Michael Jackson New Record

Gotta stand by what I said. If you're offended, then you shouldn't be entrusted to care for any children.

Doesn't have anything to do with trust. If you have kids, you would know their well being is paramount to anything else you do. Letting an adult sleep with them is something no good parent would ever let happen.

If you were willing to let your young kids sleep with an adult because you trust him, maybe you should be in jail along with him. On second thought, no MAYBE, you definitely should be in jail.
 
bobw said:
If you were willing to let your young kids sleep with an adult because you trust him, maybe you should be in jail along with him. On second thought, no MAYBE, you definitely should be in jail.
Click to expand...

Does this mean (hypothetically) that letting my young son sleep in the same bed with a close family friend is bad or wrong?

We don't know the relationships that these people had with Jacko. We're assuming that the children are the only ones who knew Jacko personally and the parents just dropped them off, kind of like summer camp. Hell, we don't even know the relationship the kids had with Jacko prior to the accusations.

Cory Feldman knew Jacko personally for many years growing up, and spent many nights at Neverland Ranch. Nothing ever happened. There are plenty of people that spent the night at Neverland Ranch and had nothing but great memories to bring back with them.

Also, I heard on the news the other day that the accuser's father was trying to regain custody of the child because of the behavior of the mother prior to the Jacko inciden -- she was known to have done things similar to this in the past to try and extort money and is even accused of being a little nutty. Now, this could all be a load of crap, but hey -- you gotta take it into consideration.
 
bobw said:
Gotta stand by what I said. If you're offended, then you shouldn't be entrusted to care for any children.

Doesn't have anything to do with trust. If you have kids, you would know their well being is paramount to anything else you do. Letting an adult sleep with them is something no good parent would ever let happen.

If you were willing to let your young kids sleep with an adult because you trust him, maybe you should be in jail along with him. On second thought, no MAYBE, you definitely should be in jail.
Click to expand...

Bob, did you watch "Finding Nemo"?
Give it a try, you will learn a lot! ;)
No seriously, you are disappointing me. A man in your age with such a tunnel view is very surprising to me.
There are billions of ppl out there paying for nannies. Only the lucky ones can say, they trust their nannies. Guess if you were the law, billion of ppl would be arrested.
This is not realistical, Bob.
I am not trying to pay you back with this post. But your point of view is far away from realism.
Once I read an article about some ppl who grew up "with movies". Movies always make it very obvious whether one is bad guy or one is good guy. Such ppl tend to confuse movie and life. They tend to judge too quickly on bad and good guys in real life. If I were you, I would call you to be such a person, but I don't since I don't know you good enough to judge on this. As less as you know Michael. So, why do you judge on him? Why do you judge on me?
 
This is true, and something that I've been wanting to say for quite a while... no one knows here for sure what Jacko did or didn't do. But the general consensus seems to be, "lock the bastard up!" This just isn't rational or sane thinking. Sure, we suspect him of something -- but suspecting something isn't enough to go on. I would feel better if the general consensus was, "Lock him up IF he did it!" but not even that comes through here.

We know next to nothing about what happened, yet we sit here and condemn the man before he even has a trial. We're condemning him on his lifestyle... his weirdness... his popularity... all these things EXCEPT for the facts of what happened.

What if your clean-cut, nice neighbor was accused of this? Would you be so quick to suggest jailtime without knowing what even went on? I think the people here are using Jacko's fame to condemn him, and that's just wrong. You may say, "Hey, money buys freedom and fame influences juries," but you know that thinking that way is wrong, that justice shouldn't be that way, yet you propagate and nurture that line of thinking by accepting it as the norm.
 
I don't recall ever saying that the guy should be locked up without proof...the general thrust of my argument is that children don't need to be in Jackson's bed at all. Why should they be? It doesn't benefit them and as I already stated, there are a million ways to make a child happy other than going to Jacksons house!
 
