea as if they never mattered at all. I'm always shocked by how many people don't even want to LOOK at the facts, let alone consider them carefully before rushing to judgement.
__________________
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 online now   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 25th June 2016, 02:46 AM   #84
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,125
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
You may be over-generalizing. Is paying off accusers of sexual abuse or misconduct, specifically, as "very common" as paying off other kinds of nuisance lawsuits? It seems to me that the public views a settlement in such a case very differently from how it views a settlement over say a slip and fall claim, or a patent dispute, and this surely has to have an effect on whether a person chooses to settle.

On the other hand, it's mentioned above by someone that one of the alleged victims was paid off specifically by Jackson's insurance company. Liability insurance companies aren't known for settling arbitrary "nuisance claims" in the hundreds-of-thousands to millions ballpark. Their whole business model is based on paying out only when they absolutely have to and they will fight claims in court that they perceive to be weak, flawed, or frivolous. I find it unlikely that an insurance company would've directly paid a claimant unless their own legal department determined a reasonable case could be made that damage occurred which was covered by the policy.
On the other hand, the one known payout was, in fact, by an insurance company, and was over his objections. You can consider this to be unusual, but it's what happened regardless. As for the payoffs of "other" families, we actually don't have any evidence of them. What we do have, at the moment, is "new" allegations from Radar that are not actually new, and that were either shown to be false or made to be far more salacious than they were. For example, those supposedly horrible photos with his cousins, that turned out to be adults and were just promotional photos for one of their songs that MJ was featured in.
Mumbles 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 25th June 2016, 04:36 AM   #85
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,244
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
You may be over-generalizing. Is paying off accusers of sexual abuse or misconduct, specifically, as "very common" as paying off other kinds of nuisance lawsuits? It seems to me that the public views a settlement in such a case very differently from how it views a settlement over say a slip and fall claim, or a patent dispute, and this surely has to have an effect on whether a person chooses to settle.

On the other hand, it's mentioned above by someone that one of the alleged victims was paid off specifically by Jackson's insurance company. Liability insurance companies aren't known for settling arbitrary "nuisance claims" in the hundreds-of-thousands to millions ballpark. Their whole business model is based on paying out only when they absolutely have to and they will fight claims in court that they perceive to be weak, flawed, or frivolous. I find it unlikely that an insurance company would've directly paid a claimant unless their own legal department determined a reasonable case could be made that damage occurred which was covered by the policy.
In one article, I read that Santa Barbara and L.A. spent over two million just on the first and second investigations and the trial that went south for them. Since the other suit was civil and the court and attorney costs were taken up by the plaintiff/defendant, it's quite likely that those "bestest lawyers in the world" that Jackson's reported to have had, plus the attorneys for the insurance company and the blood-suckers for the plaintiff were going to exceed that amount by quite a bit.

IIRC, the civil case insurance was not even insurance he bought for himself but was part of his contracts with his record/film/entertainment companies. Those people don't look at it as OMG Fifteen Million, but in terms of how much hurt was going to be put on their income from their billion dollar property, Michael Jackson. And, as it's been noted, Jackson believed his fans would believe him once they saw all the evidence. ETA: The original suit was for twenty million. He had offered them a million to go away. When they countered with fifteen million, he countered by cutting his offer to 1/3 of that amount. I don't think that sounds like someone who was buying their silence. His management, though, wanted it to go away.
__________________
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.

Last edited by Foolmewunz; 25th June 2016 at 04:39 AM. Reason: left out amount of original suit
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 25th June 2016, 05:28 AM   #86
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,266
My favorite quote so far, on Wikipedia:

Quote:
Journalist Matt Taibbi wrote:

"The trial featured perhaps the most compromised collection of prosecution witnesses ever assembled in an American criminal case...the chief drama of the trial quickly turned into a race to see if the DA could manage to put all of his witnesses on the stand without getting any of them removed from the courthouse in manacles."[72
__________________
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 online now   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 25th June 2016, 06:38 AM   #87
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,998
So .. there is no evidence, yet you shoot accusations. Who is the scumbag here ?
Dr.Sid 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 25th June 2016, 06:59 AM   #88
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Because he had a group of some of the best and most expensive lawyers in the US saying it was art and to go settle for a pay off
I doubt it. Hey...the Cops and the Prosecuters were real dumb on this case. For that matter, most Cops and Prosecuters don't know how to build a decent case for they have been convicting indigents and retards for so long that they have become idiots - and so it was with the Michael Jackson Case.

