Michael Jackson dead

true there was omething wrong with him, but in the society of today, with how many people is nothing wrong?

Besides isn't it normal there would be something wrong with him after his childhood? I think most people would come out of that a bit twisted and ill in the head.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Whether or not he actually molested anyone will probably never be known, but that doesn't change the fact that there was definitely something *wrong* with him.

That is no more a fact than the fact there's something wrong with you. He might not have been adjusted well to modern society, and in that sense being odd or behaving "abnormally" might as well be good or right - considering how sick society arguably is.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
That is no more a fact than the fact there's something wrong with you. He might not have been adjusted well to modern society, and in that sense being odd or behaving "abnormally" might as well be good or right - considering how sick society arguably is.

Er…..No.

You've already admitted that you "didn't follow the case closely", and it's obvious that you didn't.

Some of the facts that are known point to him being more than a little different than most. Such as- not only did he have young boys over at all different times, but he also had pornographic material scattered generously around his house while his "guests" were there. Several of the kids also testified that Jackson showed them online pornagraphy, and also tried to serve them alcohol. So don't tell me that there was nothing more wrong with him than anyone else, because "normal" people simply do not do such things. (with children)

Originally Posted by JDR13
Er…..No.

You've already admitted that you "didn't follow the case closely", and it's obvious that you didn't.

Some of the facts that are known point to him being more than a little different than most. Such as- not only did he have young boys over at all different times, but he also had pornographic material scattered generously around his house while his "guests" were there.

I've heard plenty of stuff about him, but I don't have to follow the case to establish my opinion about what's wrong or right. I don't even feel qualified to say definitively if something's wrong with someone or not, because it depends on how much you take into consideration.

I have no problem with pornography in general, as I think it's fully natural and I use it myself. If he deliberately displayed it to children, then he's obviously doing some damage - but that doesn't automatically make him anymore wrong than anyone else who makes mistakes. It depends on motive and capacity, and unless there's some kind of indisputable proof that he did this with willful intent to damage children or to "persuade" them, then I really don't see what such evidence is worth. Considering how infatuated some people are with the concept of acquiring money no matter the cost to others, such things could be planted there for all we know.

If you can link to anything concrete, then I'll gladly comment and be open towards changing my mind - but be warned I don't trust anything originating from the media unless it's solid as rock in terms of presentation and lack of bias.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
If you can link to anything concrete, then I'll gladly comment and be open towards changing my mind - but be warned I don't trust anything originating from the media unless it's solid as rock in terms of presentation and lack of bias.

I'm not sure what you consider "concrete", but you can google up any number of articles regarding the court case against Jackson. I think you're intelligent enough to distinguish the legitimate news from the tabloid reports. the things I mentioned are common knowledge to anyone who followed the case.

The testimony of the boys is of course subject to one's opinion as to whether or not they were telling the truth. The pornagraphy on the other hand is a physical fact that was collected by police when they paid Jackson an unannounced visit.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I'm not sure what you consider "concrete", but you can google up any number of articles regarding the court case against Jackson. I think you're intelligent enough to distinguish the legitimate news from the tabloid reports. the things I mentioned are common knowledge to anyone who followed the case.

The testimony of the boys is of course subject to one's opinion as to whether or not they were telling the truth. The pornagraphy on the other hand is a physical fact that was collected by police when they paid Jackson an unannounced visit.

Again, I have no issue with pornography and I fail to see the problem with having pornography in the house, as long as you make a reasonable effort not to display it to under-age children. As far as I can tell from my google search, this was "natural" pornography which is to say not something pointing towards Jackson being a pedophile.

Obviously, you have greater trust in what you read than I do. Again, I wasn't there and I have no way of knowing if this "unannounced" visit was arranged by a tip, or some corrupt police officer seeking to gain a piece of the pie.

Essentially, they were unable to prove anything and this coupled with my perception of the man tells me he didn't do those things to children. Now, I don't KNOW this for a fact, nor would I be deeply shocked if I was wrong - but I would be very surprised. Simply too many people with too much to gain (in terms of the "american dream") for me to trust people even in an official capacity such as police officers.

To me, it's simply impossible to get anywere near the unbiased truth when dealing with modern american culture. That is, unless you were actually present or indisputable evidence is produced.

I know this is a rare position, but there it is.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Again, I have no issue with pornography and I fail to see the problem with having pornography in the house, as long as you make a reasonable effort not to display it to under-age children. As far as I can tell from my google search, this was "natural" pornography which is to say not something pointing towards Jackson being a pedophile.

To say that he obviously didn't make such an effort would be an understatement.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Obviously, you have greater trust in what you read than I do. Again, I wasn't there and I have no way of knowing if this "unannounced" visit was arranged by a tip, or some corrupt police officer seeking to gain a piece of the pie.

Riiiiiiight.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
To me, it's simply impossible to get anywere near the unbiased truth when dealing with modern american culture. That is, unless you were actually present or indisputable evidence is produced.

Of course, because it's *so* much different anywhere else…..

Originally Posted by JDR13
To say that he obviously didn't make such an effort would be an understatement.

Link to something, then I can comment.

Riiiiiiight.

Do you consider this an impossibility? Do you think of corruption as rare?

Of course, because it's *so* much different anywhere else…..

Sadly, it's not just american culture - and indeed, it's mostly about human ignorance and greed. American culture just happens to cultivate these aspects in a very unique way in terms of media frenzy and blatant capitalism.

But even if it was the same way everywhere, it doesn't really make it any better.

There's no need for me to link to anything. Why do you think Jacksons's house was searched to begin with? (Other than your conspiracy theory) They found exactly what they were looking for, because it had been described by boys that had been there.

Do you consider this an impossibility? Do you think of corruption as rare?

Jackson didn't even bother trying to deny that it was his….

Originally Posted by JDR13
There's no need for me to link to anything. Why do you think Jacksons's house was searched to begin with? (Other than your conspiracy theory) They found exactly what they were looking for, because it had been described by boys that had been there.

I have no theory - I'm just explaining how not everything has to be what it seems.

I'm not saying boys couldn't have described the location of porn, I'm saying I can't comment unless I know the details. If he made some kind of conscious effort to display pornography to children, and this without a reasonable doubt - then it's for sure he's acting inappropriately and shouldn't be allowed children to come visit him. But as I said, link to where it describes under what circumstances the children came to know and find pornography, or the evidence is pretty useless to me in terms of making a judgment.

Jackson didn't even bother trying to deny that it was his….

Well, that makes the corruption angle irrelevant, so I guess there's that.