The verdict is in! Michael Jackson is . . . . . . . . NOT GUILTY!

by nicolaou 138 Replies latest social current

  • nicolaou
    nicolaou

    I didn't rewrite anything. Here's a straight cut & paste, I'm happy to let the words speak for themselves.


    144001

    Re: Re: The verdict is in! Michael Jackson is . . . . . . . . NOT GUILTY


    Post 486 of 494
    since 24-Jun-02

    "I am just afraid of the precedence that has been set with this decision. From now on it is OK for an adult to let minor children sleep with them because MJ did it."



    IP: NzZmQcZFBVq3LB37 13-Jun-05 23:41 Jun 13, 2005 by 144001: Correct formatting
    nicolaouRe: The verdict is in! Michael Jackson is . . . . . . . . NOT GUILTY!


    Post 1293 of 1299
    since 12-Feb-01





    It has always been ok for adults to sleep with minor children
    Excuse me?!!
    IP: nuL5UaQrKTMckL3q
    144001Re: Re: The verdict is in! Michael Jackson is . . . . . . . . NOT GUILTY


    Post 487 of 494
    since 24-Jun-02

    Nicolao, Are you disagreeing on that point? Can you cite any legal authority to support your position?
    IP: NzZmQcZFBVq3LB37
    nicolaouRe: The verdict is in! Michael Jackson is . . . . . . . . NOT GUILTY!


    Post 1294 of 1299
    since 12-Feb-01





    Legal authority my arse! Are you saying it would be "ok" for me to let my 11 year old child sleep with a 46 year old man? Get a grip man!
    IP: nuL5UaQrKTMckL3q
  • hillbilly
    hillbilly

    Nic... the issue is that YOU dont feel up your nephews nasty bits....Micheal Jackson would. Apples and oranges.

    Again...the People of California, especially LA county are getting gyped by the County Prosecutors office. They just don't 'git er done'.........

    ~Hill

  • nicolaou
    nicolaou
    Micheal Jackson would

    Actually I don't think Michael Jackson did, and I'm happy to accept the verdict of the court, though of course they and I could be wrong. My issue is with the propriety of a grown man inviting children into his bed.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Nic:

    Ross, why do you and I keep doing this? (y'big Scottish lug)

    Dunno, but it's fun, innit

    Showing affection to children is not only proper, it is vital.

    I agree, taking onboard all the examples you suggest.

    I might cuddle my brothers children - even fall asleep with them on the sofa - but I would never invite them into my bed!

    It sounds like you are creating culturally imposed lines. Something is ok in one situation, but not in another? You evidently don't have any difficulty going to sleep with children, but somehow the room in the house that your bed occupies is sacrosanct. In a number of cultures there is no such distinction.
    Is that truly "conscience"? Let me propose a scenario. You visit a sibling and are staying for the night and are given one of the children's beds. At 6am you're woken by the intrusion of a dozey little visitor - the owner of the bed, who made a wrong the usual turn, when returning to bed. Do you kick the child out? I wholey accept that in our day and age it's not prudent, especially with those not of one's own family. I honestly can't get my head around MJ doing that. I just have difficulty appealing to "conscience" as a valid restraint - "social mores" leading to increased security for kids, yes; but conscience, no.

  • nicolaou
    nicolaou

    Truthfully Ross, I do think that "the room in the house that [my] bed occupies" is different from any other. It's where my wife and I go, we close the door and . . . . .

    Am I "creating culturally imposed lines"? 'Spose so - why is that a bad thing again? I think it all boils down to common sense. I like your example of the 'dozy little visitor' and no, of course I wouldn't kick him out - if my wife were also there. Otherwise I'd probably let him sleep and go kip on the sofa while muttering about 'bloody kids' under my breath.

    I always sleep naked, would it be okay for me to stay in the bed with the little guy or should I put shorts on? If I'm an honest guy and not going to abuse anyway why would it make any difference?

    See the minefield that ensues when there are no clear lines.

  • hillbilly
    hillbilly

    Nic.... I think the only thing we disagree over is the amount of perversion Mr Jackson is capable of.

    Good day sir.

    ~Hill

  • 144001
    144001
    This case did not set any precedents whatsoever, at least not yet. It has always been ok for adults to sleep with minor children; it is lewd acts by adults with minors that are illegal. In this case, the jury found that the prosecution did not carry its burden of proving that MJ had engaged in lewd conduct with his minor accuser.

    Nicolaou,

    Read the post you responded to, again. I think it's extremely clear that the issue I'm commenting on here is the legality of sleeping in the same bed with minor children. Your dishonest effort to change this into a debate about morals is pure bullshit.

  • nicolaou
    nicolaou

    sigh

    I think it's extremely clear that the issue I'm commenting on here is the legality of sleeping in the same bed with minor children.

    Agreed. I never questioned your take on this issue. I only asserted that my response was not whether the action was lawful but whether it was 'ok' as you had so stated.

    Concerning my comments you wrote; "You challenged my statements concerning the legality of it". I did not - show me where I did. Again, I refer you to the comments we both made and which are reproduced above.

    Respectfully,

    Nic'

    Hillbilly: It's okay to disagree - peace to you man.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Nic:

    Truthfully Ross, I do think that "the room in the house that [my] bed occupies" is different from any other. It's where my wife and I go, we close the door and . . . . .

    It's surely different because you make it so.

    If the exact same room had only a computer desk and chair in it, it would be nothing special. Only when we attach emotional significance to a "personal space" as being distinctly for intimate purposes, does it's change status.
    I guess I would have to ask the question (to bring this back on topic): does MJ see his bed in this light? I honestly can't answer that - the guy appears to be a total screwball. However, on the count of molestation in this instance, his name was cleared.

    Am I "creating culturally imposed lines"? 'Spose so - why is that a bad thing again?

    Please don't get me wrong. I completely agree with the idea of such artificial boundaries, especially in our paranoid age. I also know that there's a safeguard in it, given that there are predators in the world.

    I think it all boils down to common sense.

    Alas, common sense isn't all that common

    I always sleep naked ... should I put shorts on?

    Likewise, though I wear shorts when visiting family with children, as I know they can exhuberantly charge into a room when they're wide awake in the morning!

    If I'm an honest guy and not going to abuse anyway why would it make any difference?

    It actually shouldn't, as can be seen in some cultures, but we do have such inhibitions. I sometimes wonder how much of that is encultured, though. This comes back to the crux of my argument about conscience. It also has a bearing on MJ's perspective in all of this.

    See the minefield that ensues when there are no clear lines.

    No, I'm afraid I don't. I think that's a slippery slope fallacy.

    It's similar to the one that states that homosexuals are paedophiles. The bottom line is that paedophiles are paedophiles, and it has no direct bearing on whether or not someone is heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual or asexual.
    Taking an absolute extreme example: I believe that most people would not abuse a child, even if they were to spend even night sharing a bed in a naked state. MJ expressed that the idea was abhorent to him, also. I wouldn't want to take the chance, if I had kids, though. Personally I just don't understand the parents involved in the MJ case, at all!

  • nicolaou
    nicolaou

    Ooooh Ross, my friend, let's just clear one thing up very quickly.

    When I spoke of the 'minefield' I did not mean to suggest that sleeping naked with a child was a slippery slope that would lead to anything else. Your reasoning on this is sound and I agree with your reasoning on sexuality.

    What I meant was that not having clear lines in such circumstances can lead to misunderstandings, questions that can damage reputations when no wrong was done, perceptions that are innacurate and so on.

    I do believe that such clearly defined boundaries are beneficial for children and adults and would not impede the natural, wholesome display of love and affection that we all need. That's all.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit