iiii) I have heard absolutely no talk about his children. You know, the ones that lost their father. The focus from the media and people is more about how his music affected them with no consideration for their loss.
You were actually going somewhere mildly interesting with your first sentence. And then you posted nonsense in the second.
If you don't like him, explain why. Because as it stands now, you're alleging Obama is either a welfare case or doesn't do anything but lounge around.
I saw it as a sarcastic joke. At least I hope it is, and other people seem to agree.
On AI, political swipes, regardless of side, don't have a place outside of Political Outsider, so if it is, it may be worth an infraction. Political discussion is discouraged unless it's central to the story at hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robogobo
1) a big F*** YOU to all those disrespectful enough to say anything but nice about MJ right now. He influenced good in your life much more than you realize, and swallowing everything the media trumped up about him even after due process is ignorant and foolish.
It would be nice if you didn't use juvenile profanity here. It really hurts your points.
It's music. Music is influential, but I think you're overplaying its influence. His influence as a performer has waned in the last two decades anyway.
Quote:
2) I'm pretty sure MJ's estate can sell off a few goodies to recover $400M in less than a month.
If that was possible, why wasn't it done before? I suppose some of that would be because the value of an artist's work and possessions generally peaks after he's died, suggesting the estate exploit that seems to contradict this:
Quote:
3) Apple might want to think about the image of profiting heavily from a star's death so acutely, and consider donating those profits to rehab centers for pain killer addicts. Just an idea.
I really don't see your issue there. Besides, iTunes isn't a big margin service. They might profit a few cents a track. I don't see how they're being exploitative of his image either. Maybe it's a matter of perspective. If the prices on his tracks went up as a result, I'm pretty sure that's the doing of the labels that own his tracks, Apple gave up some pricing control to get other things, such as getting the labels to drop the DRM requirements.
I think a lot of these artists are overpaid for what they do. The worse are the rappers... many have criminal histories and are still able to make $millions with vulgar "art". In comparison an Electrical Engineer with a PhD that takes up to 10>11 years after hi school, will may be make $120k/year. A Cardiovascular Surgeon that takes up to 18 years to train after hi school, near perfect scores may make may be $300-400k/year. Some grunt fighting in the military on foot in Afghanistan does not make enough to buy a shack in most urban areas.
Reminds me of what was happening at the Colliseum while Alaric was at the gates of Rome.
1) ***** to all those disrespectful enough to say anything but nice about MJ right now. He influenced good in your life much more than you realize, and swallowing everything the media trumped up about him even after due process is ignorant and foolish.
2) I'm pretty sure MJ's estate can sell off a few goodies to recover $400M in less than a month.
3) Apple might want to think about the image of profiting heavily from a star's death so acutely, and consider donating those profits to rehab centers for pain killer addicts. Just an idea.
4) repeat #1. I feel sad at the loss of the king of pop. Even though he had only a couple good albums, IMO, they changed the music world forever, and provided a generation both identity and a whole lot of mojo. RIP Jacko.
I understand its not Apple it Sony & Columbia profiting. Apple is just the store that sells music. Just as it sells 2Pac, James, Brown, Marvin Gaye and more. The profits need to go to a better iPhone. Sorry its business. You want charity then you need to work for FEMA or Red Cross!
I think a lot of these artists are overpaid for what they do. The worse are the rappers... many have criminal histories and are still able to make $millions with vulgar "art". In comparison an Electrical Engineer with a PhD that takes up to 10>11 years after hi school, will may be make $120k/year. A Cardiovascular Surgeon that takes up to 18 years to train after hi school, near perfect scores may make may be $300-400k/year. Some grunt fighting in the military on foot in Afghanistan does not make enough to buy a shack in most urban areas.
Reminds me of what was happening at the Colliseum while Alaric was at the gates of Rome.
I think a lot of these artists are overpaid for what they do. The worse are the rappers... many have criminal histories and are still able to make $millions with vulgar "art". In comparison an Electrical Engineer with a PhD that takes up to 10>11 years after hi school, will may be make $120k/year. A Cardiovascular Surgeon that takes up to 18 years to train after hi school, near perfect scores may make may be $300-400k/year. Some grunt fighting in the military on foot in Afghanistan does not make enough to buy a shack in most urban areas.
Reminds me of what was happening at the Colliseum while Alaric was at the gates of Rome.
So you think people shouldn't be paid based on what people are willing to pay for a particular talent, but what you feel is appropriate based on your moral standpoint on that talent?
While undoubtedly beneficial for Apple, the company has been restrained in its approach to the tragedy. Beyond posting a single banner to honor Jackson's passing -- a customary gesture it has regularly made for other artists, such as James Brown or Johnny Cash -- the company has not taken any extra steps to advertise its song library.
hmmm,,,, the banner is a direct link to a point of sale. The banner placement was a very deliberate strategy to generate sales by Apple's iTune store. The gesture was to make money... end of story. Apple is not a charity and whilst it has social obligations...as in it operates within the context of a society... it (the itunes store) is not the forum for tribute making.
