Michael Jackson vs. Prince: In retrospective

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 15 Nov 2007, 08:48

In retrospective Prince was a lot better Michael Jackson, in life and not music. Prince is one crazy motherfucker, but a least he was never a kiddy fiddler.

Music wise:- MJ by a mile.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 15 Nov 2007, 15:19

As you've said.

I never was a fan of Prince anyway. I can see he was once talented, but his talent didn't seem to last unlike Jacko who up until HIStory (and including) was brilliant.

Jacko has since blamed the media for killing "Invincible" but he's wrong. The reason it flopped was simple. It SUCKED! Way, way to much electric keyboards and silly effects.

I will definitely give any single a listen he releases now but am very much in two minds whether I would support him by buying any album. There's little doubt he's a paedophile, even the jurors said so. The case against him only fell to bits because the evidence was so weak. The first time I said "He was never sent to jail, we don't really know for sure so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt". When happened again I'm a lot less forgiving.

I also really, really don't like him as a person. He's clearly deeply mentally ill and if he wasn't famous would've forced to have had counselling a long time ago. That and how he's depicted himself as Jesus and that god awful statue are so wrong. Statues should be reserved for people who have done great things for the world, still they've given Maggie Thatcher one

. I do try and separate the man from the music, when it comes to Jacko it's not easy.

Then again if done right his next album could be awesome. I'm not sure, it's a very hard one. I do own and still listen to 3-5 of his albums, the music is so good it's hard not to. I do consider those strangely different though being recorded way before all his troubles. As hypocritical as it sounds.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 15 Nov 2007, 17:17

Prince's music is crap. So Jacko wins by default.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 15 Nov 2007, 18:54

I agree with you Brad, the part about how MJ sees himself as Jesus is messed up

As you said he is mentally ill but I don't think he is a paedophile, more that he sees "himself" as a child but is clearly in need of mental counselling.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 15 Nov 2007, 20:39

Oh agreed he still thinks he's a child, trouble is he isn't. You don't think it's highly likely he abused the children he was sent to court for?

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 15 Nov 2007, 21:08

i don't think he did, the parents of the kids were out to make a quick buck and Jacko is such a nutter he looked guilty.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 15 Nov 2007, 21:17

Possibly. The jurors did say afterwards "he probably did it" and they did get to see all the evidence. That and he definitely acts with kids in ways that aren't acceptable, even if he doesn't outright have sex with them. I think it's pretty likely.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 16 Nov 2007, 02:24

I think any decent psychiatrist could get Jackson off a paedophile charge for the simple reason he's mentally unbalanced and views himself as a man-child. He needs help not jail. All jail does is put paedophiles in contact with other paedophiles. Then when they get out they're not cured in the slightest but have a bunch of new friends to share their interest with.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 16 Nov 2007, 11:18

I don't know if he did or not, if he was found not guilty then that's that. As Mark said once, "we" as adults assume that because MJ is an adult on the outside, any contact he has with kids is sexual/wierd? Does that not say more about "us" than him? Of course, he still needs help, he had no childhood, was beaten by his father and lived in Neverland FFS...
Also I agree Mark, paedophilia is a heinous crime but there must be something more effective than just locking them away.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 16 Nov 2007, 15:15

Markgway wrote:All jail does is put paedophiles in contact with other paedophiles.

You could say the same thing about any crime. Why lock anyone up? If he had sex with children he should be in jail, simple.

They do have psychiatrists in jail too btw.

Does that not say more about "us" than him?

You reckon it's okay to sleep with children who are not your children? As in actually sleeping. That's also wrong if not illegal. Even if he didn't do anything I bet he had sexual thoughts.

Obviously he shouldn't be sent to jail for that but it is morally wrong. He's also been known to hold and bounce children on his knees while at award shows in very comfortable ways.

Also I agree Mark, paedophilia is a heinous crime but there must be something more effective than just locking them away.

Why lock anyone away then? It's a punishment for doing wrong, end of. If while in there they can be rehabilitated then that's good but the answer isn't to not lock them up.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 16 Nov 2007, 16:27

Both are crazy sons of bitches. At least Michael made some good music before he went ape-shit.

