He was clearly quite a peculiar person, but who isn't? According to his Wikipedia page:
Quote:
On June 25, 2009, Jackson reportedly passed away after suffering a cardiac arrest. While en route to the UCLA Medical Center, Jackson apparently stopped breathing. Jackson was originally reported in a coma but other sources pointed out that Jackson died. He died with his family surrounding him.
So here I have dedicated a thread to him! Along with my favourite song by Michael Jackson ...
Rest in peace!
__________________
The man who comes back through the Door in the Wall will never be quite the same as the man who went out.
Last edited by Wildhoney : 06-25-2009 at 11:50 PM.
I never believed he committed any of those awful crimes relating to the children. I think he was still young at heart, and related better to children than to adults. Clearly a very lonely person.
But then again, beliefs, as we know, can be wrong. I really don't know. But I've never spoken bad about him because there is no conclusive proof that he did anything.
I know one thing, there are too many people with money as their priority, and so naturally many people wanted his money. I find it peculiar how money influenced several of the cases. If your child has been molested, then justice is what you should be seeking, not monetary rewards. No? If not, that's some inept parent.
I never listened to his music, either. Apart from the Earth Song above !
__________________
The man who comes back through the Door in the Wall will never be quite the same as the man who went out.
I could care less, I don't like his music and I'm not about to feel sad at the death of a child rapist.
Same, I have only been around for 17 years and in those times I've seen his past performances (semi-good for the era I think) and the multiple stories on his "activities". I have built my ideology of him based on those, it may not be right but its all I've known.
But then again, beliefs, as we know, can be wrong. I really don't know. But I've never spoken bad about him because there is no conclusive proof that he did anything.
The stuff you named was basically the reasonable doubts the jury found, but Jackson's behavior is enough to convince me that he did it. The sleepovers and stuff just aren't normal.
I help out in a boy scouts like program, there are strict (although fairly obvious) guidelines we follow. We don't go into rooms alone with a single boy, when camping we do not go in the tents that they are sleeping in (in case of emergency we have to leave the tent open and have another there) and things of the sort. Violating these regulations are signs of abuse, Jackson's actions would make the people who enforce these rules go nuts if he were working with boys from this group.
The stuff you named was basically the reasonable doubts the jury found, but Jackson's behavior is enough to convince me that he did it. The sleepovers and stuff just aren't normal.
I can see both points mj should have never really had sleep overs with young kids no matter what the case was, but you can not really say he molested anyone when their is not 100% proof.
You can not put him in jail for it, but you can be convinced that someone did something. As my criminal justice teacher put it: "The courts do not determine if they did a crime or not, they determine if there is enough evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that they did a crime". She was a prosecutor for 25 years.
Its too bad that he died because he was a talented person and i believe he made a lot of people happy or entertained with his music. Something that I guess isnt really easy to do.
All that I can say about the molestation charges is that I was not there so I cannot judge. And even if youd apply probability here, its just as possible that he did molest the kids or that the kids parents really just wanted something out of it or some other third party interest got mixed into it.
"Innocent until proven guilty", this exists for a good reason right?
What about the people that has been put in jail only to find out a few years later that they never committed any crimes and they were convicted because of "evidence" and they were convinced that they did something wrong?, i mean the only people that knows for sure is MJ did anything is him and the kid.
The kid is the only one who truly knows, but it does not render Jackson free of logical deduction. He may not have done it, but his actions are enough to convince me that he did.
I agree that some of the stuff that he has done is kinda weird but you can not base who someone is by how they act.
How else are you supposed to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by knight13
And honestly you can not really tell if someone is a child molester by the way they act because if that was the case lots of people would be thought of as child molesters.
If I meet an adult who has children over for sleepovers I would suspect him.....
Good point, Knight. A couple of years ago I did a lot of research on Ted Bundy, and in fact even when he was convicted, nobody believed he could have been capable of it. And that the authorities had captured the wrong man.
Appearances can be ever so deceiving.
Although I would suspect somebody to be some way or another, I would never dream of labelling them as such purely based on suspicion and belief. There are certain things we as humans use to judge what is normal and abnormal based on our VERY narrow, and predominantly subjective beliefs of what constitutes normality.
I am sure we can all agree that Michael Jackson was abnormal, as I mentioned in my original post, but to go from abnormality to being labelled as a child molester? Big, BIG step and of course very dangerous and damaging.
Suspicions (And of course the curiosity that engenders), however, are natural and quite healthy, as they allow us to discover the truth of a matter if we're so inclined.
__________________
The man who comes back through the Door in the Wall will never be quite the same as the man who went out.
It is human nature to act good so people perceive you as a better person than you really are, is not human nature to act like a worse person when you really are. When some acts good they very well may be a terrible person, but when some acts bad they normally are. Bad actions are far more reliable than good ones when assessing personality because ulterior motives are always present to act good. I've met people who were charmers up front but terrible people inside, but I've yet to meet someone who was bad upfront and good inside.
While having children over does not conclude that he was a molester, it is enough substance to make me believe the accuser.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildhoney
but to go from abnormality to being labelled as a child molester? Big, BIG step and of course very dangerous and damaging..
Not when the abnormality itself suggests that he is a molester.
It is human nature to act good so people perceive you as a better person than you really are, is not human nature to act like a worse person when you really are. When some acts good they very well may be a terrible person, but when some acts bad they normally are. Bad actions are far more reliable than good ones when assessing personality because ulterior motives are always present to act good. I've met people who were charmers up front but terrible people inside, but I've yet to meet someone who was bad upfront and good inside.
While having children over does not conclude that he was a molester, it is enough substance to make me believe the accuser.
Not when the abnormality itself suggests that he is a molester.
While we will never know in full the events of his life we can assign an 'image' to his persona. (Not to his actual self per say...).
We can take the public facts (verified and unverified) and assign them values of truthfullness then combine those at ones own discretion. The facts are accessible to each one of us. The claims are well established.
All that we can logically do is assert what we believe to be fact against what we believe to by hype. We will never truly know, nor can we be absolute (logically) to one side.
If the world was to assume one angle and disregard the other as hype it would be like declaring George W. Bush a moron, while we may think that he is one we are not able to because after all he could be delving into quantum electrodynamics right now. We can only assign a probabilistic certainty to the situation, but only can that be applied in our mind and others can take our perception into their calculations.
I wish all his family, friends and fans my sympathies for the difficult times ahead and thank Michael for all of the good he had done throughout his short life.
As for VI's stance on the subject, I respect him for his opinion however much I personally disagree with his choices of words and standpoint. If he, or anyone else, chooses to see Michael as a monster, so be it. Personally, I couldn't care less about what Michael was alleged to have done or may have actually done and certainly won't be mourning his passing myself.
And with regards to outwardly "bad" people being inwardly "good", I've lead a fairly sheltered life but even I have known a number of people fitting that description and one or two I have known very well. However one can only judge on their own experiences and VI has every right to believe and state that those people don't exist.
While at the hospital the head nurse there was saying that Michael jackson died because he was given the wrong medication. The one that he took was meant to paralyze your respiratory system. This is only applied in the case when you have the patient already connected to a respirator but never without it - since that will be its effect you will obviously die, even in small doses it can be lethal.
Well, thats whats under investigation he said. Coz youre not supposed to just get these drugs just like that considering its effects. Its used for special circumstances only within a hospital.
Join the friendly bunch on IRC...
Michael Jackson
...
Linear Mode