Of course there will be general interest in acquiring his music on his passing. Why not make a direct link to his music.
Spoken like a true pedophile. Have some experience?
Jerk.
One more crack and you get yourself banned. How dare you say that to wilco .
MJ is a very well known pedophile . All the facts are there. . I loved MJ since his first song abc came out 1965 or 68 ? Anyway MJ being great star maybe the greatest pop start moonwalking king, right up there with Elvis. The moment we heard about his kid-die sleepovers and his jungle juice and saw his child theme park all the classic PEDOPHILE traits were borne out .
A great hero to me turned into a piece of sick slimy creature.
He paid over 100 million dollars in hush funds . I wonder why .
Do not call long standing members here such sick names.
In short MJ was a genius who changed the music world BUT also was very sick and touched and had sex with children .
1)*** to all those disrespectful enough to say anything but nice about MJ right now. He influenced good in your life much more than you realize, and swallowing everything the media trumped up about him even after due process is ignorant and foolish.
4) repeat #1. I feel sad at the loss of the king of pop. Even though he had only a couple good albums, IMO, they changed the music world forever, and provided a generation both identity and a whole lot of mojo. RIP Jacko.
MJ showed all the classic signs of being a true dedicated pedophile .
His kiddie sleepovers went on for years they never ended .
His jungle booze juice he fed 8 tr olds .
His 20 million dollar hush payments.
MJ was a very sick pedophile who prayed on our wee ones with his never-land his money his booze his stardom he used every thing in his means to have sex with children . In his mind he felt he was not doing any thing wrong .
In the coming months dude the media will explore this and children will come out of the wood work .
I also feel a great loss for a great artist BUT I rejoice that the small helpless children are at last safe from his pedophilia . SO his death is a good thing .
So you think people shouldn't be paid based on what people are willing to pay for a particular talent, but what you feel is appropriate based on your moral standpoint on that talent?
I was simply pointing to the contrast in our society. It reflects our values. These huge difference have increased over the years. Within corporations the difference between entry level engineer and CEO are in huge multiples... companies like GM, F before they went BK. Contrast that to Honda, Toyota or even Nokia. No more than 6-8x. Or the difference between our politicians and the working stiff if you include all compensation during and after leaving office... it is obscene actually in this case.
Nope. I would have written "alleged pedophile" if that's what I meant.
In my eyes, the $20 million payout he made to one of his victims is enough reason.
Anyway, Target is having a special Michael Jackson sale this weekend -- Boy's pants half off!
This probably won't convince you because it's clear that you have some kind of big need to focus on the paedophilia accusations (often an indicator that you have an unhealthy obsession with the topic), but there is in fact lots of evidence on this and none of it supports your belief that he was a paedophile.
The truth is Michael Jackson was gay. He slept with young men and older men, but not underage men. He had a childlike personality and slept in the same bed as the young boys that stayed with him but with the exception of the two accusers, (who are proven liars and were asking for millions of dollars in hush money), none of these boys ever said that he touched them. And in fact why would he, when he was meeting construction workers at Motels for sex during the same period.
I can't point to any evidence because it hasn't come out yet, but as far as I am aware the facts are that he was a somewhat "regular" gay man and there is no evidence beyond his gayness that he was a paedophile. In a few months or so, the truth will probably come out and all the people like you that vilified him for this will look like the fools you are.
The thing that bothers me is that these indications are not that hard to find. I don't even like Michael Jackson that much and with only minimal digging you can find this stuff out, but no seems to want to bother. It's much easier to cal him a "freak" and make stupid jokes about buggering little boys.
Maybe you should look into why you "went there," and why people generally always want to talk about kiddie-sex. It's completely hypocritical, in that most males I've ever talked to about Internet porn always admit at some point to checking out some underage or college girl stuff and almost no man I've ever met is interested in looking at older women, or any kind of girl that can't pass for twenty something or younger. Given this intense world-wide fascination with prepubescent girls and women made up to look like prepubescent girls, the "outrage" over Michael Jackson's alleged and never proven association with young boys is really quite lame.
I didn't know the man, but he seemed like a very nice, gentle man to me. I can't think of anyone he ever did harm to and even though I know less about him than one of his fans, I could probably come up with hundreds of things he did in his lifetime that were good for the world.
One more crack and you get yourself banned. How dare you say that to wilco . ..
If this isn't a joke, it's a bit beyond the pale.
Who are you to talk like that to anyone? Why would you have the power to "ban" someone for stating an opinion? Even if you somehow have sway with this site and have the power to ban someone, how could you ban someone for calling someone a "jerk" and then turn around yourself and say things a thousand times more horrible yourself?
It's sure interesting when these "social" topics come up on a tech blog and you find out that someone who seemed smart and informed on the tech side of things is in reality some kind of raving hate-filled madman on a political or social issue.
I hate it when Apple Insider publishes these threads that have social implications. It lets one see the slimy underbelly of people that we would otherwise socialise with gladly.
Who are you to talk like that to anyone? Why would you have the power to "ban" someone for stating an opinion? Even if you somehow have sway with this site and have the power to ban someone, how could you ban someone for calling someone a "jerk" and then turn around yourself and say things a thousand times more horrible yourself?
It's sure interesting when these "social" topics come up on a tech blog and you find out that someone who seemed smart and informed on the tech side of things is in reality some kind of raving hate-filled madman on a political or social issue.
I hate it when Apple Insider publishes these threads that have social implications. It lets one see the slimy underbelly of people that we would otherwise socialise with gladly.
Jackson's behavior with children was, I think, very irregular. That doesn't mean he was a pedophile, but it is why people suspect it. When the allegation has twice been made, against the backdrop of these behaviors which most people would agree are very strange, and given all of the other weirdness that went on with MJ... how can it be that surprising that people would suspect he was a pedophile? Heck, the police and prosecuting attorney in SB obviously thought there was strong enough evidence to file charges. The fact that they later lost the case doesn't mean the charges were false, just as the charges having been filed does not make them true.
My point is that the people who have suspected this of MJ are just responding to the facts of MJ's multiple charges stemming from these allegations, and to his highly unusual behavior with respect to children. I don't think harboring a suspicion based on these factors makes one a 'raving hate-filled madman'. In fact, it is quite rational.
You are correct; there is no proof right now that MJ was a pedophile. But if you want to be truthful, you would have to concur that MJ provided ample reason for suspicion. Further, brucep is correct that MJ's behavior followed well-known patterns of child sexual predators. I'm not alleging that MJ was guilty of any of the allegations that were made against him, but I think it is disingenuous to look at MJ's behavior, coupled with his court cases and the allegations of abuse, and then react with shock and dismay that anyone should think such a thing could possibly be true.
On a personal note, I have a young son. If some adult man who obviously had dramatically changed his appearance over the years from a young black man to a boyish white man were to look straight into my eyes and then lie to me and say he'd never had any plastic surgery, oh no... and then go on to tell me he felt it was 'sweet' and 'innocent' for him to let my son sleep in the same bed with him, that would be an adult male my son no longer associated with. I suspect the reaction of 99% of parents would be much the same.
Jackson's behavior with children was, I think, very irregular. That doesn't mean he was a pedophile, but it is why people suspect it. When the allegation has twice been made, against the backdrop of these behaviors which most people would agree are very strange, and given all of the other weirdness that went on with MJ... how can it be that surprising that people would suspect he was a pedophile? Heck, the police and prosecuting attorney in SB obviously thought there was strong enough evidence to file charges. The fact that they later lost the case doesn't mean the charges were false, just as the charges having been filed does not make them true.
My point is that the people who have suspected this of MJ are just responding to the facts of MJ's multiple charges stemming from these allegations, and to his highly unusual behavior with respect to children. I don't think harboring a suspicion based on these factors makes one a 'raving hate-filled madman'. In fact, it is quite rational.
You are correct; there is no proof right now that MJ was a pedophile. But if you want to be truthful, you would have to concur that MJ provided ample reason for suspicion. Further, brucep is correct that MJ's behavior followed well-known patterns of child sexual predators. I'm not alleging that MJ was guilty of any of the allegations that were made against him, but I think it is disingenuous to look at MJ's behavior, coupled with his court cases and the allegations of abuse, and then react with shock and dismay that anyone should think such a thing could possibly be true.
I appreciate the measured response, but I (mostly) disagree.
I can see with the media coverage being what it was and the fact that he admitted to sharing a bed with the boys in his care that people have suspicions, but I think the level of suspicion relative to the facts is still way out of proportion. The two people making all the hateful comments on this thread are also explicitly stating these things as facts when they are simply not. The language they are using is also way out of control relative to the what we actually know.
There is also a difference in culture again. I know people get tired of me mentioning it, but the US is a very very very religious country and throughout the 80's and 90's was rather extremely focussed on the issue of child abuse to an almost hysterical extent. Generally speaking, Europeans see this same set of facts in a different way altogether. It *is* common in some countries for adults to sleep in the same bed as children and for people to think nothing of that fact. It's not necessarily sexual. It's only in a society that has a lot of repression around sexual issues that it might seem that way.
I don't know for sure anything more than anyone else reading the media coverage on this but it's still true that none of the boys he slept in the same bed with said anything untoward happened at all with the exception of the two who made the public accusations (for money) that later turned out to be liars. Several of these kids (now grown up) said over and over again that nothing happened, but the media just assumes they are lying. One of them (who is also gay as an adult) is sort of assumed to be lying (paraphrasing here) "because gay people all stick together over these kinds of things." That's just wack. I think we should just stick to the facts as we know them.
