[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I will also tell you that everyone has a price even if you think you don’t.
[/quote]
I never said that. I’m fully aware that most people have a price, which is why I’m raising an eyebrow at parents who take money to “protect” their kids, then put them right slap bang in the middle of the media glare. Based on that, it seems to me that certain young backsides have a price as well.
For your entertainment, ‘The Great Royboto’ will now attempt a breathtaking feat of mind reading over the internet.
Just by uttering the mystical invocation “Jordy Chandler”, I can tell exactly what you’re thinking. …and that thought is drum roll …" kiddy fiddled by Michael Jackson".
rapturous applause
So much for protecting the victim from embarrassment…
takes bow, swishes cape, exits
Roybot, you’re being obtuse.
A criminal trial is much more than just the potential mere outing of the victim. Of course the media has known for a long time the name of that alleged victim. A criminal trial of that nature with a celebrity is literally a 3 ring circus. It’s not just the victim, but the family of the victim. There are very serious security issues for the family as well inasmuch as his fans were absolutely rabid. Yes, rabid.
In addition, there is the defense’s right to confront the accuser and the prospect of some celebrity (but highly qualified) lawyer, thundering away at your child for inconsistencies for days on end. There is the lost time from work - or what would you do, have your child attend trial alone? I could continue, but I think I’ve painted enough of a picture to illustrate that the decision to “take the money” is not always motivated by “let’s get paid and to hell with justice” and instead motivated by relative risk.
It’s easy to imagine “if it were my kid” and to conjure all the base emotions that go along with that; however, it’s a much different animal to actually be in the situation, dealing with the press, security issues, and the future well-being of your child. And the future well-being of your child MAY NOT include that child being exposed to the trauma of a weeks long trial, the publicity, the threats and the lifelong stigma. You can’t “undo” the abuse.
As for the thought that you’d get him locked up to protect others, that’s fallacious. Just the publication of the claims was enough for any parent-with-a-pulse to have the wherewithal to know that maybe sending little Johnnie for an overnight with creepy Michael Jackson was perhaps NOT the best parenting decision. Even if he were criminally convicted, there would have been still fans and people in denial. For crying out loud, I think you’re forgetting his ass basically FLED to the middle east for a while.
The point is, enough was done to ensure THAT ANY REASONABLE PARENT SHOULD NOT LEAVE THEIR CHILD WITH MICHAEL JACKSON. That aside, I think you’re also forgetting that he almost exclusively plied his trade with children of broken or impoverished families - therefore picking from a pool of parents that were either unsophisticated, uneducated or absent (minded).
My overwhelming point to you is the prospect of putting your minor child thru a months long celebrity trial (or any trial) and all the trauma associated therewith, may NOT be in that child’s best interest. And guess what?
If my choice as a parent is “justice” or “the best interest of my child”, and those two interest are antithetical to each other, guess which option I’m choosing for MY CHILD? Crusaders on a jihad for justice usually have nothing to lose.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Roybot, you’re being obtuse.
A criminal trial is much more than just the potential mere outing of the victim. Of course the media has known for a long time the name of that alleged victim. A criminal trial of that nature with a celebrity is literally a 3 ring circus. It’s not just the victim, but the family of the victim. There are very serious security issues for the family as well inasmuch as his fans were absolutely rabid. Yes, rabid.
In addition, there is the defense’s right to confront the accuser and the prospect of some celebrity (but highly qualified) lawyer, thundering away at your child for inconsistencies for days on end. There is the lost time from work - or what would you do, have your child attend trial alone? I could continue, but I think I’ve painted enough of a picture to illustrate that the decision to “take the money” is not always motivated by “let’s get paid and to hell with justice” and instead motivated by relative risk.
It’s easy to imagine “if it were my kid” [/quote] I didn’t paint that imaginary scenario. [quote]and to conjure all the base emotions that go along with that; however, it’s a much different animal to actually be in the situation, dealing with the press, security issues, and the future well-being of your child. And the future well-being of your child MAY NOT include that child being exposed to the trauma of a weeks long trial, the publicity, the threats and the lifelong stigma. You can’t “undo” the abuse.