Yeah...I think Jackson was guilty, but it's going to take more than the local dumb cops to get to the truth of the matter.
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 25th June 2016, 07:01 AM   #89
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
So .. there is no evidence, yet you shoot accusations. Who is the scumbag here ?
Well...for someone never convicted of Pedophilia, Jackson sure put on a convincing display, didn't he? Too convincing.
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 25th June 2016, 07:02 AM   #90
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,266
Quote:
I think Jackson was guilty,
Why? What fact convinced you?
__________________
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 online now   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 25th June 2016, 07:03 AM   #91
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Why? What fact convinced you?
His entire life.
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 25th June 2016, 07:10 AM   #92
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,244
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
His entire life.
His entire life is a "single fact"? You must have some amazing cerebral computing abilities.

The overall case seems to be "Well, he was icky, ya know."
__________________
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 25th June 2016, 07:31 AM   #93
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
His entire life is a "single fact"? You must have some amazing cerebral computing abilities.

The overall case seems to be "Well, he was icky, ya know."
Peter Pan from Neverland....luvs little Boyz, and he's got wonderful toys for them to play with in his fantasy world: Neverland Ranch! And when the happy little boyz are tired from playing all day with those wonderful toyz, then they can curl up at night and sleep with Peter Pan - and dream sweet dreams of "Once upon a Time".

Last edited by Jules Galen; 25th June 2016 at 07:32 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 25th June 2016, 07:44 AM   #94
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,710
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
His entire life.
It's that sort of attitude that lets the Bill Cosbys of the world flourish. You judge based on appearances, and what "seems obvious". So innocent oddballs get persecuted and actual rapists and pedophiles go free. Jimmy Saville didn't "seem weird", so he got away with it. Because people like you refuse to utilize skepticism. Congrats! Your intellectual laziness makes the world a worse place.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   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 25th June 2016, 07:47 AM   #95
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,244
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
Peter Pan from Neverland....luvs little Boyz, and he's got wonderful toys for them to play with in his fantasy world: Neverland Ranch! And when the happy little boyz are tired from playing all day with those wonderful toyz, then they can curl up at night and sleep with Peter Pan - and dream sweet dreams of "Once upon a Time".
So, not a manly man like you, so he's got to be a freak, a pervert, a paedophile. How are you with Fred Rogers? Captain Kangaroo? J.M. Barrie? Each of those loved little children, lived an entire life in a fairy tale world and was the butt of "homo" and "paedo" jokes.

But you guys know from instinct, eh? You can just tell.
__________________
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 25th June 2016, 07:47 AM   #96
Pup
Philosopher
 
Pup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
I don't think there's any doubt that Jackson was a pedophile. The question is did he act on it in a way that was/is illegal.

If yes, he was either very careful or prosecutors were very dumb, or both, for him not to get convicted.

If no, he had a lot of self control and was very careful to know just where the line was. And prosecutors might have been dumb too, but at least they were honest.

I haven't read enough evidence of the case to form an opinion between those options. The second one would be extremely rare, but theoretically not impossible.
Pup 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 25th June 2016, 07:48 AM   #97
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
It's that sort of attitude that lets the Bill Cosbys of the world flourish. You judge based on appearances, and what "seems obvious". So innocent oddballs get persecuted and actual rapists and pedophiles go free. Jimmy Saville didn't "seem weird", so he got away with it. Because people like you refuse to utilize skepticism. Congrats! Your intellectual laziness makes the world a worse place.
I don't know about that. I mean, Michael Jackson didn't last too long after his supply of Boyz was cut off.
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 25th June 2016, 08:02 AM   #98
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,266
Originally Posted by Pup View Post
I don't think there's any doubt that Jackson was a pedophile. The question is did he act on it in a way that was/is illegal.