What I found on the net, with minimal searching is that MJ was gay and had numerous trysts and liasons with (adult) gay men, but that this was of course not common knowledge because it would hurt his image and his fans. I don't see how if he is having sex with burly men in Motels, why he would also be a child molester.
We will see over the next while what comes out and what the truth really is, but if it's true that he was gay and true that he had affairs with adult males (as seems likely to me right now), then coupled with the lack of any evidence, it seems pretty likely that he was what the always appeared to be to me. Someone who had a childlike personality and was more comfortable socialising with children than with adults.
Anyway, as I said, I didn't really like the music that much and am not a big fan so this is my last "defence of MJ" post. I was mostly just pissed at the reaction of the two "haters" as I call them above. If it's one thing I've learned in life is that almost everyone has a dark side, and the nicest people can do the most heinous things under the right conditions. Even Hitler had a good side, and MJ is dead now anyway so let's focus on the tremendous good he did for the planet instead of the bad.
At the very least, we should wait for some person to come forward who was actually *hurt* by him (who isn't lying about it) before we start the condemnation. If he has been abusing boys all his life as some people think, there should be a whole army of twisted individuals out there waiting to step up and tell us honestly what happened. I'd bet money right now that it won't happen though.
First I can guarantee you the first thing people at Apple thought was "Wow MJ just died..hurry up and put a 'tribute' banner on iTunes by this afternoon so we can rake in the sales." Apple is a corporation without a soul just like every other. Any business that sells music would be stupid NOT to do what Apple did; Instant sales!
Second with all due respect to MJ as an artist the guy had some clinical disorder of some kind including pedophilia whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Normal adults don't build their own theme park to lure kids to visit, sleep over with him and drink 'jungle juice'. You say he paid people off not because he was guilty but because he didn't want to be in the spotlight in court but you forget one fact: HE INVITED KIDS TO SLEEP OVER WITH HIM!
So fine innocent until proven guilty but he is guilty of having sleep overs with underage kids.
Second with all due respect to MJ as an artist the guy had some clinical disorder of some kind including pedophilia whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Normal adults don't build their own theme park to lure kids to visit, sleep over with him and drink 'jungle juice'. You say he paid people off not because he was guilty but because he didn't want to be in the spotlight in court but you forget one fact: HE INVITED KIDS TO SLEEP OVER WITH HIM!
So fine innocent until proven guilty but he is guilty of having sleep overs with underage kids.
Your statement that Michael building a theme park means that he must be sexually attracted to children is like saying that all Big Brother/Big Sister volunteers are also attracted to children simply because they like to help children.
You are also ignoring the fact that there are plenty of parents that seemingly had no issue with Michael at the time. So are bad parents, which means they could have devised the ruse to extort money from Michael at the expense of Michael and their children. You are ignoring the commentary that many children, some of which were stars, that he did nothing inappropriate.
Finally, your comment about “normal adults” don’t do this or that is beyond silly when you consider the money and fame he has, not to mention the fact that he didn’t have a normal childhood. He was 8yo when the Jackson 5 were signed to Motown and had just 9yo when they hit their first number one hit. Perhaps working so hard as a child and having an abusive father just may have made him an “abnormal adult” who wanted nothing more than to see children be happy in ways that he could only image at that age.
Note, I’m not saying that he wasn’t a pedophile but I’m certainly not drawing any conclusions based on my limited view of a life that I can’t begin to imagine. Personally, if I were getting accused of such things and still wanted to help children I would do so without any direct interaction with them (e.g.: donations) as to not arouse any more suspicion. Again that doesn’t prove he was a pedophile, it just proves that he an “abnormal adult” but last time i checked that in itself is not a crime.
Your statement that Michael building a theme park means that he must be sexually attracted to children is like saying that all Big Brother/Big Sister volunteers are also attracted to children simply because they like to help children.
Your post has 'Denial' written all over it. This article says it much better than I did though:
"We're wacko in how we view Jacko - I always felt sorry for Michael Jackson
Michael Jackson left this world three days ago. But he hadn't been living in it for a long time.
In fact, it's hard to think of a celebrity who had less to do with the real world than Jackson. In the real world, you don't have pet llamas or roller coasters in your backyard. In the real world, if you're $400 million in debt, people aren't still lending you money. In the real world, you don't buy human bones, wear lipstick as a man or sleep with other people's children in your bedroom.
Still, as soon as he died, Jackson -- whom fans helped chase into his own private Neverland -- was embraced as if he lived next door and inspired us every day. The hypocrisy of the cable news mourning is hard to stomach. Seeing Al Sharpton laud Jackson as some major civil rights activist or Christie Hefner celebrate his amazing business acumen is bad enough. (If he were so smart, how come he was so broke?)
But the whitewash of opinion being spouted by the public outdoes anything Jackson ever tried to do to his looks. Four days ago -- when he was still alive -- Jackson was perceived as a desperate, grotesque, off-the-radar, once-great performer turned weird, pathetic, possibly criminal and unable to sell records the way he did.
A day later, he was a world-healer, a joy-spreader, a one-of-a-kind man of magic."
Comments
....
iiii) I have heard absolutely no talk about his children. You know, the ones that lost their father. The focus from the media and people is more about how his music affected them with no consideration for their loss.
My thoughts exactly.
While undoubtedly beneficial for Apple, the company...
The way this is written, it means that Apple is undoubtedly beneficial for itself. This type of error appears in almost every other AI article.
http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/subordinateclause.htm
It was an assassination. MJ was in debt, the creditors needed the money.
I bet Obama was in on it too, that freeloader.
Brilliant comment from a brilliant username. /sarcasm
You were actually going somewhere mildly interesting with your first sentence. And then you posted nonsense in the second.
If you don't like him, explain why. Because as it stands now, you're alleging Obama is either a welfare case or doesn't do anything but lounge around.
I saw it as a sarcastic joke. At least I hope it is, and other people seem to agree.
On AI, political swipes, regardless of side, don't have a place outside of Political Outsider, so if it is, it may be worth an infraction. Political discussion is discouraged unless it's central to the story at hand.
1) a big F*** YOU to all those disrespectful enough to say anything but nice about MJ right now. He influenced good in your life much more than you realize, and swallowing everything the media trumped up about him even after due process is ignorant and foolish.
It would be nice if you didn't use juvenile profanity here. It really hurts your points.
It's music. Music is influential, but I think you're overplaying its influence. His influence as a performer has waned in the last two decades anyway.
2) I'm pretty sure MJ's estate can sell off a few goodies to recover $400M in less than a month.
If that was possible, why wasn't it done before? I suppose some of that would be because the value of an artist's work and possessions generally peaks after he's died, suggesting the estate exploit that seems to contradict this:
3) Apple might want to think about the image of profiting heavily from a star's death so acutely, and consider donating those profits to rehab centers for pain killer addicts. Just an idea.
I really don't see your issue there. Besides, iTunes isn't a big margin service. They might profit a few cents a track. I don't see how they're being exploitative of his image either. Maybe it's a matter of perspective. If the prices on his tracks went up as a result, I'm pretty sure that's the doing of the labels that own his tracks, Apple gave up some pricing control to get other things, such as getting the labels to drop the DRM requirements.
Reminds me of what was happening at the Colliseum while Alaric was at the gates of Rome.
1) ***** to all those disrespectful enough to say anything but nice about MJ right now. He influenced good in your life much more than you realize, and swallowing everything the media trumped up about him even after due process is ignorant and foolish.
2) I'm pretty sure MJ's estate can sell off a few goodies to recover $400M in less than a month.
3) Apple might want to think about the image of profiting heavily from a star's death so acutely, and consider donating those profits to rehab centers for pain killer addicts. Just an idea.
4) repeat #1. I feel sad at the loss of the king of pop. Even though he had only a couple good albums, IMO, they changed the music world forever, and provided a generation both identity and a whole lot of mojo. RIP Jacko.
I understand its not Apple it Sony & Columbia profiting. Apple is just the store that sells music. Just as it sells 2Pac, James, Brown, Marvin Gaye and more. The profits need to go to a better iPhone. Sorry its business. You want charity then you need to work for FEMA or Red Cross!
I think a lot of these artists are overpaid for what they do. The worse are the rappers... many have criminal histories and are still able to make $millions with vulgar "art". In comparison an Electrical Engineer with a PhD that takes up to 10>11 years after hi school, will may be make $120k/year. A Cardiovascular Surgeon that takes up to 18 years to train after hi school, near perfect scores may make may be $300-400k/year. Some grunt fighting in the military on foot in Afghanistan does not make enough to buy a shack in most urban areas.
Reminds me of what was happening at the Colliseum while Alaric was at the gates of Rome.
Don't hate the Playa hate the Game!
I think a lot of these artists are overpaid for what they do. The worse are the rappers... many have criminal histories and are still able to make $millions with vulgar "art". In comparison an Electrical Engineer with a PhD that takes up to 10>11 years after hi school, will may be make $120k/year. A Cardiovascular Surgeon that takes up to 18 years to train after hi school, near perfect scores may make may be $300-400k/year. Some grunt fighting in the military on foot in Afghanistan does not make enough to buy a shack in most urban areas.
Reminds me of what was happening at the Colliseum while Alaric was at the gates of Rome.
So you think people shouldn't be paid based on what people are willing to pay for a particular talent, but what you feel is appropriate based on your moral standpoint on that talent?
While undoubtedly beneficial for Apple, the company has been restrained in its approach to the tragedy. Beyond posting a single banner to honor Jackson's passing -- a customary gesture it has regularly made for other artists, such as James Brown or Johnny Cash -- the company has not taken any extra steps to advertise its song library.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
hmmm,,,, the banner is a direct link to a point of sale. The banner placement was a very deliberate strategy to generate sales by Apple's iTune store. The gesture was to make money... end of story. Apple is not a charity and whilst it has social obligations...as in it operates within the context of a society... it (the itunes store) is not the forum for tribute making.