I dont care for either of them. Both are pretty overrated, TBH.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 16 Nov 2007, 16:44

If he actually slept with them in the same bed or something than that is definitely not OK IMO but we don't know that he did that.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 16 Nov 2007, 16:55

Yes we do. Jacko has said it more than once he literally sleeps with boys. Remember that infamous C4 interview documentary? He said it in that.

He was annoyed the interviewer was sexualizing it when to Jacko it's perfectly normal to sleep with boys for "love". Yeah O-kay!

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 16 Nov 2007, 17:36

Well... if I sleep with my kids in 1 bed, does that automatically make me a peadophile? And when the mom does? What if Kate Winslet sleeps in the same bed as her daughter and her sleep-over friend?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 16 Nov 2007, 18:03

@ Yi -

You reckon it's okay to sleep with children who are not your children?

Obviously it's entirely different if they're your kids.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 16 Nov 2007, 18:10

You mean the infamous Martin Bashir one?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 16 Nov 2007, 18:19

Yes that and another on C4 recently.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 16 Nov 2007, 19:25

bradavon wrote:@ Yi -

You reckon it's okay to sleep with children who are not your children?
Obviously it's entirely different if they're your kids.

Ofcourse, but how long will that last?

Seriously, the paedo-control police are currently working overtime... and you hear many complaints about male teachers and male childcare guys etc... that nowadays you can hardly touch a kid or pet him on the head or take a kid to the toilet etc etc... without fearing of being accused of being a childmolester.
A female teacher can take a young boy or girl on her lap and comfort/kiss/hug him/her. No problems. Try doing that as a male teacher.

Dont get me wrong, I hate paedophiles with a passion. Also, I wouldnt trust my kid around Michael Jackson or a priest or whatever. But society does seem to go a bit overboard nowadays with their witchhunt against pedophiles. And it wouldnt surprise me if within 10 years some daddy will get sued for having a shower with his own kid... (without any sexual stuff going on, obviously)

Nowadays, as a man, you are almost already a suspected paedophile when you say you love kids (in a non-sexual way, obviously).

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 16 Nov 2007, 19:33

bradavon wrote:You could say the same thing about any crime. Why lock anyone up? If he had sex with children he should be in jail, simple.

Because unlike most crime paedophilia is an illness. You wouldn't put a psychopath in jail for murder so why would you put someone with a sexual illness inside?

They do have psychiatrists in jail too btw.

And it rarely works... how can spending an hour every week with a shrink compare to spending 16 hrs a day with like-minded perverts and dubious amounts of supervision (these guys have all the material they want stashed I'm sure)? A secure hospital unit and intensive one-on-one therapy would make far more sense.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 16 Nov 2007, 19:57

Seriously, the paedo-control police are currently working overtime... and you hear many complaints about male teachers and male childcare guys etc... that nowadays you can hardly touch a kid or pet him on the head or take a kid to the toilet etc etc... without fearing of being accused of being a childmolester.
A female teacher can take a young boy or girl on her lap and comfort/kiss/hug him/her. No problems. Try doing that as a male teacher.

That's very different from someone saying on camera "I sleep with kids". Can you not see the difference?

But society does seem to go a bit overboard nowadays with their witchhunt against pedophiles. And it wouldnt surprise me if within 10 years some daddy will get sued for having a shower with his own kid... (without any sexual stuff going on, obviously).

Those are two entirely different sentences I cannot believe you're comparing them.

A father having a shower with his son isn't the same as being as paedophile. I doubt anyone would think it so. Agreed people do get too paranoid but they have a point when people say things such as Jacko has.

Nowadays, as a man, you are almost already a suspected paedophile when you say you love kids (in a non-sexual way, obviously).

No you're not. Everyone knows there is a big difference between a father saying he loves kids and the way Jacko says it. It's very, very different.

You're going far too over the top. You do that a lot

. Everything about Holland sucks, the rest of the world is perfect. O-kay!

Because unlike most crime paedophilia is an illness. You wouldn't put a psychopath in jail for murder so why would you put someone with a sexual illness inside?

You wouldn't put a psychopath in jail?

