Good god, astro, are you kidding me about #5?
#2: I’m sorry, but I don’t see what is so deeply wrong about it. We aren’t birds that push our young out of the nest as soon as they learn to walk. I don’t see what’s wrong with being loving towards children. Until he is shown to have molested someone, I am not going to get upset over someone being nice.
#4: No. Why don’t you enlighten me. I suppose when you look up “pedophile” in the DSM they show a picture of Michael Jackson? Har har har.
That’s not Astro’s point, it’s mine, and no, I’m not kidding. Parents who peddle their children to that noseless freak are guilty of enabling him so fulfill his sick desires on the innocent.
Being nice? Being nice would be visiting hospitals and doing charity concerts, not just talking aobut them (and getting sied for not showing up). If MJ wanted to be nice, he could set up scholarships for impoverished kids to go to college, he could contribute to Toys for Tots, he could get politically involved in lobby for legislation to enact better healthcare and education for poor children.
If MJ loved kids, he would also hang out with girls and boys.
Nice is buying a kid an ice cream cone, not sleeping in the same bed with him.
The Wiggles are nice.
Bananas in Pajamas are nice.
Barney is nice.
MJ likes to cuddle in bed with young boys, and that puts him squarely in Santa’s Naughty list. He may not necessarily be guilty–that is for the courts to decide–but he is definitely the kind of guy who likes to loiter on playgrounds and video arcades.
Check [url" http://www.medem.com/MedLB/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZUZRUZGLC&sub_cat=355"] here
The actual diagnosis of pedophilia must be made a psychiatrist, of course, but one doesn’t need a medical degre to see that a middle-aged man who seeks intimacy with underage boys in his home is a possible danger to them.
You are right; we don’t push our kids out of the nest too soon. We keep them around the nest so we can keep an eye on them. We don’t let them fly off to any old nest with any other old bird.
Do you see the difference between sharing a bed with a four-year-old and sharing a bed with a twelve-year-old? The difference between sharing a bed with your own child, sib, or neice, or godson and sharing a bed with some child you befriended? How about the difference between sharing a bed because bedspace is limited and sharing a bed in a huge, well-furnished mansion with lots of empty rooms?
QUOTE]*Originally posted by erislover *
**#4: No. Why don’t you enlighten me. I suppose when you look up “pedophile” in the DSM they show a picture of Michael Jackson? Har har har. **
[/QUOTE]
On preview, gobear’s post made this redundant, but here we go. They may as well:
None of these characteristics mean anything by themselves, but when you put three or four of them together, you have, not damning evidence, but a good reason to be suspicious. In the case of Michael Jackson, we have bingo, bingo, bingo, bingo, yes to an extent, and bingo.
Crossing the street is a “possible danger” to them. I mean my goodness, let’s see what we’re saying here. The court of public opinion might not need the same evidence as a criminal court, but that doesn’t just mean we can sling around whatever we want to. Your opinion doesn’t gain legitimacy by making analogies to psychiatric disorders.
Christ, I could use that paragraph against day care professionals! Those sly bastards, being nice to win over the children and parents. I’m outraged!
Sorry, but not to me. I cuddled with adults for much of my life growing up. It is a loving and comforting environment.
I wish I knew someone that wealthy who loved children. I guess that’s all I’ve got.
(PS: Sorry, I missed the “gobear said” portion of astro’s post.)
eris lover is either a rabid he-can-do-no-wrong Michael Jackson fan, or a supporter of NAMBLA.
You don’t let your kids go around freaks. If you do, you deserve the scorn this kid’s parents are receiving.
Remember, Jackson once bribed a family to drop charges of molestation. I can only hope Child Services takes his own kids away before he starts using them for his sexual gratification.
No, but our opinions do gain a bit of legitimacy when one considers that Jackson has already been sued once for child molestation, and settled out of court. To apply this to your “crossing the street” analogy, that would make Michael Jackson at least a semi-dangerous street for children to cross by themselves, don’t you think?
Um, you’re aware that there are many instances of day-care providers molesting children, right?
[quoteI wish I knew someone that wealthy who loved children. I guess that’s all I’ve got.[/quote]
It’s possible for a wealthy person to love children and not sleep in the same bed with them. In fact, one could argue (as gobear has so eloquently done) that wealthy people actually have more avenues open to them to express affection for children – foundations, scholarships, political lobbying for children’s causes, etc.
Merely sleeping in the same bed with a non-relative is not in itself an inherently disordered act. Just because it’s alien to certain (presumably unconscious) prejudices of yours doesn’t make it wrong.
I suspect that MJ actually is a child molester. It’s possible that he isn’t. Regardless, attacking him for sleeping with (as opposed to having sex with or sexually fondling) a child exposes a very irrational fear.
Ad hominem attacks make you look like an idiot.
I don’t like MJ. I don’t like him, his face, his antics, dancing or his music. I think parents who decide to deposit their children at MJ’s house are odd. I think it’s creepy that MJ rides around on a train like he’s a fucking 6 year old.
