So, I have heard a few people comment recently that Michael Jackson was a victim of arrested development who thought as a child, and thus was no danger to children when they spent the night with him. Interesting! I remember that argument coming up years ago.
If that is the case, then why was he legally permitted to raise three chidlren alone. Don’t we usually expect people who raise children to be mature, responsible adults? Why did none of his loyal friends and family members launch an investigation as to whether the grown-up boy was a fit parent?
I have also heard people comment that Michael Jackson was an excellent parent. Would an excellent parent approve of children sleeping in a bed with an adult man who is not related to them?
Makes you think, no?
6 responses so far ↓
jesurgislac // July 9, 2009 at 12:58 pm |
Well, I think Michael Jackson was a child molester who ought not to have been left alone with any child. But that’s just me.
But given that he was heterosexual and his first two children were conceived in a marriage that’s exactly the ideal you’ve upheld throughout our discussions about same-sex marriage – both the children were biologically related to both husband and wife – I can’t see what on earth problem you can have with Michael Jackson and his family. After all, by your standards, he was a far better father for his children than any adoptive parent could ever be – he was their biological father, married to their mother when they were conceived? You have no higher standard than that, you have persistently and consistently made clear.
Jay Burns // July 9, 2009 at 5:08 pm |
Michael Jackson was a child molester. Really? He was acquitted in a court of law. Is OJ a murderer too? Sorry, only trying to determine if you are racist against all black people or just Michael Jackson.
Hmmm. It is kinda fun to argue like you. Completly ignore the point of the post. Make some gross exageration. Then call you a bigot when you respond. This is going to be fun.
Scott Erb // July 9, 2009 at 10:06 pm |
Personally, I do take our legal system seriously so I won’t call Michael a “child molester” or OJ a “murderer.” I have suspicions, but I have less information than the relevant juries, so I feel unqualified to really make a definitive statement.
jesurgislac // July 10, 2009 at 10:13 am |
Well, as I live in a country where I’m entitled to say what I think, regardless of whether a jury rules that there is insufficient evidence to convict, I will continue to believe that what Michael Jackson did to the young boys who shared his bed constituted sexual molestation – and that O J Simpson did in fact murder Nicole Brown, just as she had feared he would.
The right to presumption of innocence applies only to the accused person before a jury who are considering whether there is sufficient evidence to convict. But not even a fascist state such as RG envisages and promotes can prevent people from thinking for themselves, and – in my country at least – I have the freedom to say what I think.
renaissanceguy // July 10, 2009 at 6:04 pm |
Jesurgislac, Jay was being sarcastic. He was giving you a dose of your own medicine.
It’s funny that you took the bait. Perhaps you know how I feel when you use similar tactics against me.
jesurgislac // July 11, 2009 at 3:00 am |
RG, I was being sarcastic right back. It’s interesting that you were unable to spot that.
I’m in general quite sincere in my comments to you. The things you believe – such your recent assertion that minorities aren’t entitled to appeal to the courts for justice against the will of the majority – are too appalling for sarcasm.