Help me settle a Michael Jackson debate with a friend

Soldato
Joined
25 Aug 2010
Posts
3,029
You kind of have me there :p. Though if I'm honest I don't know much about Savile or his case at all. Wasn't it a lot more clear cut, and didn't loads of people come out instantly about it and not changed their stories? My point still stands though.

yeah, not really the same - but just that savile was never convicted in a court so effectively it's just a collection of accusations against him...
I wouldn't be surprised if there are loads more waiting in the woodwork if there's a bit of traction in these, a lot of this type of systematic abuse takes a lot from the victims to decide to open up because the abusers know how to assert control, even after death
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Feb 2010
Posts
10,740
Location
East Midlands
To be fair, you're doing exactly the same thing but on the other end of the stick.

There is no denying he did things that were deemed inappropriate (for example the sleepovers with children), there is concrete evidence for that. There is no denying he was mentally ill and this had an effect on his behavior. But there is no concrete evidence he actually did anything sexual towards the children. Hence he hasn't been done in a court of law. It's all still speculation.

As much as the arguments like 'he paid some of them off' etc are valid, so too are the points that 'at first they said he did nothing but now changed their minds'.

It's all a mess tbh and I doubt we'll all never know the real truth. But stating you know categorically either way and then belittling the opposing view doesn't help your case :p

Where have i said that i know categorically??

I'm just giving my personal thoughts and feelings.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Jul 2011
Posts
4,418
Location
Cambridgeshire
I find it quite interesting that one of the reasons to disbelieve the alleged abuse is that the victims previously denied it happened. I'm part way through watching the documentary and don't really have a horse in the race either way, nor do I have much knowledge of the historical stuff beyond what most people know. However it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that a 27 year old man might lie about historical sex abuse, there are rafts of psychological theories relating to the phenomena. Feeling indebted to the abuser, internal rationalisation, shame, fear, concern as the the impact on family, all of these things play a part. And it's not like it's unusual for people to deny that abuse has happened, how is this any different to a domestic abuse victim towing the line of their abuser even when they aren't present, it's not always about immediate fear of reprisal, people become condition to believe that their abusers love them, that it's not their fault, that it's the victims fault, all of this is probably more relevant given their young age, Jackson's status, and in the case of one of the boys their hero worship of him.

I'm not making a judgement either way here, I just think anybody hinging their argument on the previous comments by the two men is ignoring the unique psychology associated with abuse.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Jun 2006
Posts
4,312
Where have i said that i know categorically??

I'm just giving my personal thoughts and feelings.


I guess categorically was too strong a word so accept my apologies, but to me, the context of your posts are pretty conclusive that your stance is that you think you're 100% correct. At least that's how I took them. And any opposing views you have given are just flavoured with quotes like 'superfans will keep on covering their ears shouting lalalala...' or 'Fans are just blinded by loyalty to him'. There has been no middle ground so to me you are doing the same thing as the 'die hard 'he didn't do it' fans':)
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Feb 2010
Posts
10,740
Location
East Midlands
I guess categorically was too strong a word so accept my apologies, but to me, the context of your posts are pretty conclusive that your stance is that you think you're 100% correct. At least that's how I took them. And any opposing views you have given are just flavoured with quotes like 'superfans will keep on covering their ears shouting lalalala...' or 'Fans are just blinded by loyalty to him'. There has been no middle ground so to me you are doing the same thing as the 'die hard 'he didn't do it' fans':)

My view is that he is guilty of child abuse, no doubt about it.

But there is no absolute conclusive proof to back me up.

And i don't think there ever will be or can be.

But there are enough people who have come out and dished the dirt on him to make him look very guilty indeed.

I'm no Jackson fan, but no hater either. I was on the fence until the Jordan Chandler case came up and Jackson paid him 22m to keep quiet.

This new documentary just cements my views.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2007
Posts
12,085
Location
London, UK
I've no idea if he abused boys or not or if it was just some misplaced affection of him desperately wanting a childhood he never had, I haven't seen the documentary yet. He was thrust into the music business as a very young child, his father was a horrible horrible man. I think it left Micheal with serious mental health issues. If he did abuse any of those children then his name deserves to be dragged though the mud and those kids have every right to sue his estate for everything they can. His musical talent can never be doubted though.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Feb 2010
Posts
10,740
Location
East Midlands
I have never been a fan of his music, always thought it was more aimed at kids. But no doubting the guy had talent.

He had a very messed up childhood and upbringing for sure. He must have had a pretty skewed view of right and wrong because of this.

Still think he was a child molester though.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Dec 2008
Posts
17,283
I've seen the stories also referencing the fact he did the pay outs, now please if I'm wrong correct me.

He did settle but did not accept any liability, meaning the kids family could have pursued action still.

I do not get why any normal sane parent wouldn't do that, they should have taken him to court still and got him into jail if proven guilty.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
3 Feb 2010
Posts
3,034
However it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that a 27 year old man might lie about historical sex abuse, there are rafts of psychological theories relating to the phenomena. Feeling indebted to the abuser, internal rationalisation, shame, fear, concern as the the impact on family, all of these things play a part. And it's not like it's unusual for people to deny that abuse has happened, how is this any different to a domestic abuse victim towing the line of their abuser even when they aren't present, it's not always about immediate fear of reprisal, people become condition to believe that their abusers love them, that it's not their fault, that it's the victims fault, all of this is probably more relevant given their young age, Jackson's status, and in the case of one of the boys their hero worship of him.

I'm not making a judgement either way here, I just think anybody hinging their argument on the previous comments by the two men is ignoring the unique psychology associated with abuse.

One of the best comments on this thread so far.
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Dec 2004
Posts
13,323
Location
Sweatshop.
Well i would doubt they would find underwear laying around if the cleaner was putting them into the wash.

They said they found a lot of items but from what i read apparently they found notthing that could have been used against him? They said they found pornography and animal torture scenes and then when it went to court i read it was all false
 
Back
Top Bottom