Answer because despite being an illness they've still done wrong and after over the age where they should know right. When a kid kills someone there is an immediate extra point that they are kids so need to be treated differently but an adult is an adult so should A: Be sent to jail and B: Get counciling. The two are separate of each other.

You'd honestly prefer all paedophiles to be set free because they're ill? They'd love that, it would give them so much access to kids but of course they're being counselled so it doesn't matter.

The fact is of course they need help but they've still fundamentally done wrong.

A secure hospital unit and intensive one-on-one therapy would make far more sense.

You're not talking about something else. Agreed that would be better but you'd still have to sentence them and still be locking them away, which you just said wasn't the answer.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 16 Nov 2007, 20:08

bradavon wrote:
You're going far too over the top. You do that a lot . Everything about Holland sucks, the rest of the world is perfect. O-kay!

...and you once again have trouble understanding what I'm writing and saying. I never-fucking-EVER said the rest of the world is perfect.

O-kay!?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 16 Nov 2007, 23:43

Yi-Long wrote:...and you once again have trouble understanding what I'm writing and saying. I never-fucking-EVER said the rest of the world is perfect.

Not literally no but you do harp on a lot how bad Holland is and find no fault with any other country. I suggest you re-read what you've said again and again

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 17 Nov 2007, 01:46

bradavon wrote:
Yi-Long wrote:...and you once again have trouble understanding what I'm writing and saying. I never-fucking-EVER said the rest of the world is perfect.
Not literally no but you do harp on a lot how bad Holland is and find no fault with any other country. I suggest you re-read what you've said again and again

I suggest YOU re-read everything I ever wrote, and then provide us with links about where I say all the other countries are flawless...

BTW... Arent you the same Brad that complained how anti-American and anti-English and anti-Israel I am!?
Those arent countries?
Havent I complained about the stuff I saw in Thailand?

There are only a bunch of places that I consider I would be a better place FOR ME to live, and I have given arguments why.
I have always said that's a personal opinion and I explained what is bad with Holland, and what I liked better in those other countries.

So dont come bullshitting here that I am on some pink cloud about the whole rest of the world, while only always saying how bad Holland is.
I have given specific complaints about the bad stuff in Holland, and I have given specific positives about SOME other countries, where I feel it would be better living.

Get your facts straight.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 17 Nov 2007, 02:01

Yi-Long wrote:BTW... Arent you the same Brad that complained how anti-American and anti-English and anti-Israel I am!?
Those arent countries?

I have? I definitely don't remember doing so.

Yi-Long wrote:There are only a bunch of places that I consider I would be a better place FOR ME to live, and I have given arguments why.

You really need to get that caps lock fixed on your keyboard

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 17 Nov 2007, 03:46

You wouldn't put a psychopath in jail?

They frequently don't if a person is judged to have a mental illness. I'm not a psychatrist so I can't go into the intricacies of what makes someone a mental patient and what makes them jailable? But paedophilia strikes me as a mental illness as it's something that cannot be controlled by choice. You can choose not to beat up an old lady for her pension book, but you can't choose not to feel sexually attracted toward children.

Answer because despite being an illness they've still done wrong and after over the age where they should know right.

Yes, but I'm not talking about rapists here, who should be severly punished. I'm talking about people like Michael Jackson who allegedly (lawyers take note!) have paedophilic tendancies but haven't acted them out in a violent or forceful maner. Would it not serve society better to have someone like that put in a hospital rather than a jail? Look at the actor Chris Langham convicted of child porn offences. What a waste of time and money it was to stick him in jail. He should have been sentenced to six months in a hospital where he could have been given proper treatment.

You'd honestly prefer all paedophiles to be set free because they're ill?

No, when they commit a crime against a child it should be judged on the seriousness of the offence whether a hospital or jail sentence is apropriate. There's a difference between the raping and strangulation of a child and downloading porn off the internet or inappropriate touching. A panel of experts should judge which sentence would serve both the guilty and the public best. A child murderer should be locked away for life (if not executed). But you think a guy (or woman) who takes naked pics of their niece is best suited to jail? I'm not so sure... I don't have all the answers I'm just raising some questions and alternate viewpoints.