As for the thought that you’d get him locked up to protect others, that’s fallacious. [/quote] How so? He won’t have access to kids in prison. It’s simple as that. [quote]
Just the publication of the claims was enough for any parent-with-a-pulse to have the wherewithal to know that maybe sending little Johnnie for an overnight with creepy Michael Jackson was perhaps NOT the best parenting decision. Even if he were criminally convicted, there would have been still fans and people in denial. For crying out loud, I think you’re forgetting his ass basically FLED to the middle east for a while.
The point is, enough was done to ensure THAT ANY REASONABLE PARENT SHOULD NOT LEAVE THEIR CHILD WITH MICHAEL JACKSON. That aside, I think you’re also forgetting that he almost exclusively plied his trade with children of broken or impoverished families - therefore picking from a pool of parents that were either unsophisticated, uneducated or absent (minded).
My overwhelming point to you is the prospect of putting your minor child thru a months long celebrity trial (or any trial) and all the trauma associated therewith, may NOT be in that child’s best interest. And guess what?
If my choice as a parent is “justice” or “the best interest of my child”, and those two interest are antithetical to each other, guess which option I’m choosing for MY CHILD? Crusaders on a jihad for justice usually have nothing to lose. [/quote]
I’m not being obtuse if it’s been claimed that parents did not pursue Jackson to the full extent of the law because they were attempting to protect the reputation of the family, yet the childrens’ names and faces were plastered all over the media. How is that in the best interest of the child? Your profiling of the families Jackson targeted doesn’t support what you said about the families acting in “the best interests of the child”, so there really is no choice between that and justice in this instance (there would be IF the victims had remained faceless and nameless. Since they didn’t, clearly there are other motives at play here)…
“Picking from a pool of parents that were either unsophisticated, uneducated or absent (minded)” suggests to me that they were prime candidates to be bought off. It’s also worth mentioning that many of the kids had showbiz ambitions. There are many, many examples of fame and money-hungry parents fucking their kids over, but more importantly, the parents saw Jackson as a way to fame and fortune for their kids. Why else would they allow their identities to be released? What does that accomplish if privacy was paramount?
Look, no responsible parent would allow their kids to have a “sleepover” with a grown man unless they thought there was something to gain from the arrangement. It’s well known that Jackson was extremely generous with the families and their kids before the allegations surfaced. They were being bought from the start.
you’ve ignored the details of my point, and the entire context. and you’re cherry picking. inasmuch as i have no interest in “winning” tnation internet debates any longer, i shall leave you to your thoughts and opinions with well wishes.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
you’ve ignored the details of my point, and the entire context. and you’re cherry picking. inasmuch as i have no interest in “winning” tnation internet debates any longer, i shall leave you to your thoughts and opinions with well wishes. [/quote]
I have not ignored the details of your point nor am I cherry picking from them when your point hinges on the families not pursuing Jackson due to not wanting to drag the victim’s reputation through the mud… yet everybody knows who the victims are. Jordan Chandler’s name, for those who know of him, will always be synonymous with the Jackson scandal.
I presented my point in a playful manner, but it didn’t undermine the message that Chandler will forever be known as “that kid”, even though he later tried to admit the accusations against Jackson were false…the damage had been done already. Why not pursue Jackson to the end in that event? Securing a jail sentence would not preclude the acquistion of damages in a civil suit…
This completely negates any of the claims that settling for compensation was done to safeguard the child. I’m not interested in “winning” this either. All I ask is that you plug the gaping hole in logic that exists between protecting the child from the world and parading them on its stage for all to see when, by your own admission, the families themselves were not the type to protect the interests of the child in the first place.
If you don’t want to continue the debate that’s fine, but if I state an opinion I will defend it without resorting to prevarication, fallacious arguments, cherry picking or whatever else you deem me guilty of. I take what I see with my own eyes and work backwards, nothing more.
ok. go with God young Roybot (and MJ too).
Ima let yo guys finish, so I’ll just drop this here and leave.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
Michael, and I was a fan, MADE himself an outcast and was unrecognizable in the end. And sleeping with kids not his own? Insert a “bitch please” picture here. Doesn’t mean he did anything sexually with them but dude, that is stupid! Most of my white friends were very quit about it but my black friends collectively ripped him several new assholes for years! he was the ultimate crossover star and adored equally among black, yellow, brown and white and then he does that shit?. He fell from grace because of his behavior involving kids as well as his addiction to plastic surgery. Nobody wanted to tear him apart but when kids are involved do you really expect anything else?
