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 27th June 2016, 11:52 AM   #201
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,007
Originally Posted by Dipayan View Post
What DragonLady says is actually very true. Separate beds for kids is not as common as most people want to make it out to be. Multiple members of a family sleeping in the same room, or even the same bed, is very common.

The main reason why children don't sleep with adults in the US is because adults don't want to (because of the larger American societal norms). The same societal norms which dictated, in the Victorian era) that couples should not sleep on the same bed. When an adult does not feel bound by societal pressure to follow sleeping customs, it's not really an unexpected outcome for children to want some company in bed.
Children having to share beds with other children for lack of space, is one thing. As is the same lack of space perhaps leading a child to sleep in the same bed as her parents. Very young children who may have their own beds occasionally seeking the company of their parents or other older children or family members at bed time due to anxiety or whatnot, is also "one thing".

An adult seeking out the company of an unrelated child at bed time, in a house with numerous bedrooms and plenty of space, is quite another situation entirely; and it's completely unrelated to the above-mentioned arrangements - they are not analogous or congruous circumstances at all. These were not 5-year-olds from large families who were afraid of suddenly being alone in the big dark scary house and ran to Jackson's room saying "Michael Michael can I sleep in your room tonight?" These were tweens, who occasionally even had other family staying in other rooms of the house that would easily have been available for comfort if needed, that were specifically taken by Jackson to his bedroom because he wanted them there. Jordan Chandler's mother (who never claimed to have personally seen any abuse) stated that it was Jackson who came to her asking if she could let him take her son into his bedroom, and she initially refused until Jackson started crying and guilt-tripping her for not trusting him.

As for other "cultures around the world" where "things are different" - wholly irrelevant. Jackson was not raised in Tanzania or Belgium or Malaysia or Kamchatka, and neither were his parents. Jackson grew up in Indiana, the American urban Midwest.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002

Last edited by Checkmite; 27th June 2016 at 11:55 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 27th June 2016, 02:02 PM   #202
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 17,959
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.
It's a long thread and I'm not likely to catch up, but this **** is gold.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith 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 27th June 2016, 02:10 PM   #203
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,431
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
The funny thing is that despite my love for 80s music I have never cared for Michael Jackson's work. The only thing of his I've ever liked in the least was Alien Ant Farm's cover of Smooth Criminal, and they did that as a joke.
Whatever Bubbles.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab 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 27th June 2016, 02:57 PM   #204
John Nowak
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,806
I've never really gotten my brain around the whole story.

When the first round of allegations came out and the accusers settled, I was pretty much convinced Jackson was innocent. If someone slept with my (then underaged) nephew, the only settlement I'd want would be something out of the Old Testament.
If my more civilized side took over, I'd want some sort of assurance it would never happen again.

But lots and lots of money? Sorry, but no. I was pretty sure Jackson was the victim of a shakedown.

But then there was a second round of accusations, and suddenly that didn't make sense either. After that first set, there is no possible way that I would ever allow a child in the same room as me without an adult witness (and probably videotape).

So I dunno.
__________________
>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 27th June 2016, 03:37 PM   #205
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,007
Originally Posted by John Nowak View Post
But then there was a second round of accusations, and suddenly that didn't make sense either. After that first set, there is no possible way that I would ever allow a child in the same room as me without an adult witness (and probably videotape).
Sure; but then you don't have an infatuation with young boys to contend with.
__________________
"¿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 27th June 2016, 03:51 PM   #206
Belgian thought
Master Poster
 
Belgian thought's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,130
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Children having to share beds with other children for lack of space, is one thing...

... As for other "cultures around the world" where "things are different" - wholly irrelevant. Jackson was not raised in Tanzania or Belgium or Malaysia or Kamchatka, and neither were his parents. Jackson grew up in Indiana, the American urban Midwest.
That is why they make good chocolate - to entice...

