Michael Jackson theory...

I know this is in another post, but it got so long I was afraid my genius would get lost. I have a theory as to how this action sprung up....

Here's an article

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/st...

Remember that British documentary that Michael Jackson agreed to but shouldn't have? The little 13 year old cancer boy is the person that is accusing Michael Jackson of molestation. I remember watching that show, and the close up of Michael Jackson and the boy holding hands and thinking 'that kid is going to get his ass kicked as school big time". I believe the boy was tormented at school because of the show and accused of being gay. In his defense he said he was molested. Whether or not the boy was molested, making this documentary was the second worst career move he ever made.

The first bad career move was paying the other kid 25 million. Unless he actually did molest the other kid in which case I guess you could say it bought him some time out of jail.

Now its hard to tell them bullsh*t from the truth. According to the link Michael Jackson apparently hired a mob attorney, there are love letters and videos, and he supposedly may plead insanity.

Time will tell...

Could you comment on how McNaughton would come in to play in a child molestation case (or if it even would)?

It seems to me that Michael doesn''t really have an understanding of right and wrong. He probably is ""insane.""

As long as he''s kept away from all children I really don''t care what they do with him. Insanity works for me if he''ll accept it, struggling for time in a normal prison and then letting him off on a technicality would be much worse. Then there''s the matter of being in a minimum security celebrity prison, at least in an asylum he will be medicated and f*cked with all the time.

Ah the old ""innocent until proven guilty"" crowd stands up for justice again...

"ralcydan" wrote:

Ah the old ""innocent until proven guilty"" crowd stands up for justice again...

Should I preface everything I say with ""If he''s guilty""? Why would I want to send an innocent man to an insane asylum? I was talking about punishment and presumed everyone would understand that it was only if he was convicted.

"Pyroman[FO" wrote:

""]Why would I want to send an innocent man to an insane asylum?

Because he''s not guilty by reason of insanity?

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Because he''s not guilty by reason of insanity?

Damn your logic and facts Rat Boy! Damn them to hell!

Yoink!

Here''s an interesting article:

From Townhall.com

If Michael Jackson did, in fact, as it is alleged, have sex with a minor boy, what''s wrong with that? The question is not meant to be cute; I am serious. If a male child was fondled or sodomized by Michael Jackson, why shouldn''t he and the boy be allowed the orientation of their choice? If you disagree, who are you to impose your morality on them?

Are you outraged by this? Do you think we have gone too far? Not far enough, some say. Yesterday''s unacceptable (divorce, premarital sex, abortion, homosexuality, group sex, domestic partnerships and, soon, same-sex marriage) are today''s acceptable. It''s just a matter of conditioning. Groups exist that promote adult-child sex. Expect an alliance - composed of academics, theologians and cultural commentators - to ram this home through the media, crushing whatever resistance remains.

Nothing shames us. In pursuit of freedom we have embraced license and now licentiousness, throwing off all restraint.

So you''re saying having sex with a child is the same as having sex with an adult?

The difference between an adult gay relationship and pedophilia should be glaringly obvious...

The difference between an adult gay relationship and pedophilia should be glaringly obvious...

Like the difference between heterosexual relationships and homosexual ones used to be ""glaringly obvious""?

As the article correctly notes, it''s all a matter of conditioning. The lines we draw about sexual maturity and appropriateness are all arbitrary. Pedophilia used to be evil. Now it''s a condition. It''s only a matter of time before people argue that it''s a matter of choice, especially when talking about sexually mature adolescents.

By the way, don''t state that the difference is ""glaringly obvious"" - tell us what the difference is. I''ll bet you that we can argue away any logical objection you have to pedophilia, as it relates to young adolescents. And that is the first step to overcoming conditioning that something is wrong, which means that eventually that conditioning will be overcome in society.

The glaringly obvious part is the part where a child should never be put into a situation where an adult is raping them.

When two adults of the same sex decide that they are more attracted to each other than the opposite sex, they make an adult choice. No one is being raped, nor being taken advantage of.

When two adults of the same sex decide that they are more attracted to each other than the opposite sex, they make an adult choice. No one is being raped, nor being taken advantage of.

All right then, here we go...

Define ""adult"".

Define ""adult"".

Hmm... 18 sounds good... no wait, 21! No... how abut 25? Damn, age just isn''t working... Should we add a required military term of service? Ooh, I know! We''ll set up a government agency to administrate ""adultness"". There''ll be a test, and evaluations, and a license you get when you pass!

Even better, we''ll make it so that you have to pass the Adult test(s) in order to have children and get married^H^H^H^H^H^H^H involved in a civil union!

Right. Still waiting, Belt or anyone who wants to say that the difference in the two issues is ""glaringly obvious"".

Define ""adult"", and while you''re at it, define ""rape"".

Ok, an adult in this case is someone who has reached the legal age of consent in that state.

Let me get back to you on a definition of Rape. There are many definitions of rape and we could have a field day with those definitions. I am more than happy to go over them too.

I am taking the next few days off, so I need to do some acutal work at the moment. But don''t worry Ral, I''ll be back for some more on this. I know your on the edge of your seat, waiting for my response...

Ok, an adult in this case is someone who has reached the legal age of consent in that state.

So in other words it is completely arbitrary and Michael Jackson''s heinous, evil crime involving a 14 year-old is probably perfectly legal in another state as long as the 14 year-old went along with it. Not so ""glaringly obvious"" after all...

If we''re sticking with the Jackson case, the accuser (we assume) did not consent to what Michael allegedly did. IF you leave age and blood relation out, the only standard that separates legal from illegal sexual acts is consent, be they heterosexual, homosexual, or equinesexual. So, when belt says:

The difference between an adult gay relationship and pedophilia should be glaringly obvious...

...he is factually accurate. Relationship 9 times out of 10 means consent, and is therefore legal. Pedophilia, obviously, is a crime.

Pedophilia, obviously, is a crime.

Maybe in the Jackson case, but not if - by your logic - the child consents...

And I say ""maybe"" in the Jackson case because intoxication doesn''t automatically equal rape. If two drunk high school seniors have sex, it isn''t necessarily rape, even if the guy got the girl drunk.

If the girl was still 17, then it''d be at least statutory rape, which brands the guy a sex offender for the rest of his life.

As I said, if you left out age and blood relation, the standard of illegality is consent. The child in the Jackson case was 12 when the events allegedly occured. That is well under every state''s standard. Therefore, it was a crime.

If the girl was still 17, then it''d be at least statutory rape, which brands the guy a sex offender for the rest of his life.

Untrue. The age of consent is well below 17 in many states, I think the lowest on the books is 14...

The child in the Jackson case was 12 when the events allegedly occured. That is well under every state''s standard. Therefore, it was a crime.

Technically, I agree. But 12 year-old can be as sexually and intellectually mature as 14 year-olds. Why should sex with one be a crime and the other not?

"ralcydan" wrote:

Untrue. The age of consent is well below 17 in many states, I think the lowest on the books is 14...

In California, at least, the age of consent is 18. I had a friend who was caught trying to get it on with his 17 year-old girlfriend in a car. Cop pulled up, didn''t see any acts, but still made him go back to her house and explain to her parents what he was doing. He''s now an officer in the Marine Corps, by the by.

I have a question, is there any sort of restrictions on these states that have the 14 year-old standards or is it a free for all?

Technically, I agree. But 12 year-old can be as sexually and intellectually mature as 14 year-olds. Why should sex with one be a crime and the other not?

Maybe you should take it up with those states that think that a 14 year old is more intellectually mature than a 12 year old.

"ralcydan" wrote:

So in other words it is completely arbitrary and Michael Jackson''s heinous, evil crime involving a 14 year-old is probably perfectly legal in another state as long as the 14 year-old went along with it. Not so ""glaringly obvious"" after all...

quickly while I wait for this phone call: If a 45 year old man has sex with a 14 year old girl in a state that has the legal consent at 14, technically, it''s not a crime. I didn''t make that rule.

I would still classify this as evil and heinous. JUST as evil and Heinous as if it was a boy, rather than a girl. What I disagree with is the fact that a 45 year old man having sex with another 45 year old man is obviously different than a 45 year old man having sex with a 14 year old boy.

"belt500" wrote:

If a 45 year old man has sex with a 14 year old girl in a state that has the legal consent at 14, technically, it''s not a crime. I didn''t make that rule.

So in other words, your opposition to what you would consider pedophilia is a matter of your opinion, an opinion you admit isn''t shared by at least some others, including the laws of many states. Therefore it should be glaringly obvious that what is glaringly obvious to you is not glaringly obvious to everyone. In fact, there is nothing glaring nor obvious about it.

The various states have various ages of consents. Some young adolescents are more sexually mature at 13 than others are at 19. Some teenagers are more mature and intellectually capable than some 45 year-olds. Meanwhile, the mass media sells sex to adults and children alike, and art, literature, and education all contribute to sexualizing children at a younger and younger age. Nothing you have said indicates to me that one word in the article above is mistaken.

So again, telling me that something is heinous and evil doesn''t tell me why it is. You say it is obvious. Well, a lot of people would tell you that homosexuality is ""obviously"" wrong. How about explaining what you find so wrong about a 45 year-old having sex with a 14 year-old instead of just calling it obvious?

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Maybe you should take it up with those states that think that a 14 year old is more intellectually mature than a 12 year old.

Which is another way of saying, ""I don''t actually have an argument"". Nice to see you''re back to your old self, Rat!

"ralcydan" wrote:

Which is another way of saying, ""I don''t actually have an argument"".

No it isn''t, ral. I find both equally heinous and criminal, which is also the opinion of my state. In fact, no state in the union has 14 as the age of consent anymore. According to this site, South Carolina had the age of 14 as their AoC up until 2002, which was changed to l6 (the site hasn''t been updated; it says the bill is pending). So, I guess you can''t complain about states condoning sex with 14 year olds these days, since they don''t.

And I still see no argument at all.Why is it heinous andwhyshould it be criminal? Did something happen in 2002 that suddenly made it immoral for 14 year-olds to have sex? And since the age of consent is now 16 there, does that mean they are open season for 45 year-olds on the prowl?

"ralcydan" wrote:

And I still see no argument at all.Why is it heinous andwhyshould it be criminal?

It is a matter of opinion. I find it heinous and criminal, that should be necessary for you, since you haven''t stated why you feel one way or the other.

I''m sorry but I''m still back at being very disturbed by Michael Jackson stating how nice it is to have sleep overs with 12 year olds, when he''s 45 years old. Although the following is not a Michael quote, it sure reminds me of Michael and his sleepovers(someone will be able to attribute this I''m sure): ""Gosh my child porn collection, that''s just for research purposes because I find it so very disturbing."" Puh-lease.

Kids who get sexually molested can be pretty psychologically screwed up for life, so bantering around about the niceties of state law is all clever and nice, but the actual consequences of sexual abuse and assault of a child are unforgiveable. Just as a teacher using their position to commit these acts is seen as heinous (even if the child is 16 and the teacher is 25), Jackson using his celebrity status is equally heinous. Maybe when you''re 12 and on your deathbed your dream is to be visited by a celebrity, but I highly doubt that dream includes being molested.

"ralcydan" wrote:

So in other words, your opposition to what you would consider pedophilia is a matter of your opinion, an opinion you admit isn''t shared by at least some others, including the laws of many states.

Nope. I said that I would consider a 45 year old screwing a 14 year old heinous and evil. That''s because my opinion is that a 14 year old is a little too young to give consent (nice to see SC caught up with me ). I never called it pedophilia because, as you said, some states say that an person is able to give consent at age 14. Therefor, the 45yo wouldn''t go to jail. Now, however, it seems the one state, SC, has changed thier mind, and now, yes, a 45 year old screwing a 14 year old (boy or girl) is pedophilia.

Now that it''s 16, I still don''t think it''s right for a 45 year old guy to have sex with a 16yo because it''s creepy and I think that an adult should know better than to try and corrupt a young kid. I''m free to think that, as you are free to think that a man giving man love to another man is creepy. However, where I find the difference is
that a man having sex with another man is not pedophilia.

I don''t care if someone says that Homosexuality is wrong and creepy. Everyone has a right to have an opinion.

What I have a problem with is you equating the two, since, they are not the same. Potentially damaging a child, both physically and mentally bears no resemblance to two adults in love or lust who share it physically.

So again, telling me that something is heinous and evil doesn''t tell me why it is. You say it is obvious. Well, a lot of people would tell you that homosexuality is ""obviously"" wrong. How about explaining what you find so wrong about a 45 year-old having sex with a 14 year-old instead of just calling it obvious?

OK, here''s a few items:
1. I feel that pedophilia is heinous and evil. The reason I feel this way is because a child cannot give consent. If you perform sex acts with no consent, that is Rape. Raping a child=Evil. This is against the law. Hope that one was obvious.

2. I also feel that a 45 year old man having sex with a 16 year old is heinous and evil. My reasoning behind this, as described earlier in my post, is because I don''t feel that a 16 year old is old enough to make an informed decision about sex, especially when the other person is 45 years old...or 25 for that matter. However, in certain states, this is legal, therefore, no jail time. So this falls squarely in the court of MY opinion. You''re right, this one is not as obvious, as someone thinks it''s OK since it''s legal to do it.

3. I don''t think that a grown man/woman having sex with another grown man/woman is heinous or evil. My reasoning behind this is because I don''t think that anyone should be able to tell two grown adults what they can and can''t do with each other in the bedroom. What next, no blowjobs? Whatever will happen to the site ""Gamers with Blowjobs""?!
Plenty of people think that Homosexuality is Heinous and Evil. This falls squarely in the court of THEIR opinion.

The three points are similar in that at least some people think that each one of these things are evil. There are plenty more things that people think are evil but, what is the basis of equating them?

"ralcydan" wrote:

Did something happen in 2002 that suddenly made it immoral for 14 year-olds to have sex? And since the age of consent is now 16 there, does that mean they are open season for 45 year-olds on the prowl?

No.

And, unfortunately in my opinion, yes.

I shouldnt have to explain the difference between what is technically legal and personal morals. There are many layers of morality to everything. The legal layer, the perceived societal morals, general personal morals applied to others, and personal morals you apply to yourself. You can even add another layer for how you expect your family and friends to act vs. general morals for strangers.

Pedophilia is wrong on all layers. Changing the age of consent only tweeks the legal layer. Pedophiles in areas where the age of consent is 14 still have to deal with the societal layer (perceived and real), the non family layer in the imediate surroundings, and the family layer. So despite personal morals and legality, the rest say no.

Homosexuality is much more muddy depending on the society, family and friends. All those can in addition to personal morals and legality be in favor or argued as such.