If yes, he was either very careful or prosecutors were very dumb, or both, for him not to get convicted.

If no, he had a lot of self control and was very careful to know just where the line was. And prosecutors might have been dumb too, but at least they were honest.

I haven't read enough evidence of the case to form an opinion between those options. The second one would be extremely rare, but theoretically not impossible.
I don't think he was a pedophile. However, I think it's possible he was insulated from consequences that he just never learned proper boundaries.

To me, the whole "Never Land" theme is his way of saying "I don't want to grow up, and I'm too rich for you to make me" to his parents, his business contacts, the world.

Most of the stuff presented as evidence of wrongdoing don't really seem so strange to me, but I realize my unorthodox childhood left me with some lasting impressions about just how big the world is, and how many things that seem strange to "most" is "everyday life" to some.

I can really relate to the closet full of toys. My kids had so many I rotated them by putting half or more into boxes, and letting them swap 'em out when they got bored. I stored the boxes...in the closet! I can only imagine how many toys MJ's kids probably owned, as MJ himself seems to have been a collector of them his own self.
__________________
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 online now   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 25th June 2016, 08:09 AM   #99
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,710
Originally Posted by Pup View Post
And prosecutors might have been dumb too, but at least they were honest.
You really haven't read much of the case. At one point during the grand jury the prosecutor handed the accuser an unwrapped pornography magazine seized from Jackson's house. He then later tried to use the fact that the accuser's fingerprints were on that magazine as physical evidence Jackson had handed it to him.

Then the defense got the accuser to state exactly when this allegedly occurred...and the date he claimed was six months before that magazine had ever been published.

Seriously, people who think Jackson was guilty have not read much of the trial at all, they've only heard the news reports which were invariably slanted. Reporters literally left the room after each witness for the prosecution testified, so they could get all the salacious details into the news as quickly as possible for ratings...so they missed the cross-examinations in which every single witness foundered.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   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 25th June 2016, 08:17 AM   #100
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
You really haven't read much of the case. At one point during the grand jury the prosecutor handed the accuser an unwrapped pornography magazine seized from Jackson's house. He then later tried to use the fact that the accuser's fingerprints were on that magazine as physical evidence Jackson had handed it to him.

Then the defense got the accuser to state exactly when this allegedly occurred...and the date he claimed was six months before that magazine had ever been published.

Seriously, people who think Jackson was guilty have not read much of the trial at all, they've only heard the news reports which were invariably slanted. Reporters literally left the room after each witness for the prosecution testified, so they could get all the salacious details into the news as quickly as possible for ratings...so they missed the cross-examinations in which every single witness foundered.
I don't think anyone could argue that it was a bad case, and if I had been a Juror, then I would not have voted to convict and would have been quite upset at the State's evidence and witnesses. Nevertheless, I believe Jackson was a Pedophile...Big Time.
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 25th June 2016, 08:18 AM   #101
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
I don't know about that. I mean, Michael Jackson didn't last too long after his supply of Boyz was cut off.
Fallacy Birdwatching Question for the audience: is this a No True Scotsman? It almost seems like goalpost shifting, and it's certainly a non sequitur. But is it a NTS?

Last edited by Jrrarglblarg; 25th June 2016 at 08:21 AM.
Jrrarglblarg 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 25th June 2016, 08:26 AM   #102
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,815
Originally Posted by Pup View Post
I don't think there's any doubt that Jackson was a pedophile.
While I'm in the "probably" camp, I don't think there's enough solid evidence that there can be no doubt at all.

The evidence that I've seen indicates that he liked being around little boys, and given what's been said/revealed about his childhood (and the childhood of his siblings) it could have simply been that he wanted to use his wealth and status to offer fun childhood experiences to children and share in them. At least some of the parents of these kids made the decision to try to take advantage of his "weirdness" and get money out of him - not a surprising outcome because there are bad people in the world - followed naturally by secondary opportunists who wanted to take advantage of the perception that "where there's smoke, there's fire."