Of course there will be general interest in acquiring his music on his passing. Why not make a direct link to his music.
Spoken like a true pedophile.
Jerk.
One more crack and you get yourself banned. How dare you say that to wilco .
MJ is a very well known pedophile . All the facts are there. . I loved MJ since his first song abc came out 1965 or 68 ? Anyway MJ being great star maybe the greatest pop start moonwalking king, right up there with Elvis. The moment we heard about his kid-die sleepovers and his jungle juice and saw his child theme park all the classic PEDOPHILE traits were borne out .
A great hero to me turned into a piece of sick slimy creature.
He paid over 100 million dollars in hush funds . I wonder why .
Do not call long standing members here such sick names.
In short MJ was a genius who changed the music world BUT also was very sick and touched and had sex with children .
The board await your apology
NOW
9
1)*** to all those disrespectful enough to say anything but nice about MJ right now. He influenced good in your life much more than you realize, and swallowing everything the media trumped up about him even after due process is ignorant and foolish.
4) repeat #1. I feel sad at the loss of the king of pop. Even though he had only a couple good albums, IMO, they changed the music world forever, and provided a generation both identity and a whole lot of mojo. RIP Jacko.
MJ showed all the classic signs of being a true dedicated pedophile .
His kiddie sleepovers went on for years they never ended .
His jungle booze juice he fed 8 tr olds .
His 20 million dollar hush payments.
MJ was a very sick pedophile who prayed on our wee ones with his never-land his money his booze his stardom he used every thing in his means to have sex with children . In his mind he felt he was not doing any thing wrong .
In the coming months dude the media will explore this and children will come out of the wood work .
I also feel a great loss for a great artist BUT I rejoice that the small helpless children are at last safe from his pedophilia . SO his death is a good thing .
In the end I hated him. As I hate all predators.
9
So you think people shouldn't be paid based on what people are willing to pay for a particular talent, but what you feel is appropriate based on your moral standpoint on that talent?
I was simply pointing to the contrast in our society. It reflects our values. These huge difference have increased over the years. Within corporations the difference between entry level engineer and CEO are in huge multiples... companies like GM, F before they went BK. Contrast that to Honda, Toyota or even Nokia. No more than 6-8x. Or the difference between our politicians and the working stiff if you include all compensation during and after leaving office... it is obscene actually in this case.
Nope. I would have written "alleged pedophile" if that's what I meant.
In my eyes, the $20 million payout he made to one of his victims is enough reason.
Anyway, Target is having a special Michael Jackson sale this weekend -- Boy's pants half off!
This probably won't convince you because it's clear that you have some kind of big need to focus on the paedophilia accusations (often an indicator that you have an unhealthy obsession with the topic), but there is in fact lots of evidence on this and none of it supports your belief that he was a paedophile.
The truth is Michael Jackson was gay. He slept with young men and older men, but not underage men. He had a childlike personality and slept in the same bed as the young boys that stayed with him but with the exception of the two accusers, (who are proven liars and were asking for millions of dollars in hush money), none of these boys ever said that he touched them. And in fact why would he, when he was meeting construction workers at Motels for sex during the same period.
I can't point to any evidence because it hasn't come out yet, but as far as I am aware the facts are that he was a somewhat "regular" gay man and there is no evidence beyond his gayness that he was a paedophile. In a few months or so, the truth will probably come out and all the people like you that vilified him for this will look like the fools you are.
The thing that bothers me is that these indications are not that hard to find. I don't even like Michael Jackson that much and with only minimal digging you can find this stuff out, but no seems to want to bother. It's much easier to cal him a "freak" and make stupid jokes about buggering little boys.
Maybe you should look into why you "went there," and why people generally always want to talk about kiddie-sex. It's completely hypocritical, in that most males I've ever talked to about Internet porn always admit at some point to checking out some underage or college girl stuff and almost no man I've ever met is interested in looking at older women, or any kind of girl that can't pass for twenty something or younger. Given this intense world-wide fascination with prepubescent girls and women made up to look like prepubescent girls, the "outrage" over Michael Jackson's alleged and never proven association with young boys is really quite lame.
I didn't know the man, but he seemed like a very nice, gentle man to me. I can't think of anyone he ever did harm to and even though I know less about him than one of his fans, I could probably come up with hundreds of things he did in his lifetime that were good for the world.
What have you done for anyone lately?
One more crack and you get yourself banned. How dare you say that to wilco . ..
If this isn't a joke, it's a bit beyond the pale.
Who are you to talk like that to anyone? Why would you have the power to "ban" someone for stating an opinion? Even if you somehow have sway with this site and have the power to ban someone, how could you ban someone for calling someone a "jerk" and then turn around yourself and say things a thousand times more horrible yourself?
It's sure interesting when these "social" topics come up on a tech blog and you find out that someone who seemed smart and informed on the tech side of things is in reality some kind of raving hate-filled madman on a political or social issue.