I saw what you did there.
__________________
... er, that's it
Belgian thought 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 27th June 2016, 03:52 PM   #207
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,007
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
It's a long thread and I'm not likely to catch up, but this **** is gold.
It's also 100% incorrect.

Firstly, if I'm not mistaken, Jimmy Saville was sheltered by money and fame. After the revelations hit the news, the going narrative was that everyone - insofar as employees and associates went - had Saville pegged for a pedophile but nobody had any specific information. So his not "seeming weird" certainly did not shield him from suspicion.

Secondly, Bill Cosby did not "flourish" by comparison to Michael Jackson. Jackson died with a legally clear name and nothing more than a settlement some consider suspicious, while literally millions of devoted fans stand at the ready to excuse and defend his "oddball behavior". Bill Cosby - who at this point in time also has nothing more than a settlement some consider suspicious, and also has millions of devoted fans standing by to defend him - is facing a blitzkrieg of lawsuits and a criminal case with several alleged victims that he still has a decent chance of losing. Meaning there's a very real possibility that "not weird" Cosby will wind up objectively worse-off than "innocent oddball" Jackson ever did.
__________________
"¿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 27th June 2016, 03:59 PM   #208
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,165
Originally Posted by John Nowak View Post
I've never really gotten my brain around the whole story.

When the first round of allegations came out and the accusers settled, I was pretty much convinced Jackson was innocent. If someone slept with my (then underaged) nephew, the only settlement I'd want would be something out of the Old Testament.
If my more civilized side took over, I'd want some sort of assurance it would never happen again.

But lots and lots of money? Sorry, but no. I was pretty sure Jackson was the victim of a shakedown.

But then there was a second round of accusations, and suddenly that didn't make sense either. After that first set, there is no possible way that I would ever allow a child in the same room as me without an adult witness (and probably videotape).

So I dunno.
The first was undeniably a shakedown. The father only brought the police into it after Jackson refused to pay the demanded $20 million and as soon as the settlement for $15 million was made, they stopped cooperating with the police.

The second was built on untruths, lies, damn lies, and a prosecution team that had been wanting to get Jackson by any means since the first claims. The tales that were told were simply shredded in court, and when the prosecution tried to introduce supposed other cases in, that all fell apart too with all but one saying, it never happened. The one that didn't refused to testify against Micheal and fled the country to avoid it.

The prosecution even did things like fabricate evidence (getting fingerprints on a magazine) and when interviewing a child witness, without any parents of lawyers, told him that Micheal was a molester and was harming another boy right as they were speaking, and the only way to stop it was to tell them that Micheal had molested him too.

The entire thing is build on a foundation of sane around, he was weird, he liked being around kids, and where there is smoke there is fire.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 27th June 2016, 04:06 PM   #209
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Are any of the people posting here members of NAMBLA? The tortured lengths some of you are going through to defend pedophiliac behavior is quite disturbing.
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 27th June 2016, 04:07 PM   #210
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,165
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
It's also 100% incorrect.

Firstly, if I'm not mistaken, Jimmy Saville was sheltered by money and fame. After the revelations hit the news, the going narrative was that everyone - insofar as employees and associates went - had Saville pegged for a pedophile but nobody had any specific information. So his not "seeming weird" certainly did not shield him from suspicion.

Secondly, Bill Cosby did not "flourish" by comparison to Michael Jackson. Jackson died with a legally clear name and nothing more than a settlement some consider suspicious, while literally millions of devoted fans stand at the ready to excuse and defend his "oddball behavior". Bill Cosby - who at this point in time also has nothing more than a settlement some consider suspicious, and also has millions of devoted fans standing by to defend him - is facing a blitzkrieg of lawsuits and a criminal case with several alleged victims that he still has a decent chance of losing. Meaning there's a very real possibility that "not weird" Cosby will wind up objectively worse-off than "innocent oddball" Jackson ever did.
The difference is that when you look at the claims against Saville and Cosby, they seem to stack up. People did see things and can corroborate the stories that were give by those claiming abuse.