Again, that's not to say that he never did anything wrong with a child, but anyone who is certain that he was a pedophile isn't being a skeptic.
Babbylonian 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 25th June 2016, 08:37 AM   #103
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,133
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
IIRC, the civil case insurance was not even insurance he bought for himself but was part of his contracts with his record/film/entertainment companies.
I'll have to see some definitive evidence of that. IANAL (obviously), but I've never heard of an insurance policy that say a record company can get on a person, that pays out for any damage resulting from actions or crimes committed by that person. Nor have I ever heard of an insurance policy that exists to pay out literally anything for any reason at the whim and direction of the policy holder. It sounds far more likely to me that the insurance company which paid out in this case would've been the company that insured the Neverland Ranch against claims of bodily injury (which sexual molestation legally counts as for the purpose of insurance settlements in policies that don't explicitly have clauses about sexual abuse, at least that's my understanding).
__________________
"¿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 25th June 2016, 08:38 AM   #104
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,673
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
I don't think anyone could argue that it was a bad case, and if I had been a Juror, then I would not have voted to convict and would have been quite upset at the State's evidence and witnesses. Nevertheless, I believe Jackson was a Pedophile...Big Time.
Check my sig bro. Check my sig.

__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto 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 25th June 2016, 09:32 AM   #105
Pup
Philosopher
 
Pup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
While I'm in the "probably" camp, I don't think there's enough solid evidence that there can be no doubt at all.

The evidence that I've seen indicates that he liked being around little boys, and given what's been said/revealed about his childhood (and the childhood of his siblings) it could have simply been that he wanted to use his wealth and status to offer fun childhood experiences to children and share in them.
[snip]
Again, that's not to say that he never did anything wrong with a child, but anyone who is certain that he was a pedophile isn't being a skeptic.
You caught my use of "pedophile" to mean someone who gets sexual feelings from boys, not necessarily someone who acts on those feelings, right?

He had a gender preference. He liked little boys, not particularly little girls, to the point that the preference was noticeable. One could say, well, he was a little boy and so saw himself in them. But he didn't limit the children in other ways that resembled him. That makes me lean toward "pedophile."

Society doesn't really have a category for someone who can honestly say, without feeling any sexual overtones:

Jackson: "We're going to sleep, I tuck them in and I put a little like, er, music on
and when it's story time I read a book. We go to sleep with the fireplace on. I give them hot milk, you know, we have cookies, it's very charming, it's very sweet, it's what the whole world should do ?"

If a person claimed there was nothing sexual but didn't want to be hooked up to instruments for study, I don't know how one could produce evidence the person really had no sexual feelings from the experience. I don't know how one could provide evidence they did, either, as long as they didn't act on it. Society doesn't make allowance for non-pedophiles to do such things with other people's children.

I don't know if that's a failing of society, or whether it's a sign that only pedophiles find the risk worth it in our current society, but I lean toward the latter. Even if they take no action that would be illegal.
Pup 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 25th June 2016, 09:38 AM   #106
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,815
Originally Posted by Pup View Post
You caught my use of "pedophile" to mean someone who gets sexual feelings from boys, not necessarily someone who acts on those feelings, right?
In the absence of an admission of those feelings, hard evidence that he indulged such feelings, or, as you mention, scientific proof of them, I don't think one can be certain that he was a pedophile. I suppose one could feel certain of it but that's not a feeling for which I have much respect.

ETA: In other words, yes, I understand the distinction you're making. I just don't think it's meaningful unless you can produce convincing evidence.

Last edited by Babbylonian; 25th June 2016 at 09:39 AM.
Babbylonian 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 25th June 2016, 10:57 AM   #107
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Adults allowing children to sleep with them has been happening since we all lived in caves. It is a little odd, when the child isn't related, but I've been in enough foster homes to know it happens -and sometimes the children are preteens.

I can imagine that ranch was a wild place for a kid to be. Wild like a circus -the same parade of adventure and wonderment and luxury that is breathtaking during the day can become the source of anxiety and stress at night.

