Society's first openly accepted pedophile

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by Sparta
and there was me thinking innocent until proven guilty still existed.

Unless of course you pay off the poor families before it goes to trial...

Also, what does not having a childhood and giving wine to children before sleeping in the same bed with them, have in common?

I love the MJ supporters. His music wasn't bad, he was just f**ked up in the head.

edit on 30-6-2013 by superman2012 because: fixing before the grammar police come in

If you were terribly rich and had the same accusations and people attacking your character, you might've paid them off too.

Originally posted by Night Star

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by Sparta
and there was me thinking innocent until proven guilty still existed.

Unless of course you pay off the poor families before it goes to trial...

Also, what does not having a childhood and giving wine to children before sleeping in the same bed with them, have in common?

I love the MJ supporters. His music wasn't bad, he was just f**ked up in the head.

edit on 30-6-2013 by superman2012 because: fixing before the grammar police come in

If you were terribly rich and had the same accusations and people attacking your character, you might've paid them off too.

Not at the expense of my character being assassinated. A charge like that will make you "guilty" whether you are or not, if you are not, why not fight it to at least be vindicated?

reply to post by Taupin Desciple


You are exactly right.

He can sing to the parents in hell.

reply to post by okayimhere

Michael Jackson -- the first pedophile to be accepted by society with open arms.

There have been others...

Look at Woody Allen....not only is he a pedophile, but basically incest as well! (his own adopted step-daughter)!!!

Just as baffling (and even more accepted) as MJ.

Roman Polanski is another....

There's much more than smoke on the MJ fire....it's a frickin' bonfire....even in his own words (and his ranch is a pedo checklist for godsakes!)

reply to post by bjarneorn

What I'd like to know, is what is it in your brains ... that makes your first thoughts be "he's having sex with children" ... to be honest, it sounds like people are closet-pedofiles themselves. It's their very first thought.

Can't imagine what would make us think that.......

Could it be that he openly admitted to sharing his bed with children on the Bashir documentary?

Is it the many accounts of him giving alcohol to children?

Is it the things found in the ranch after his death? (seriously, Google this, and then see if you disagree)

Is it the list of kids whose families he paid off to stay quiet?

Heck, just go here....
www.thesmokinggun.com...

Originally posted by Gazrok
There have been others...

Look at Woody Allen....not only is he a pedophile, but basically incest as well! (his own adopted step-daughter)!!!

Just as baffling (and even more accepted) as MJ.

Roman Polanski is another....

There's much more than smoke on the MJ fire....it's a frickin' bonfire....even in his own words (and his ranch is a pedo checklist for godsakes!)

edit on 1-7-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)

When it comes to Woody Allen, his name and likeness are familiar to most, and the point that he's associated somehow with movies is usually known, but that's about the extent of common knowledge about him.

As for Roman Polanski, run that name by most folks and ask what they know about him, and all you'll get is a blank stare.

These guys just aren't examples to use.

reply to post by okayimhere


I have to think 9 out of 10 people would know who Woody Allen is. On Polanski, maybe 2 out of 100? No doubt MJ is the most well known, but Woody Allen is probably more "accepted" than MJ was. Before his death, MJ could pretty much forget about touring in America...

Woody Allen is STILL respected in Hollywood, despite the scandal. This is probably because the official line is that their relationship started when she was 19, but since he had allegations regarding others in the single digits, and the gal was 8 or 9 when adopted....a pretty safe bet this was started WAY sooner.

Luckily, Polanski would still be arrested if he came to the US, so he doesn't. (if I am remembering right).

reply to post by Gazrok


In specific regards to the intent of the OP, comparing Woody Allen to Michael Jackson is like putting a pond beside an ocean. It's just a laughable comparison, really.

I labeled Michael Jackson as society's first openly accepted pedophile, for the following reasons:

• He is universally known; he's a household name throughout the world.
  
• People know all about him; he isn't just a name that people have heard. The familiarity that people have with him is exceedingly great.
  
• He is universally admired and adored for his specific celebrity (his music).
  
• He is universally admired and adored on the personal level, as an individual.
  
• His many and numerous alleged inappropriate interactions with young boys, which have been continuously brought forward from a plethora of sources over the course of years and years, are common knowledge; there is no one that is unaware of this.
  