In the Jackson case, the stories didn't add up and totally disintegrated under examination. The prosecution even used dirty tricks to try and make their mud stick as they watched all their witnesses explode on the stand, and they still totally failed because they had nothing.

I'd like to point out there that for the last two years Cliff Richard was under investigation too, and that's been closed because they found nothing. Just because people make claims, doesn't mean that they are true, each needs to be examined on its own basis, and those against Micheal are just not credible in any way shape or form.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 27th June 2016, 04:10 PM   #211
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Are any of the people posting here members of NAMBLA? The tortured lengths some of you are going through to defend pedophiliac behavior is quite disturbing.
I'm not, but I'm willing to hear the sales pitch. Is there free coffee at the meetings?
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 27th June 2016, 04:10 PM   #212
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,165
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Are any of the people posting here members of NAMBLA? The tortured lengths some of you are going through to defend pedophiliac behavior is quite disturbing.
I'd say that the way some people instantly see "pedophiliac behavior" in things that might be a bit outside of the normal is also is quite disturbing.

It has the shades of Big Ears and Noddy must be gay because Noddy used to stay over at Big Ears place, and there was only one bed.

Serious question here. Why do you believe that when an adult male sleeps in the same bed as another person it must be sexual in nature?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 27th June 2016, 04:25 PM   #213
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,007
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
The difference is that when you look at the claims against Saville and Cosby, they seem to stack up. People did see things and can corroborate the stories that were give by those claiming abuse.

In the Jackson case, the stories didn't add up and totally disintegrated under examination. The prosecution even used dirty tricks to try and make their mud stick as they watched all their witnesses explode on the stand, and they still totally failed because they had nothing.
Here nor there to me; I believe there's more than enough reason to believe Jackson was a pedophile but I'm not arguing for the truth of the specific molestation charges against him. My particular point in that post is that the notion people spend all the time concentrating on "weird people" and completely ignore "non weird" people who turn out to be actual predators, is for the most part untrue.

The public will latch onto anyone against whom sexual abuse allegations are made. If they are "oddballs", that will certainly become part of peoples' suspicions and confidence of their guilt; but if they are perfectly normal and respectable persons in every other sense, it tends not to matter. Bill Cosby - the example "normal guy" - is in serious trouble. Jerry Sandusky, another "normal guy", will be in jail for the rest of his life. Rolf Harris - jail. Dennis Hastert, sober and highly-respected former Speaker of the US House of Representatives - now permanently disgraced admitted serial child molester, and in jail for associated charges.

Michael Jackson, "persecuted oddball", cleared of all charges and died an innocent man while working on a new hit album.

The complaint is specious.
__________________
"¿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 27th June 2016, 04:26 PM   #214
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I'd say that the way some people instantly see "pedophiliac behavior" in things that might be a bit outside of the normal is also is quite disturbing.

It has the shades of Big Ears and Noddy must be gay because Noddy used to stay over at Big Ears place, and there was only one bed.

Serious question here. Why do you believe that when an adult male sleeps in the same bed as another person little boys it must be sexual in nature?
Like I said, the attempts to water-down what Jacko was doing is kind of disturbing. "A bit outside of the normal"? "Another person"?

Would YOU let your kid stay for a fun-filled weekend at Neverland Ranch? Didn't think so.
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 27th June 2016, 04:28 PM   #215
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,165
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I believe there's more than enough reason to believe Jackson was a pedophile
Belief is not skepticism
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 27th June 2016, 04:33 PM   #216
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,165
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Like I said, the attempts to water-down what Jacko was doing is kind of disturbing. "A bit outside of the normal"? "Another person"?
Actually the question was phrased that way for a very good reason. People seem to have this belief that if an adult male shares a bed with anyone, be it a kid, or another adult, be they male or female, then there must be a sexual component to that bed sharing. It has nothing to do with sharing a bed with a young boy, it literally is sharing a bed with anyone.

Quote:
Would YOU let your kid stay for a fun-filled weekend at Neverland Ranch? Didn't think so.
From what I have seen I'd have no issues with going, and just like those families that did go, I'd go with them. You seem to be of the belief that Micheal only invited young boys to the ranch and no one else.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 27th June 2016, 04:33 PM   #217
TheGoldcountry
Philosopher
 
TheGoldcountry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,724
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Like I said, the attempts to water-down what Jacko was doing is kind of disturbing. "A bit outside of the normal"? "Another person"?

Would YOU let your kid stay for a fun-filled weekend at Neverland Ranch? Didn't think so.
I wouldn't let my kid stay with YOU for a weekend, either. Doesn't mean that I think that you are a child molester. I'm getting a little tired of this rhetorical device. It's not an argument, it's a "Gotcha!" statement with zero relevance.
__________________
I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten
I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505
TheGoldcountry 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 27th June 2016, 04:34 PM   #218
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,007
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Belief is not skepticism
Colloquial nitpickery. I am indeed no longer "skeptical" of Jackson's pedophilia because I have been convinced it was the case after all.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002

Last edited by Checkmite; 27th June 2016 at 04:35 PM.
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 27th June 2016, 04:39 PM   #219
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,165
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Colloquial nitpickery. I am indeed no longer "skeptical" of Jackson's pedophilia because I have been convinced it was the case after all.
What convinced you?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 27th June 2016, 04:39 PM   #220
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,007
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
From what I have seen I'd have no issues with going, and just like those families that did go, I'd go with them. You seem to be of the belief that Micheal only invited young boys to the ranch and no one else.
But when he spent personal time with any of the children who visited the ranch, it was heavily weighted toward young boys. His close affectionate touchy-feely sessions were exclusively with boys of a particular age range, as were the special private slumber-parties in his bedroom.
__________________
"¿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 27th June 2016, 04:47 PM   #221
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 47,726
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Are any of the people posting here members of NAMBLA? The tortured lengths some of you are going through to defend pedophiliac behavior is quite disturbing.
Have you ever read "The Crucible"? The tortured lengths some of you are going through to believe any accusation, no matter how spurious and disproven, is quite disturbing.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 27th June 2016, 04:48 PM   #222
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,165
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
But when he spent personal time with any of the children who visited the ranch, it was heavily weighted toward young boys. His close affectionate touchy-feely sessions were exclusively with boys of a particular age range, as were the special private slumber-parties in his bedroom.
And this can have no other reason than sexual? Have you considered that having missed out on his childhood he wanted to be a kid again, and based on that, he did what he thought boys do, you know, have other boys over, play games, and have parties? Do you think that such a thing would heavily weight towards boys of the age group he desired to be and that they allowed him to live the childhood he never had vicariously?

Have you also considered that according to those that knew him he was affectionate and touchy-feely with all the kids he knew, girls and boys, and used terms of endearment with them all, gave them all presents, and pet names?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 27th June 2016, 04:52 PM   #223
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,007
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
What convinced you?
Already explained earlier in the thread; but for your benefit:

Quote:
IIRC, Jackson owned an "art book" comprised entirely of artistic nudes of prepubescent boys, and the book was kept together with a supply of actual (adult) pornography. I think this is rather strongly suggestive of the artistic material's actual purpose for Jackson; and I'm even going to go further than Babbylonian and opine that in conjunction with all of the other unfortunate facts about the man and his tastes and habits I think it makes a case beyond any reasonable doubt that he was a male-fixated pedophile. Given that, and with Jackson's regular access to and frequently arranging special "alone times" specifically with young boys, it would be quite surprising to me if he had actually not molested at least some of them. As to whether he molested the specific ones who accused him, obviously there's no concrete proof.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
As I said early on, I think the material they uncovered combined with what we already know about Jackson's activities establishes his attraction beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson was infatuated with prepubescent boys. He rather blatantly favored their company in comparison even to other children; he needed to have access to them, to be close to them, to physically touch them. He needed to spend time alone with them and privately express love and affection for them, and have that affection accepted if not reciprocated by them. He went to unusual and very extensive lengths to accommodate these wants or needs.
__________________
"¿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 27th June 2016, 04:56 PM   #224
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry View Post
I wouldn't let my kid stay with YOU for a weekend, either. Doesn't mean that I think that you are a child molester. I'm getting a little tired of this rhetorical device. It's not an argument, it's a "Gotcha!" statement with zero relevance.
I let my kid go to sleepovers all the time. Not once has a father of one of his friends tried to climb into bed with him, and if it did happen, that would be the last my kid ever set foot in that house.

The relevance is obvious: you wouldn't let your kids around Jackson because he (was) almost certainly a pedophile.

Last edited by Fudbucker; 27th June 2016 at 04:58 PM.
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 27th June 2016, 05:07 PM   #225
p0lka
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,249
MJ is a classic example of someone who might have been taking advantage of younger people, but

I have not seen anything that actually proves it though, that would need the victims to speak about it.

He fits the profile though.

Last edited by p0lka; 27th June 2016 at 05:16 PM.
p0lka 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 27th June 2016, 05:14 PM   #226
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,165
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Already explained earlier in the thread; but for your benefit:
Let's take these one at a time.

Do you have proof that the "art book" (OMG scary quote marks) actually wasn't an art book, hence the need for the scary quote marks, and that it was actually with the adult porn collection, rather than just being found in the same room. I mean I have my whole collection of porn (like 1 DVD) in the middle of my Apollo collection, does that mean I have a thing for Astronauts?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 27th June 2016 at 05:19 PM.
PhantomWolf 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 27th June 2016, 05:18 PM   #227
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,165
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I let my kid go to sleepovers all the time. Not once has a father of one of his friends tried to climb into bed with him, and if it did happen, that would be the last my kid ever set foot in that house.
Other than allegations that have fallen over under scrutiny, is there any proof that Jackson did climb into bed with any of the kids? The stories I have heard when the bed was shared have been pretty much the other way about, that the kids got into his bed. In other cases where the Kids slept in his bed, the reports are that he slept on the floor.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 27th June 2016, 05:20 PM   #228
Shadowdweller
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 741
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Already explained earlier in the thread; but for your benefit:

IIRC, Jackson owned an "art book" comprised entirely of artistic nudes of prepubescent boys, and the book was kept together with a supply of actual (adult) pornography. I think this is rather strongly suggestive of the artistic material's actual purpose for Jackson; and I'm even going to go further than Babbylonian and opine that in conjunction with all of the other unfortunate facts about the man and his tastes and habits I think it makes a case beyond any reasonable doubt that he was a male-fixated pedophile.
This one, at least, is another fiction. Jackson had a couple books depicting children doing child things that included SOME pictures of naked children AS WELL AS pictures of fully clothed children. The prosecutor tried impute some predatory meaning from this and the media spun them as pornographic. The books were discovered in a locked closet containing a metric ton of random junk including a great deal of random artwork and personal memorabilia. Amongst the things seized there were indeed a couple adult magazines.

But the essential significance of the collection is very different from the slant you seem to take at face value.

Last edited by Shadowdweller; 27th June 2016 at 05:39 PM.
Shadowdweller 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 27th June 2016, 05:20 PM   #229
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,165
Originally Posted by p0lka View Post
MJ is a classic example of someone who might have been taking advantage of younger people, but

I have not seen anything that actually proves it though, that would need the victims to speak about it.

He fits the profile though.
Male, likes being about kids, is a bit strange. Quick, better lock up all the male teachers that deal with Kids!
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 27th June 2016, 05:23 PM   #230
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
MJ had a huge collection of books, including lots of art photography ones. The couple that had photos of nude boys were a small fraction of his collection. Also, at least one of them was sent to him by a fan.