In a house that huge, I can imagine a small child thinking anything might be living there, hiding in the closets or camping in the basements. I'm not at all surprised if more than one decided to go find an adult -MJ or anyone else- to sleep with.

We all like to pretend that because our own children sleep in our own homes and only crawl into bed with us, that anything outside those norms is weird and evil, but in fact, it happens all the time. It just doesn't usually make the damn news.
I just threw up a little.
Fudbucker 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 25th June 2016, 11:09 AM   #108
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I just threw up a little.
The priest from Harold and Maude...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
marplots 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 25th June 2016, 11:12 AM   #109
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Some of you must have been rabid Jackson fans. Grown men who sleep with little boys are to be avoided at all costs.

"Jackson raised eyebrows when he said in the Bashir documentary that he has allowed other people's children to sleep in his bed at Neverland.

"Why can't you share your bed?" Jackson said in the documentary, which aired in February on ABCNEWS' 20/20. "The most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone."

He insisted the practice was innocent and involved nothing of a sexual nature. "I give them hot milk, you know, we have cookies. It's very charming. It's very sweet. It's what the whole world should do.
"
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...=116601&page=1

I'm sure some of the skeptics here would have no problem letting their 12 year son sleep with a grown man, am I right?

And what's better after a night frolicking under the covers with MJ than a trip to his special triple-locked closet of adventure!
Fudbucker 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 25th June 2016, 11:14 AM   #110
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
The priest from Harold and Maude...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
LMAO! I'll have to rewatch Harold and Maude.
Fudbucker 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 25th June 2016, 11:21 AM   #111
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Civil cases aren't about Justice, and as noted previously, which you took no notice of, he didn't settle, and didn't want to settle, his insurance company did.
Sure they are. That's what suing someone is all about: you did something bad to me and now you're going to pay. When OJ got off, Goldman hauled his ass into civil court and won.
Fudbucker 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 25th June 2016, 12:29 PM   #112
Marcus
Illuminator
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,061
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Thanks for posting this, it's a real eye opener. At the time I was convinced by the media coverage that he was guilty.
Marcus 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 25th June 2016, 01:16 PM   #113
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,183
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
In one article, I read that Santa Barbara and L.A. spent over two million just on the first and second investigations and the trial that went south for them. Since the other suit was civil and the court and attorney costs were taken up by the plaintiff/defendant, it's quite likely that those "bestest lawyers in the world" that Jackson's reported to have had, plus the attorneys for the insurance company and the blood-suckers for the plaintiff were going to exceed that amount by quite a bit.

IIRC, the civil case insurance was not even insurance he bought for himself but was part of his contracts with his record/film/entertainment companies. Those people don't look at it as OMG Fifteen Million, but in terms of how much hurt was going to be put on their income from their billion dollar property, Michael Jackson. And, as it's been noted, Jackson believed his fans would believe him once they saw all the evidence. ETA: The original suit was for twenty million. He had offered them a million to go away. When they countered with fifteen million, he countered by cutting his offer to 1/3 of that amount. I don't think that sounds like someone who was buying their silence. His management, though, wanted it to go away.
Link please?
__________________
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 25th June 2016, 01:20 PM   #114
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,183
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
You really haven't read much of the case. At one point during the grand jury the prosecutor handed the accuser an unwrapped pornography magazine seized from Jackson's house. He then later tried to use the fact that the accuser's fingerprints were on that magazine as physical evidence Jackson had handed it to him.

Then the defense got the accuser to state exactly when this allegedly occurred...and the date he claimed was six months before that magazine had ever been published.

Seriously, people who think Jackson was guilty have not read much of the trial at all, they've only heard the news reports which were invariably slanted. Reporters literally left the room after each witness for the prosecution testified, so they could get all the salacious details into the news as quickly as possible for ratings...so they missed the cross-examinations in which every single witness foundered.
That is what happens in every high profile case
__________________
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 25th June 2016, 01:20 PM   #115
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,133
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I'm sure some of the skeptics here would have no problem letting their 12 year son sleep with a grown man, am I right?