• Even now, years after his death, evidence against him is still continuing to surface; but even without anything new popping up, it has been generally assumed amongst the general public in society for years that there is more than sufficient cause to believe that the allegations against him are true.
  
• In spite of this, he is still loved; the unconditional acceptance and adoration given to him is practically unending.
  

Therefore, in considering these things and more, I feel that MJ is the genuinely the first openly accepted pedophile in society. Certainly there isn't any other individual who an intelligent argument can be made for. Woody Allen? It's hard to believe you're even serious. Polanski? ...

Michael Jackson was a pedophile, and people knew it. The world... knew it. But they loved him anyway.

reply to post by superman2012


Had to star that, had me chuckling, Love the Billy Jean part where he says of course she wasn't your lover, she had a vagina and was over the age of 12. ROFLMAO!

reply to post by okayimhere


Where I disagree, is that people who love him generally don't believe the allegations (which you can see just by some posts in this thread!). Despite all the evidence to the contrary, they insist he is innocent. It isn't like his fans say, "I don't care what he did, we love him anyways." Instead, they defend him.

With Woody Allen, you can't disagree, as he's married to her! His fans know it, accept it, but simply don't talk about it. So, he is more "accepted" as what he is (a creepy pedo). Whereas MJ's fans are just in denial. So yes, Woody is the first openly accepted pedo. It isn't about who is more famous....and many would argue Allen is at least a B Lister, and certainly wouldn't deny he's a celebrity. Your OP is about first open acceptance. Allen's scandal broke in 1992, MJ's in 1993. Woody had very little backlash, MJ went through a horrible period in the press during the whole mess (and even after all the payoffs, etc. was more relegated to International tours, etc.). One of the first, yes....THE first? No.

Originally posted by Gazrok
It isn't like his fans say, "I don't care what he did, we love him anyways."

You somehow managed to miss this interesting contribution, made earlier by calstorm, which directly invalidates the argument you're trying to make:

Originally posted by calstorm
I have heard people straight out say that it doesn't matter, what matters was his music.That really bothers me.

MJ has fans who blatantly do not care about the allegations, nor about the validity of them. They accept and love the man, regardless. His music trumps whatever personal failings that he has, in the minds of so many; hence, the acceptance.

That being said, as I have pointed out previously in the thread, there are also legions of MJ fans who do not believe the allegations and who refuse to even so much as read any negative press about the man. They are blindly, stupidly loyal to him, and they won't risk their view of him being tarnished -- not for anything.

Either way you slice it, the title fits.

I don't wish to continue this argument with you, as I simply don't feel that you have one. You are welcome to your differing viewpoint.

reply to post by okayimhere

Try reading this thread:

Was Michael Jackson Framed? by Mary A. Fischer GQ magazine

He wasn't a pedo.

peace

No article is going to invalidate the man's own words....
He is a TEXTBOOK pedo. Look up any pedo warning sign checklist, and you'll check off every item!

I have heard people straight out say that it doesn't matter, what matters was his music.That really bothers me.

People are accepting his MUSIC, not him as a person.

Your argument is that society accepts his pedophilia. They do not. They acknowledge the legacy of his music. Those fans that do love him as a person, deny he did those things. However, they (society) DO accept Woody's, as he is still a sought-after director and producer in Hollywood, despite the fact people KNOW what he did.

I don't wish to continue this argument with you, as I simply don't feel that you have one. You are welcome to your differing viewpoint.

Fair enough, we'll agree to disagree...

Originally posted by Gazrok
Your argument is that society accepts his pedophilia. They do not.

My God man, you are one argumentative guy, aren't you? Enough already. You very obviously enjoy endless debating; I, however, do not. I hope that in the future, if I make further threads and you want to give your input, that you'll share your thoughts and say your peace within a few comments, like a normal person.

The way you've continuously sought to keep this endless hashing back and forth going has me wishing I could pull you through my monitor and jack your jaw. It's irritating. I wouldn't go in someone's thread and continuously bait them to this extent; it's absurd.

I can't handle people like you. You don't even know how annoying you are.

Originally posted by Gazrok
Fair enough, we'll agree to disagree...

Okay!

reply to post by okayimhere


I just debated the topic, countered the points, and all without criticizing, mocking your points, name calling, or insulting you (or threatening violence). I apologize for disagreeing with your position. If you don't want to encourage debate, please state it earlier, and I'm sure most will respect the wish (though if all they can do is agree, you may not get much contribution). We both agreed to disagree, so not sure why all the ire.

You have your position, I have mine, we stated our points, it's all good. It's just a Chit-Chat forum. Relax...

Well, so many of the Hollyweird types are just too "off the beam" in so many ways it is hard to admire them on any level. Being a "pedo" is just wrong no matter what! Those that say Mj was not a pedo...regardless, I never did "dig" on his odd "ways'. Him and several other singers that constantly have to grab their "junk" while singing/performing, to my way of thinking, have to have a screw loose anyhow. If they wanna sing, then sing...don't "play with yourself" in front of children or anyone in the audience. If folks wanna see that kinda dealy...go rent porno flicks or something.

What logical reason is there to have to touch ones genitals while performing? Do they itch or something? If so...eeeew...go get a check up and some cream from the Docs. Geez, just because some hollywood types are geniuses at what they do is no excuse either...to act like pedos or act out relevant to "off" kinda behavior. Even women performers do it...hence, Madonna and that Lady Gag or GaGa or whatever. They just make me wanna puke or gag. That isn't entertaining...all that grabbing their frontal areas...that is exhibitionism and sicko stuff. Seems I remember even puppets on kiddie shows doin such anymore. Yuck! Wanna grab yer junk, go in the bathroom by yourself and don't do it in front of millions. Whether some are true pedos or not, ya gotta feel like and wonder that they are "pervs" of some kind. May as well just go watch cats/dogs in heat already and get it over with...same-o, same-o. Groddy to the Max!!

Originally posted by Gazrok
You have your position, I have mine, we stated our points, it's all good. It's just a Chit-Chat forum. Relax...

If the case were simply that, then I wouldn't have had a problem. My issue is not with you disagreeing with me, and I believe you're intelligent enough to understand and realize that.

reply to post by shrevegal


Yeah, I don't care for all of the crotch grabbing, either.

I'm not sure how or why that ever became a 'dance move.' It's an obscene gesture, not a dance move. It has gotten worse. From what I understand, modern forms of dancing have spiraled so far downhill that the only way things could be nastier is if people stripped nude and performed sexual acts.

It's simple. Those moves (whether by MJ, Madonna, or Lady Gaga, etc.) get people TALKING about the performance. All buzz is good buzz. That kind of thing. People talk about it, sales go up, so do their bank accounts (and their ego). Either way, it's a win-win all over a little obscene gesture. Distasteful to be sure. You probably aren't far off on the nudity thing. Just look at the Superbowl stunt with JT and Janet Jackson. Remember the buzz about that. But, people were talking about it...

reply to post by Gazrok

Hi Gazrok, unfortunate, but true, what you say....I always feel like when a performer has to resort to those kind of tactics, that perhaps their "talents" aren't that good to begin with...hence, the obscene "moves". While folks are paying attention to all of that...they may not be noticing how much the persons performance truly stinks. I suppose, in that regard, the idea of doing such is a smart move, (pun intended), from a business stand point...to heck with how youngsters in the audience are influenced or "brought down" a few notches relevant to their moral outlook. Is sickening. There are a few talented performers that do resort to such...is still not cool.

Everything is about money and greed and people of low moral fiber soak it up. They just don't care as long as they get noticed and talked about....to a performer, even "bad press" is "good" for them/to them. It gets them noticed and hence, more job offers....sick arse dealy all the way around.

PS. Yikes, I didn't mean to come across as sounding like some prudish ole biddie, I don't hate men and am not against their "nether regions" and such...it is just when kids are subject to it...tho, I guess that is an excercise in futility as they teach alternative lifestyles and all of that in some schools nowadays. I don't hate folks of alternative lifestyles either...just wouldn't like seeing them do a "show" in front of kids.

It is what it is, I guess. I wouldn't run screaming into the streets if a "cop" in breakaway duds dances at a bacholerette party, I suppose. Didn't mean to go sorta off topic there...it is sorta on topic in a way maybe?