No, I don't recall you doing that but another poster did suggest that Jacko, in general, should be "put in the general popultion of a prison for a while." And while its true that children do not NEED to be in Jacko's bed, there are a lot of things that children do not need that still happens every day without question. Children do not need PlayStation 2. Children do not need candy bards and soda. Children do not need designer clothes. Would you deny your child a trip to Disney World because there are other ways to make him just as happy? It's DISNEY WORLD, for crying out loud! It's MICHAEL JACKSON, for crying out loud! For some things there are no substitute, and I'm not saying that the child couldn't be just as happy doing something else. It's like if the Rolling Stones (or, insert favorite band here) came to perform a concert in your hometown... would you pass on tickets because there are other things that could make you just as happy as seeing the Stones?

And sure, children do not need to sleep in beds other than their own, but they do it -- it's called sleepovers. Now, whether or not they should be having sleepovers with a man in his forties is another question -- but its not out of the question. Age is only a number, and I think that's proven by Jacko and his childish ways. Ever seen an interview with him? He's quite clearly a child in his own mind. That doesn't justify him having sleepovers with children who are of a child's age, but it doesn't make it wrong or illegal -- just questionable, and questioning someone's behavior does not automatically incriminate him.

These parents knew that the children would obviously be sleeping in close proximity to Jacko -- they knew it 10 years ago when someone else charged him, and I'll be damned if these parents didn't know about THAT incident when they were making the decision of whether or not to let their children go over to Neverland Ranch. Charging someone with something doesn't mean they did it, nor should it carry a negative connotation with it until guilt or innocence I was charged with something I didn't do years ago and was proven innocent by a jury -- should people call me a lawbreaker or a bad person because I was simply charged with something? I should hope not.
 
Anyone who thinks like this should not have any children or be allowed near a child.[/QUOTE]

Well, there have been cases of doctors, teachers and priests abusing children more frequently than we've actually heard about Jackson abusing children, so by your own definition if you are willing to trust one of these people, you should not be allowed near a child. Same logic.

The big question is does actually sleeping in the same bed as a child or children constitute being a sex offender? I believe it doesn't.

People are so opinionated and convinced that their opinion is right. Whether you would let your children sleep in a 40 year old strangers bed isn't the question. It may be morraly wrong, and I can't say I'd allow it myself unless I knew the bloke. That's not the point though, and he shouldn't be condemned with personal opinions on what is right or wrong. If he only slept in the same bed as children that's fine. If he actually abused the children, and somehow this is proved, lock him up forever and throw away the key.
 
I'm leaving it at that everone, said all I have to say and remain unconvinced. The arguments in defense of this guy's behaviour are getting too bizarre,putting everday events such as children eating sweets and playing a playstation game in the same context as spending the night in Jackson's bed is something I have difficulty with. Comparing the attractions of Disney World to Jackson's ranch doesn't make sense either. Jackson was a musician at one stage, what is he now? Disneyworld is a publicly accessible place and I'm fairly sure the owners don't invite children into their beds. I'm not hysterical, far from it, but people have been making all kinds of excuses for him. I really have difficulty getting past the admission that he has these sleepovers. I'm open minded up to a point but that behavior crosses my own (and the majority of people's) moral line. That is not being opinionated. Somebody mentioned that they also felt Jackson's behaviour is morally wrong. The law does not provide the same guidance as your own morality. Laws are based on collective morality and do not cover every aspect of life. It is entirely possible to treat someone badly/cheat them/mislead them without falling foul of the law. Living life according to the strict letter of the law wouldn't work. Society would collapse. That's why I would see Jackson's behaviour as morally wrong and also a warning sign. Like it or not he does exemplify many of the traits of a paedophile. I don't know if he is or not but I know the behaviour is worrying. I question the motives of the parents and Jackson as I don't believe the children benefit at all. If Jackson is trying to bring some happiness into the lives of these children why not pay for them and their families to go to Disneyworld? Also as far as I know he was never found innocent of any charges because he settled out of court. Thanks for a good discussion everyone.
 