[/quote]
Jacko didn’t have a childhood to speak of. He was thrust into the spotlight from an early age and attempting to fill that void as an adult fed into his obsession with cosmetic surgery and kids. If any of the child abuse allegations were true, then he would have ended up in jail. It would have only taken one set of parents to refuse a pay-off.
If all the accusations were true, then the parents are scum for choosing money over justice. [/quote]
Slippery slope. Not agreeing or disagreeing with you. I can see your point BUT difficult to say what the attorneys of the parents told them. Not easy to convict a man with the popularity and power of Michael Jackson, not to mention what some of the more zealous fans might do if he was convicted. A lot of parents would just want this shit to go away and would not want their kid to relive it during a trial, especially if they are not sure they can get a convinction. And these were not the most stable families to begin with. It is not right, and if it had happened to my son he would have gone to jail but I can see some people taking the money. It is still a scummy thing to do, I agree with you, but I can see it.
The rich and famous get away with shit we can’t. You drive under the influence and see what happens. Paris? a few hours in jail. Halle Barry, hit and run? slap on the fucking wrist. OJ? you can go on and on. Although Martha Stewart had to go for a while…
EDIT: ah, I see Bodyguard addressed this as well and he truly makes a good point. Come to think of it, would I want my son to be known for having had sexual relations with Michael Jackson? That’s going to hound him for a long time. Being abused by a nameless, faceless pervert is one thing, but a famous one? Especially one as famous as MJ? Difficult situation, really difficult.[/quote]
So if you knew that famous face had abused your son, would you allow him to pay his way out or would you expose him and make sure the fucker goes down? This “sparing the child” argument doesn’t wash with me because all the families had the option of withholding the kids’ identities. They were all minors during the time of the alleged assaults, right?
[/quote]
Quite frankly? I would have fucked MJ up beyond recognition and beyond rebuilding. There wouldn’t be enough money in the world for me IF that had happened to my son and I would gladly do the time for it. HOWEVER, I know very people are like me, The Bodyguard is, you it seems like, would do the same, BUT I understand others not to share my particular sense of justice or willingness to sacrifice my life for my kids.
Another thing. You said that the parents had the option to withhold the identities of the kids. You have lived on this planet for a while right?
Some sack of shit will take money from a tabloid and it will get out. Nowadays they are hacking into you phone to get your info. There will be no protecting your kid AT ALL. Neighbors will talk, family will slip up, etc etc.
So, you have to let cooler heads prevail sometimes as well as I would also not want my son to be recognized world wide as the kid that had his dick sucked by MJ. It would follow him for decades and ruin his life. Don’t know if you have kids or not but this would be a nightmare beyond belief for your kid. Bad enough he had to suffer abuse, worse if he could not get away from it anywhere on the planet. There is a difference, in after effects, between being abused by a faceless perve and a very, very famous one.
I don’t really think we are disagreeing all too much, just looking at it from a few angles.
Some of you are being silly. These people were after money from the jump. You don’t accidentally end up at MJ’s house. Do I believe he did anything? I think he was a kid in a man’s body so I think he needed professional help, but no, I don’t think he literally had sex with any kids.
I really don’t understand the " we all have a price" nonsense.
You can’t act like you are protecting your kid if it is all about the Benjamins.
Everyone involved was shady to some degree.
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
Quite frankly? I would have fucked MJ up beyond recognition and beyond rebuilding. There wouldn’t be enough money in the world for me IF that had happened to my son and I would gladly do the time for it. HOWEVER, I know very people are like me, The Bodyguard is, you it seems like, would do the same, BUT I understand others not to share my particular sense of justice or willingness to sacrifice my life for my kids. [/quote]
You should understand then why releasing a child’s identity in the midst of a media frenzy isn’t protecting the child in any way, shape or form.
[quote]
Another thing. You said that the parents had the option to withhold the identities of the kids. You have lived on this planet for a while right?
Some sack of shit will take money from a tabloid and it will get out. Nowadays they are hacking into you phone to get your info. There will be no protecting your kid AT ALL. Neighbors will talk, family will slip up, etc etc. [/quote]
The specifics of the Jackson scandal are that there were no leaks, so speculating on the risk of leaks is just that: speculation. We may as well make all private info public to avoid leaks in the first place, which defeats the purpose of privacy.
Why WAS the decision made to go public if it would ruin the kids’ lives? These aren’t the actions of a protective parent. Stop treating them like they are. Nobody wants to admit it, but at best the parents leeched off a very wealthy, very naive individual, and at worst they screwed their own kids just as vigorously as Jackson did.
The logical reason for releasing the identities of the victims was to raise their profiles. I’m open to alternatives…
You know, I am finding it hard to believe anyone sees those parents as acting in the right. If you don’t want your kids to have to face this all their lives, you don’t put them on national tv. You also don’t leave your kids at someone’s house for a week while accepting all the benefits that come with hanging with MJ, sometimes in relationships that lasted YEARS, and then suddenly a good pay off is all that is needed to repair someone RAPING YOUR KID.
Uh, yeah. That makes sense.
If someone were to rape someone I care about, I find it hard to believe my morals and values can be bought off…unless they were real cheap to start with.
I would love to hear what loving households these kids actually grew up in.
Moot to continue talking really, as I would have never left my kid with him as I never leave my kids with people I barely know. The sleepovers my kids enjoy are with family or very, very close friends. Nowhere else.
Although I do disagree with one thing. Michael is not the innocent little babe you guys make him out to be. He was a shrewd business man who was even able to get his hands on Beatles material before McCartney himself could. There are several other business ventures where he proved to be an excellent business man and made himself a lot of money. Yes he screwed up afterwards but this guys was not an innocent little babe, far from it. that’s just Hollywood spinning that shit.
And how the hell did we start talking about Michael? This is about Whitney, dammit!
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
Moot to continue talking really, as I would have never left my kid with him as I never leave my kids with people I barely know. The sleepovers my kids enjoy are with family or very, very close friends. Nowhere else.
Although I do disagree with one thing. Michael is not the innocent little babe you guys make him out to be. He was a shrewd business man who was even able to get his hands on Beatles material before McCartney himself could. There are several other business ventures where he proved to be an excellent business man and made himself a lot of money. Yes he screwed up afterwards but this guys was not an innocent little babe, far from it. that’s just Hollywood spinning that shit.
[/quote]
Jackson outbid McCartney in the auction. There were no Machiavellian shenanigans other than that McCartney didn’t know Jackson planned to bid for the rights. Heck, McCartney told Jackson about the auction.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
Moot to continue talking really, as I would have never left my kid with him as I never leave my kids with people I barely know. The sleepovers my kids enjoy are with family or very, very close friends. Nowhere else.
Although I do disagree with one thing. Michael is not the innocent little babe you guys make him out to be. He was a shrewd business man who was even able to get his hands on Beatles material before McCartney himself could. There are several other business ventures where he proved to be an excellent business man and made himself a lot of money. Yes he screwed up afterwards but this guys was not an innocent little babe, far from it. that’s just Hollywood spinning that shit.
[/quote]
Jackson outbid McCartney in the auction. There were no Machiavellian shenanigans other than that McCartney didn’t know Jackson planned to bid for the rights. Heck, McCartney told Jackson about the auction.[/quote]
Dude, really? McCartney gave him the friendly advice to invest in something Michael loved, like music. He thought Michael was joking with him when he said:“One day I am going to buy your songs Paul”.
BUT MJ was NOT joking and bought his friends music for 47.5 million. McCartney NEVER spoke to him again.
That man is NOT and innocent little babe.
Now, before you go Google crazy, McCartney was indeed an idiot for letting himself get outbid at all! He was cheap. But it proves another point I made, Michael is very smart. He realized the worth of the songs would increase dramatically, and it did. That portfolio blew up huge!
However, ethically he should not have outbid his friend who was trying to buy his own songs. So like I said, NOT an innocent little babe.
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
Moot to continue talking really, as I would have never left my kid with him as I never leave my kids with people I barely know. The sleepovers my kids enjoy are with family or very, very close friends. Nowhere else.
Although I do disagree with one thing. Michael is not the innocent little babe you guys make him out to be. He was a shrewd business man who was even able to get his hands on Beatles material before McCartney himself could. There are several other business ventures where he proved to be an excellent business man and made himself a lot of money. Yes he screwed up afterwards but this guys was not an innocent little babe, far from it. that’s just Hollywood spinning that shit.
[/quote]
Jackson outbid McCartney in the auction. There were no Machiavellian shenanigans other than that McCartney didn’t know Jackson planned to bid for the rights. Heck, McCartney told Jackson about the auction.[/quote]
Dude, really? McCartney gave him the friendly advice to invest in something Michael loved, like music. He thought Michael was joking with him when he said:“One day I am going to buy your songs Paul”.
BUT MJ was NOT joking and bought his friends music for 47.5 million. McCartney NEVER spoke to him again.
Like I said, NOT and innocent little babe.
Now, before you go Google crazy, McCartney was indeed an idiot for letting himself get outbid at all! He was cheap. But it proves another point I made, Michael is very smart. He realized the worth of the songs would increase dramatically, and it did. That portfolio blew up huge!
However, ethically he should not have outbid his friend who was trying to buy his own songs. So like I said, NOT an innocent little babe.[/quote]
I haven’t gone “Google Crazy” once in this thread. You said that Jackson got his hands on the Beatles song rights “before McCartney himself could” when clearly that wasn’t the case. Now you’re trying to one-up me with increasingly accurate trivia to prolong the argument.
Jackson threw more money at the auctioneer than McCartney. End of story. It doesn’t indicate amazing business savvy when Jackson had more money than he could spend at that time in his career. Of course he knew the music industry well- he grew up in it, but business acumen does not make a sexual predator, if that’s the point you’re trying to make (I don’t see why else you’d bring it up).
The guy grew up in total isolation from the real world. He was NOT worldy-wise.
You are making him sound as if his an innocent, not very smart boy man in most of your posts but I claim he is not innocent and very smart. We have to agree to disagree then. To claim that I say business acumen leads to sexual predatory behavior is so far of the mark I really do not know how to respond further.
in simple terms, I think the guy is not stupid, not retarded in the ways of the world and when he sees something he wants, he goes and gets is. Most of his behavior was an act, most of his friends admitted he was very smart and knew exactly what was going on.
Yes he was damaged and grew up in an odd world of child stars and later on adult super stardom but that does not mean you stay innocent or stupid in the ways of the world. His business savvy proves that, his talent for building a show proves that. And no, that does not make him a sexual predator. Don’t know how you got that from what I said.
By the way, I am not trying to tick you off with continuing the argument. I enjoy your responses whether I agree with them or not
In writing having fun with a discussion does not always come through. Now if we were in a bar with some dark beers…
Have a good weekend,
Marc
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
You are making him sound as if his an innocent, not very smart boy man in most of your posts but I claim he is not innocent and very smart. We have to agree to disagree then. To claim that I say business acumen leads to sexual predatory behavior is so far of the mark I really do not know how to respond further.[/quote]
I said that because I really don’t know where else you were going with it. I mean, you haven’t explained to me where you were heading with it.
Jacko wasn’t that gifted in business: he was notorious for not being able to handle his own money and he was on his ass (by his standards) a few times in his career (not a coincidence that this happened when his record sales dropped: he needed a constant flow of cash because his expenses had outstripped his earnings). He was a supreme talent who made a ridiculous amount of money very young, and that’ll give a false impression of his business sense. At his height he would’ve had trouble giving money away.
He did not handle his financial affairs on his own: a procession of lawyers, accountants and financial advisors did that for him. As for the hangers-on and sycophants, well of course they’re going to say he’s smart. It’s the entertainment industry. However, I would not say that a man who dangles his own baby off a balcony in public is particularly intelligent or in touch with reality.
I would take his actions caught on film as a more accurate barometer of the guy’s character than a fawning interview from a fellow entertainer or someone on his payroll. That’s all.
I concede
Forgot about the dangling baby thing.
Damn, that was something.
K, back to Whitney, did you hear? She is dead too, damn shame.
Shit, did we derail this thread or what?