I don’t think that MJ is a child molester, and I’m a straight male who’s never had relations with someone who was pre-pubescent or same-sex. And I hate NAMBLA.
I think maybe things will be much clearer to everyone in the future regarding MJ. So, really, I agree with eris lover, and I’m none of the things you accuse him/her of being.
Sam
well, once one has gone through (very public) accusations of being a child molester, a prudent, non self destructive, innocent man would cease any behavior which would tend to allow others to question his behavior. This would not mean (necessarily) that one would cease all contact with children, but it would tend to make ‘sleeping in the same bed as the children specifically without any other adult witnesses around’ as being, well, extrordinarily stupid.
So, since MJ has, in fact, exhibited the above behavior post public accusations, I would conclude that he’s certainly not prudent, most probably self destructive, and quite possibly not innocent, either.
Does this prove his guilt? no. But barring any other reasonable explanation for such potentially self destructive actions, it does indeed, suggest a strong motivator.
Just the fact that he was accused and it never went to trial for him to be found innocent should be enough for a parent with any sense to not leave kids unsupervised.
Yes, there’s only a chance he was guilty, and everybody had a different idea of what that probability is, but it’s got to be higher than that of a random person.
Leaving a child unsupervised with MJ is like letting a dingo babysit your baby.
A Jacko ate my baby!
** Beagle ** you owe me a monitor and keyboard cleaning.
That will be all, thank you.
I just wanted to point out that a child sleeping in bed with an adult relative is no assurance of safety either – there have been numerous cases of kids being molested by family members, after all.
With that in mind, it seems that the appropriateness/inappropriateness of a kid sleeping in bed with an adult depends on the circumstances involved, and the final decision must rest with the child and the parent(s). To say the situation is wrong because Michael Jackson is not a relative is to miss the point, which is that somewhere down the line, someone decided it was okay to let this boy have a sleepover with Michael, and that person should be getting more scrutiny.
To paraphrase erislover here, until Michael’s been proven to have done something wrong, he’s done nothing wrong.
I don’t think that has him sleeping with other children has been established any more than the other unfounded statements. You analogy of Jackson not have ANY further contact with children and avoid ANYTHING that might has heinous gold digging non responsible parents to allow him private contact is the same as telling all women, don’t wear provocative cloting and never use an ATM or it’s YOUR fault if your mugged or raped. And no fucking apostrophes, commas will be needed in honor of the grammar king. LMAO!!
Oh, and he is innocent, period, no matter how much those of whom would LOVE to make him guilty, innocent is the word. WHHHOOO HOOO!!! The man has overcome!!! 
So can Michael make a playdate with your kid?[sup]1[/sup]
Do you mind if they play “Rubba Rubba”? sup]2[/sup]
How about sleepovers? Is it OK with you if Michael shares his love with your boy by cuddling and hugging with him in bed?[sup]3[/sup]
[sup]1[/sup] A boy, I trust–Michael doesn’t spend any time with female children.
[sup]2 [/sup]I’m not sure of the nature of the game, but it is mentioned in both the 1993 and 2003 complaints.
[sup]3[/sup] After all, he’s done nothing wrong.
Why don’t we all just wait for the trial, mkay? :rolleyes:
Not obviously, no. The guy likes to cuddle with children. Honestly, as a child, I loved that. When my younger family members are over I like sitting on the couch with them, or having them in my arms while I read to them, etc. It is an expression of safety and love.
Do people exist that take advantage of this instinctual feeling in children? Yes. Does Michael Jackson? I don’t know, and I don’t see his acts as making a prima facie case for it.
Very aware! Yet, against all irrationality, we still have day care centers. The mind boggles. 
Of course. I wouldn’t dare suggest otherwise.
rjung
I think this is exactly right. Rich people make easy targets, however. Is MJ just a loving soul who is wrongly accused because he’s a wealthy target? Or is he something more sinister? I don’t know. My initial reaction is the former without compelling evidence for the latter. I see nothing wrong with the behavior, and I find it appalling to publicly judge him for behavior I do think is perfectly appropriate.
Bullshit, Revtim. It should be enough to say that the family knew they didn’t have a case, and Michael didn’t want a drawn out scandal. That is extremely ambiguous evidence to condemn him for.
If their plight was so serious, how could they have been bought out by a monster? If their plight was unfounded, why did he pay? All good questions. Why you assume one and not the other escapes me.
Maybe he thinks he’s safe to do it because he knows he’s not doing anything wrong…?
you quoted my post, one would have thought you read it, too. let me quote myself again
just as if a man was falsely accused of having an affair with another woman, I’d suggest that staying in the same hotel room as a woman not his significant other, without specific witnesses (as in all 8 of us stayed at that room 'cause we were having a meeting) would be, ‘extrordinarily stupid’.
He is innocent in the eyes of the law, we have no idea if he’s actually/factually innocent as well. It would be the smart thing to do, though to not add to suspicions.
wrt: him sleeping in bed w/other children, he admitted as much on that documentary, didn’t he?? thought so.