I hate it when Apple Insider publishes these threads that have social implications. It lets one see the slimy underbelly of people that we would otherwise socialise with gladly.
If this isn't a joke, it's a bit beyond the pale.
Who are you to talk like that to anyone? Why would you have the power to "ban" someone for stating an opinion? Even if you somehow have sway with this site and have the power to ban someone, how could you ban someone for calling someone a "jerk" and then turn around yourself and say things a thousand times more horrible yourself?
It's sure interesting when these "social" topics come up on a tech blog and you find out that someone who seemed smart and informed on the tech side of things is in reality some kind of raving hate-filled madman on a political or social issue.
I hate it when Apple Insider publishes these threads that have social implications. It lets one see the slimy underbelly of people that we would otherwise socialise with gladly.
Jackson's behavior with children was, I think, very irregular. That doesn't mean he was a pedophile, but it is why people suspect it. When the allegation has twice been made, against the backdrop of these behaviors which most people would agree are very strange, and given all of the other weirdness that went on with MJ... how can it be that surprising that people would suspect he was a pedophile? Heck, the police and prosecuting attorney in SB obviously thought there was strong enough evidence to file charges. The fact that they later lost the case doesn't mean the charges were false, just as the charges having been filed does not make them true.
My point is that the people who have suspected this of MJ are just responding to the facts of MJ's multiple charges stemming from these allegations, and to his highly unusual behavior with respect to children. I don't think harboring a suspicion based on these factors makes one a 'raving hate-filled madman'. In fact, it is quite rational.
You are correct; there is no proof right now that MJ was a pedophile. But if you want to be truthful, you would have to concur that MJ provided ample reason for suspicion. Further, brucep is correct that MJ's behavior followed well-known patterns of child sexual predators. I'm not alleging that MJ was guilty of any of the allegations that were made against him, but I think it is disingenuous to look at MJ's behavior, coupled with his court cases and the allegations of abuse, and then react with shock and dismay that anyone should think such a thing could possibly be true.
On a personal note, I have a young son. If some adult man who obviously had dramatically changed his appearance over the years from a young black man to a boyish white man were to look straight into my eyes and then lie to me and say he'd never had any plastic surgery, oh no... and then go on to tell me he felt it was 'sweet' and 'innocent' for him to let my son sleep in the same bed with him, that would be an adult male my son no longer associated with. I suspect the reaction of 99% of parents would be much the same.
Jackson's behavior with children was, I think, very irregular. That doesn't mean he was a pedophile, but it is why people suspect it. When the allegation has twice been made, against the backdrop of these behaviors which most people would agree are very strange, and given all of the other weirdness that went on with MJ... how can it be that surprising that people would suspect he was a pedophile? Heck, the police and prosecuting attorney in SB obviously thought there was strong enough evidence to file charges. The fact that they later lost the case doesn't mean the charges were false, just as the charges having been filed does not make them true.
My point is that the people who have suspected this of MJ are just responding to the facts of MJ's multiple charges stemming from these allegations, and to his highly unusual behavior with respect to children. I don't think harboring a suspicion based on these factors makes one a 'raving hate-filled madman'. In fact, it is quite rational.
You are correct; there is no proof right now that MJ was a pedophile. But if you want to be truthful, you would have to concur that MJ provided ample reason for suspicion. Further, brucep is correct that MJ's behavior followed well-known patterns of child sexual predators. I'm not alleging that MJ was guilty of any of the allegations that were made against him, but I think it is disingenuous to look at MJ's behavior, coupled with his court cases and the allegations of abuse, and then react with shock and dismay that anyone should think such a thing could possibly be true.
I appreciate the measured response, but I (mostly) disagree.
I can see with the media coverage being what it was and the fact that he admitted to sharing a bed with the boys in his care that people have suspicions, but I think the level of suspicion relative to the facts is still way out of proportion. The two people making all the hateful comments on this thread are also explicitly stating these things as facts when they are simply not. The language they are using is also way out of control relative to the what we actually know.
There is also a difference in culture again. I know people get tired of me mentioning it, but the US is a very very very religious country and throughout the 80's and 90's was rather extremely focussed on the issue of child abuse to an almost hysterical extent. Generally speaking, Europeans see this same set of facts in a different way altogether. It *is* common in some countries for adults to sleep in the same bed as children and for people to think nothing of that fact. It's not necessarily sexual. It's only in a society that has a lot of repression around sexual issues that it might seem that way.
I don't know for sure anything more than anyone else reading the media coverage on this but it's still true that none of the boys he slept in the same bed with said anything untoward happened at all with the exception of the two who made the public accusations (for money) that later turned out to be liars. Several of these kids (now grown up) said over and over again that nothing happened, but the media just assumes they are lying. One of them (who is also gay as an adult) is sort of assumed to be lying (paraphrasing here) "because gay people all stick together over these kinds of things." That's just wack. I think we should just stick to the facts as we know them.
What I found on the net, with minimal searching is that MJ was gay and had numerous trysts and liasons with (adult) gay men, but that this was of course not common knowledge because it would hurt his image and his fans. I don't see how if he is having sex with burly men in Motels, why he would also be a child molester.
We will see over the next while what comes out and what the truth really is, but if it's true that he was gay and true that he had affairs with adult males (as seems likely to me right now), then coupled with the lack of any evidence, it seems pretty likely that he was what the always appeared to be to me. Someone who had a childlike personality and was more comfortable socialising with children than with adults.
Anyway, as I said, I didn't really like the music that much and am not a big fan so this is my last "defence of MJ" post. I was mostly just pissed at the reaction of the two "haters" as I call them above. If it's one thing I've learned in life is that almost everyone has a dark side, and the nicest people can do the most heinous things under the right conditions. Even Hitler had a good side, and MJ is dead now anyway so let's focus on the tremendous good he did for the planet instead of the bad.
At the very least, we should wait for some person to come forward who was actually *hurt* by him (who isn't lying about it) before we start the condemnation. If he has been abusing boys all his life as some people think, there should be a whole army of twisted individuals out there waiting to step up and tell us honestly what happened. I'd bet money right now that it won't happen though.
Second with all due respect to MJ as an artist the guy had some clinical disorder of some kind including pedophilia whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Normal adults don't build their own theme park to lure kids to visit, sleep over with him and drink 'jungle juice'. You say he paid people off not because he was guilty but because he didn't want to be in the spotlight in court but you forget one fact: HE INVITED KIDS TO SLEEP OVER WITH HIM!
So fine innocent until proven guilty but he is guilty of having sleep overs with underage kids.
Second with all due respect to MJ as an artist the guy had some clinical disorder of some kind including pedophilia whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Normal adults don't build their own theme park to lure kids to visit, sleep over with him and drink 'jungle juice'. You say he paid people off not because he was guilty but because he didn't want to be in the spotlight in court but you forget one fact: HE INVITED KIDS TO SLEEP OVER WITH HIM!
So fine innocent until proven guilty but he is guilty of having sleep overs with underage kids.
Your statement that Michael building a theme park means that he must be sexually attracted to children is like saying that all Big Brother/Big Sister volunteers are also attracted to children simply because they like to help children.
You are also ignoring the fact that there are plenty of parents that seemingly had no issue with Michael at the time. So are bad parents, which means they could have devised the ruse to extort money from Michael at the expense of Michael and their children. You are ignoring the commentary that many children, some of which were stars, that he did nothing inappropriate.
Finally, your comment about “normal adults” don’t do this or that is beyond silly when you consider the money and fame he has, not to mention the fact that he didn’t have a normal childhood. He was 8yo when the Jackson 5 were signed to Motown and had just 9yo when they hit their first number one hit. Perhaps working so hard as a child and having an abusive father just may have made him an “abnormal adult” who wanted nothing more than to see children be happy in ways that he could only image at that age.
Note, I’m not saying that he wasn’t a pedophile but I’m certainly not drawing any conclusions based on my limited view of a life that I can’t begin to imagine. Personally, if I were getting accused of such things and still wanted to help children I would do so without any direct interaction with them (e.g.: donations) as to not arouse any more suspicion. Again that doesn’t prove he was a pedophile, it just proves that he an “abnormal adult” but last time i checked that in itself is not a crime.
Your statement that Michael building a theme park means that he must be sexually attracted to children is like saying that all Big Brother/Big Sister volunteers are also attracted to children simply because they like to help children.
Your post has 'Denial' written all over it. This article says it much better than I did though:
"We're wacko in how we view Jacko - I always felt sorry for Michael Jackson
Michael Jackson left this world three days ago. But he hadn't been living in it for a long time.
In fact, it's hard to think of a celebrity who had less to do with the real world than Jackson. In the real world, you don't have pet llamas or roller coasters in your backyard. In the real world, if you're $400 million in debt, people aren't still lending you money. In the real world, you don't buy human bones, wear lipstick as a man or sleep with other people's children in your bedroom.
Still, as soon as he died, Jackson -- whom fans helped chase into his own private Neverland -- was embraced as if he lived next door and inspired us every day. The hypocrisy of the cable news mourning is hard to stomach. Seeing Al Sharpton laud Jackson as some major civil rights activist or Christie Hefner celebrate his amazing business acumen is bad enough. (If he were so smart, how come he was so broke?)
But the whitewash of opinion being spouted by the public outdoes anything Jackson ever tried to do to his looks. Four days ago -- when he was still alive -- Jackson was perceived as a desperate, grotesque, off-the-radar, once-great performer turned weird, pathetic, possibly criminal and unable to sell records the way he did.
A day later, he was a world-healer, a joy-spreader, a one-of-a-kind man of magic."
read the rest here http://www.freep.com/article/2009062...6280410/?imw=Y