Last edited by Tony Stark; 27th June 2016 at 05:28 PM.
Tony Stark 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 27th June 2016, 05:27 PM   #231
p0lka
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Male, likes being about kids, is a bit strange. Quick, better lock up all the male teachers that deal with Kids!
No, that isn't what i said at all.
I said
Originally Posted by p0lka View Post
He fits the profile though.
Actually I should clarify, I meant he fits my experience of people who would take advantage of younger people for sexual reasons, so its the profile I have in my head,

I shouldn't have said 'the profile', I take that back.

I meant 'a profile'.

Last edited by p0lka; 27th June 2016 at 05:36 PM.
p0lka 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 27th June 2016, 05:30 PM   #232
TheGoldcountry
Philosopher
 
TheGoldcountry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,724
[quote=Fudbucker;11356538]I let my kid go to sleepovers all the time. Not once has a father of one of his friends tried to climb into bed with him, and if it did happen, that would be the last my kid ever set foot in that house.


Certainly. I agree 100%. So, we are back on topic then, yes?
__________________
I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten
I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505
TheGoldcountry 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 27th June 2016, 05:40 PM   #233
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,007
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
And this can have no other reason than sexual? Have you considered that having missed out on his childhood he wanted to be a kid again, and based on that, he did what he thought boys do, you know, have other boys over, play games, and have parties? Do you think that such a thing would heavily weight towards boys of the age group he desired to be and that they allowed him to live the childhood he never had vicariously?
Let's hypothetically agree that you're right about this. This is essentially the exact argument that Dragonlady was making earlier. But it doesn't make what Jackson did "okay". It just makes what he did somewhat less wrong.

Children are not an ointment, or a pill, or a prosthesis to be used by adults to cope with or work out their head-issues. If Jackson had hangups and psychological problems or longings relating to his admittedly horrible childhood, then he needed to address those with a doctor, or an actual trained therapist, or use any one of the myriad private and legitimate avenues that extremely wealthy people have help them deal with problems of this nature. Instead, he used his money to essentially buy the trust of certain families so that he could use their specially-selected children as props to soothe his personal neuroses, under the pretense of doing something nice for them.

A person having some kind of internal fantasy of being a child forever, just like any other kind of internal fantasy, may be fine and harmless as long as that fantasy remains internal, or at the very least private. When a person starts trying to impose or force that fantasy on other people, that's where it starts to become a problem - and it becomes a quite serious and even potentially dangerous problem if the focus of that imposition is a child because now there are questions of real safety at stake. We know very little of what Jackson's child-involved fantasy may have entailed, but one thing that's quite self-evident is that it involved no respect whatsoever for personal space or the socially-accepted boundaries regarding what sort of relationship is appropriate between an adult and a non-related child. Insist that Jackson wasn't a sexual predator himself all you want; fact of the matter is, those things - a strong concept of boundaries and personal space - are some of the most crucial defenses any child has against people who are sexual predators. The nature of Jackson's "fantasy" play directly attacked and diminished those barriers in his "special friends", which at the very least did them a terrible disservice and left them vulnerable to someone with more sinister motives.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002

Last edited by Checkmite; 27th June 2016 at 05:46 PM.
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 27th June 2016, 05:57 PM   #234
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,165
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Let's hypothetically agree that you're right about this. This is essentially the exact argument that Dragonlady was making earlier. But it doesn't make what Jackson did "okay". It just makes what he did somewhat less wrong.
According to you? According to society's current norms? What makes these so right. In Victorian times, bachelors were often "Uncles" to friend's children and would take them out on picnics and trips allowing their parents time apart from the kids, it wasn't seen as anything unusual. Why is it so demonic now? Are you falling for the myth that all men are really sexual predators waiting for a chance to strike?