I can't believe any of you actually think it is morally okay for Jacko to sleep in the same bed as a child, even one of 13. It would be fine if they played games, went on a trip, or whatever, but sleeping in the same bed has too much potential for sexual abuse. I mean, when someone says two people slept together, what does that mean? Usually it means they did more than just sleep next to each other; usually it means they had sex. Do you want Jacko having sex with children? Then why should he be allowed to sleep with children?
 
Arden said:
I can't believe any of you actually think it is morally okay for Jacko to sleep in the same bed as a child, even one of 13. It would be fine if they played games, went on a trip, or whatever, but sleeping in the same bed has too much potential for sexual abuse. I mean, when someone says two people slept together, what does that mean? Usually it means they did more than just sleep next to each other; usually it means they had sex. Do you want Jacko having sex with children? Then why should he be allowed to sleep with children?
Click to expand...

That's the problem why you can't believe some of us think it is morally ok. Sleeping in the same bed as a child can mean sexual abuse BUT also some kind of heavy welfare. Just generally spoken. Now ppl start with this:
ok, parents or very close friends/relatives sleeping in a childs bed = welfare
strangers sleeping in a childs bed = sexual abuse
I agree to this! But now, where does Jacko belong to? For the most probably to the stranger. And for the rest to very close friends.
And this is the current problem. There is no need to discuss about the thing: he is sleeping with the children. I believe Mother Teresa was sleeping with many children in the same bed. And what do ppl think of her? She is a wonderful person full off welfare. She is a stranger to all those children, but still many many ppl trust her. And now keep the trust and exchange Mother Teresa with Jacko and you might have more understanding for those ppl.
I am not comparing Michael to Mother Teresa! God forbid! Just trying to reduce the problem to its core! And this is trust.
So, it is really not about the sleeping in the same bed. It is more: how can ppl think of Jacko as a very very close friend and "present" their children to him? How can they trust this man/stranger?
 
Arden said:
I have no idea... they must be stupid.
Click to expand...

I don't know how some ppl trust Bush. But I don't dare to call them stupid. ;)

I hope no one will comment my line like this: But no one lets his/her children sleep in the same bed like Bush. We are away from this sleeping_in_the_same_bed thing and hopefully understood the question is about trusting a stranger.
 
Well sure, I'd trust a perfect stranger for some things, but not for others. There are many fine lines, and crossing the sleeping-with-children one is going too far.

And I don't know how people trust Bush either. And I wouldn't hesitate to call them stupid, confused, self-centered, or big-businessmen.
 
As lilbandit tries to bring the conversation to an end, I'll try to do the same, as far as my own opinion is concerned.

I do follow BobW and others when they say that having an adult sleeping with a child - read: next to a child - is a highly suspicious thing. I also back up the people who think that, when it comes to a pop star or a public personality, the image given to public opinion is even worse.

However, I would like to warn everyone about a fact: nothing is yet proved. Michael Jackson has not admitted anything, nor has the court proved a sexual relation supervened. I therefore recommend respect of an essential component of justice, presumption of innocence.

Why do I clutch so hard to it ? Because I emphatically imagine I could, one day, be the target of such accusations. Me or anyone, any individual. The court may prove there has been sexual intercourse, in which case the public opinion trial was right. HOWEVER, and I emphasize my sayings here, if the accusations are proved wrong, if it were all but truth, if this affair is just one more rumour, then an individual will see his name stained by a public Salem pedohunt, which is properly inacceptable.

On such grounds, some laws forbid the press (in UK, but also in France) to publish information on trials that are not yet ended. I would like to see this principle that I call "carefullness towards information", or more simply "beware of rumors even if you consider them as higly probable", definitely applied.

That said, back to Arthur Miller and John Rawls :D
 
Arden said:
I mean, when someone says two people slept together, what does that mean? Usually it means they did more than just sleep next to each other; usually it means they had sex.
Click to expand...

Not if you wake up to the smell of feet fully clothed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top