And what's better after a night frolicking under the covers with MJ than a trip to his special triple-locked closet of adventure!
None of the accusers claimed anything so straight forward; I'm pretty sure none of them ever mentioned closets or other special rooms. But one thing that is consistent between all of them was the fact that Jackson had a "system", a grooming process that was much the same across different alleged victims.

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. And in Jackson's case there was emotional manipulation as well; during the trial one child witness (who again hadn't himself been molested, IIRC) described once complaining that Jackson's excessive touching was making him uncomfortable, and claimed Jackson's response was to become whiny and try to make the boy feel guilty for not "loving" him.
__________________
"¿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 25th June 2016, 01:34 PM   #116
HenryLee
Muse
 
HenryLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 753
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Very interesting. Thanks.
HenryLee 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 25th June 2016, 04:52 PM   #117
Marcus
Illuminator
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,061
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Some of you must have been rabid Jackson fans. Grown men who sleep with little boys are to be avoided at all costs.

"Jackson raised eyebrows when he said in the Bashir documentary that he has allowed other people's children to sleep in his bed at Neverland.

"Why can't you share your bed?" Jackson said in the documentary, which aired in February on ABCNEWS' 20/20. "The most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone."

He insisted the practice was innocent and involved nothing of a sexual nature. "I give them hot milk, you know, we have cookies. It's very charming. It's very sweet. It's what the whole world should do.
"
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...=116601&page=1

I'm sure some of the skeptics here would have no problem letting their 12 year son sleep with a grown man, am I right?

And what's better after a night frolicking under the covers with MJ than a trip to his special triple-locked closet of adventure!
I'm not so sure MJ's "sleeping with" boys actually involved sex. If you look at the testimony of the boys (now men) there is no sex involved.
Marcus 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 25th June 2016, 05:01 PM   #118
Denver
Penultimate Amazing
 
Denver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 10,015
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
I'm not so sure MJ's "sleeping with" boys actually involved sex. If you look at the testimony of the boys (now men) there is no sex involved.
I also recall from the trial someplace (or maybe from an interview) where he said that while the kids did sleep in his bed, he was not in it when they did: he was on the floor.
__________________
Dreams inevitably lead to hideous implosions -- Invader Zim
Denver 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 25th June 2016, 05:21 PM   #119
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,183
So what I'm getting is some people here would happily let their kid sleep in bed with an adult male with a fixation in Peter Pan and nude pre-pubescent "art" of kids.

I seriously doubt you would be happy with the idea
__________________
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 25th June 2016, 05:44 PM   #120
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
None of the accusers claimed anything so straight forward; I'm pretty sure none of them ever mentioned closets or other special rooms. But one thing that is consistent between all of them was the fact that Jackson had a "system", a grooming process that was much the same across different alleged victims.

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. And in Jackson's case there was emotional manipulation as well; during the trial one child witness (who again hadn't himself been molested, IIRC) described once complaining that Jackson's excessive touching was making him uncomfortable, and claimed Jackson's response was to become whiny and try to make the boy feel guilty for not "loving" him.
I hear what you are saying, and it makes me sick because Pedos are such masters of Social Manipulation. In addition to Manipulating the kids, they also manipulate the Parents and other Authorities entrusted with the Child's safety so they can discredit the Child (if need be) or any other Accuser.

Preachers, Police, Parents...I've seen them all rush in to protect the Pedo....and it gets really crazy when the Pedos story falls apart. By that time, though, the Pedo is usually an old man with a lifetime of witnesses who are willing to come foreward against him. For example, my Brother-n-Law the Preacher Man contacted a female cousin (who is a well-respected Attorney) to say some nice things at a trial about his Brother the Sunday School Teacher who was accuse of Pedophilia. Well...she came to the Trial alright and offered testimony against his Brother saying that he had molested her as a young girl 30 years before. Additionally, she brought some evidence that other family members provided (Old News Paper Clipping and Police Reports from another State!!!) that showed the guy had been an active Pedo for over 60-freakin'-years!!! He went to prison of course, but he a lot of people defending him for a very long time.
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
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 07:17 AM.
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.