Quote:
Children are not an ointment, or a pill, or a prosthesis to be used by adults to cope with or work out their head-issues. If Jackson had hangups and psychological problems or longings relating to his admittedly horrible childhood, then he needed to address those with a doctor, or an actual trained therapist, or use any one of the myriad private and legitimate avenues that extremely wealthy people have help them deal with problems of this nature. Instead, he used his money to essentially buy the trust of certain families so that he could use their specially-selected children as props to soothe his personal neuroses, under the pretense of doing something nice for them.
Wow, how dare someone be nice to anyone else and get something out of the relationship themselves.

Quote:
A person having some kind of internal fantasy of being a child forever, just like any other kind of internal fantasy, may be fine and harmless as long as that fantasy remains internal, or at the very least private. When a person starts trying to impose or force that fantasy on other people, that's where it starts to become a problem - and it becomes a quite serious and even potentially dangerous problem if the focus of that imposition is a child because now there are questions of real safety at stake. We know very little of what Jackson's child-involved fantasy may have entailed, but one thing that's quite self-evident is that it involved no respect whatsoever for personal space or the socially-accepted boundaries regarding what sort of relationship is appropriate between an adult and a non-related child. Insist that Jackson wasn't a sexual predator himself all you want; fact of the matter is, those things - a strong concept of boundaries and personal space - are some of the most crucial defenses any child has against people who are sexual predators. The nature of Jackson's "fantasy" play directly attacked and diminished those barriers in his "special friends", which at the very least did them a terrible disservice and left them vulnerable to someone with more sinister motives.
I pity you the world you live in.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 27th June 2016, 06:06 PM   #235
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,165
Originally Posted by p0lka View Post
No, that isn't what i said at all.
I said

Actually I should clarify, I meant he fits my experience of people who would take advantage of younger people for sexual reasons, so its the profile I have in my head,

I shouldn't have said 'the profile', I take that back.

I meant 'a profile'.
You know what the most likely profile of a Child Abuser is?

First of all, he's married, just like 77 percent of the more than 4000 child sexual abusers in the Child Molestation Prevention Study. [He] is religious, like 93 percent of the abusers. He's educated. More than 46 percent had some college education and another 30 percent were high school graduates. Like 65 percent of the admitted abusers, [he] was working. Numerous studies of adult victims have sought to link child molestation victims to lower social class and lower family income. All have failed. Child victims and their abusers exist equally in families of all income levels and classes. And, now from the study, we know that child molesters are as equally married, educated, employed, and religious as any other Americans.

Probably not the profile you had in your head, right?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 27th June 2016, 06:14 PM   #236
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,007
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
According to you? According to society's current norms? What makes these so right. In Victorian times...
What the heck does Michael Jackson have to do with "Victorian times"? Nothing. That's an argument about absolutely nothing.

If a parent decides that he or she wants to raise their own child with a not-particularly-standard set of mores or values, and have what an outsider might view as an exorbitantly intimate and cuddly relationship with their kid well into the kid's preteen and early teen years, that's fine. If a parent decides that her family is going to be nudist, and she takes her children to nudist camps or beaches on occasion, that's fine. Do you know why? Because s/he is the kid's parent, and has the right and wherewithal to make a decision like that.

It is not okay though for that parent to, say, borrow a child from a different, non-nudist family, and take that child to a nude beach with her. That person does not have the right and wherewithal to do that with a kid that isn't hers.

So it goes with Jackson. It's perfectly okay for him to personally hold the opinion that parents should be way more touchy-feely nowadays than they commonly are. In point of fact, Jackson had his own children and was free to raise them in that manner if he chose. But he did not have a moral right, after arranging "trusted" alone time with other people's children, to start working to impose his own ideas about boundaries and appropriate relationships on them. It crosses a bright line.
__________________
"¿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 27th June 2016, 06:15 PM   #237
Magrat
Mrs. Rincewind
 
Magrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Lancre Kingdom/Adirondack Mountain Region, NY
Posts: 4,181
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
You know what the most likely profile of a Child Abuser is?

First of all, he's married, just like 77 percent of the more than 4000 child sexual abusers in the Child Molestation Prevention Study. [He] is religious, like 93 percent of the abusers. He's educated. More than 46 percent had some college education and another 30 percent were high school graduates. Like 65 percent of the admitted abusers, [he] was working. Numerous studies of adult victims have sought to link child molestation victims to lower social class and lower family income. All have failed. Child victims and their abusers exist equally in families of all income levels and classes. And, now from the study, we know that child molesters are as equally married, educated, employed, and religious as any other Americans.

Probably not the profile you had in your head, right?
Most molestation occurs from family members or close friends of the family that were entrusted with the child. Not, random creepy celebrities who buy kids. This is correct. Listen to your kids and don't trust someone just because they are your uncle/neighbor/friend.
__________________
Non ergo nothi tere vos usque.

Magrat 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 27th June 2016, 06:34 PM   #238
p0lka
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
You know what the most likely profile of a Child Abuser is?

First of all, he's married, just like 77 percent of the more than 4000 child sexual abusers in the Child Molestation Prevention Study. [He] is religious, like 93 percent of the abusers. He's educated. More than 46 percent had some college education and another 30 percent were high school graduates. Like 65 percent of the admitted abusers, [he] was working. Numerous studies of adult victims have sought to link child molestation victims to lower social class and lower family income. All have failed. Child victims and their abusers exist equally in families of all income levels and classes. And, now from the study, we know that child molesters are as equally married, educated, employed, and religious as any other Americans.

Probably not the profile you had in your head, right?
right.
whats your point?
p0lka 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 27th June 2016, 06:46 PM   #239
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,165
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
What the heck does Michael Jackson have to do with "Victorian times"? Nothing. That's an argument about absolutely nothing.
It has to do with the declaring of his actions right and wrong. Who gets to decide? Society changes it's mind on these things more often than I change my socks. Why should I accept what society claims is right or wrong? Why should I accept what you declare as right and wrong?

Quote:
If a parent decides that he or she wants to raise their own child with a not-particularly-standard set of mores or values, and have what an outsider might view as an exorbitantly intimate and cuddly relationship with their kid well into the kid's preteen and early teen years, that's fine. If a parent decides that her family is going to be nudist, and she takes her children to nudist camps or beaches on occasion, that's fine. Do you know why? Because s/he is the kid's parent, and has the right and wherewithal to make a decision like that.

It is not okay though for that parent to, say, borrow a child from a different, non-nudist family, and take that child to a nude beach with her. That person does not have the right and wherewithal to do that with a kid that isn't hers.

So it goes with Jackson. It's perfectly okay for him to personally hold the opinion that parents should be way more touchy-feely nowadays than they commonly are. In point of fact, Jackson had his own children and was free to raise them in that manner if he chose. But he did not have a moral right, after arranging "trusted" alone time with other people's children, to start working to impose his own ideas about boundaries and appropriate relationships on them. It crosses a bright line.
You are aware that the children that spent time with Jackson on the ranch did so with their families? That Jackson didn't just invite the kids, that the parents were present too, that the time he spent with them was done with the approval of the parents that were there at the time?

Even the initial complaint, one of the claimed cases of Micheal and Jordan in bed together, the father of Jordan put Micheal in the boy's room, and Jordan climbed onto the bed with Micheal. What did the father do? He just let them sleep.

You seem to be sticking to a Tabloid version of the events rather then what actually happened.

ETA: Who determines what is morally right?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 27th June 2016 at 06:50 PM.
PhantomWolf 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 27th June 2016, 06:47 PM   #240
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,165
Originally Posted by p0lka View Post
right.
whats your point?
That the profile you have in your head isn't correct.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 04:14 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.