Why was Michael Jackson stigmatised so harshly?

[AceBoogie]

What is your obsession with stigmatization against pedophiles?

Hm. Interesting.

Plenty of people face stigmatization and discrimination on a daily basis. You either raise above it all or get crushed under its weight. Your character determines who you become in this life. We're all responsible for our own decisions, whether or not we were dealt a bad hand. Look into a concept called Locus of Control.

[Edwardo Piet]

Did you hear Michael Jackson willed his body to Lego?

He wanted to have the plastic recycled ... so kids could still play with him.

What do Santa Claus and Michael Jackson have in common?




...they both empty their sacks when children are sleeping.

[Catholic_Lady]

I didn't get that sense from his OP at all. I just figured he thought MJ would be an interesting topic to discuss for multiple reasons.

One of us doesn't understand Aractus.

I just don't see the reason to be meanish to him.

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't like being mean to anyone... but I don't have anything against anyone being grossed out by someone.

[Catholic_Lady]

Did he get banned??

[Iroscato]

Did he get banned??

For a week, yes.

[Shell B]

Temporarily. He posted a link to a photo of a nude child after being told several times not to do that.

[Catholic_Lady]

Hm weird

[Tiberius]

Right, let's take this a whole step further. In 1969 Denmark became the first, and only country, to legalise all forms of pornography. Companies like ColorClimax produced traditional porn, others produced child pornography - legally. Denmark realised their mistake and banned child pornography production effective 1/1/1980. However by that time it is estimated that at least 10-20% of Danes (IIRC) had viewed child porn at some time in the 1970's.

You wouldn't claim that everyone who accessed the said material was a child predator would you?

It depends on why they accessed it. If they thought they were watching an adult film and it happened to include children, then no. However, if they actively sought it out, then yes, that makes them a child predator. Something being technically legal doesn't make it right or moral.

The material mentioned in the link is not child pornography. It is true that it can be used to groom children, I'm not disputing that, but there's actually nothing wrong with Michael simply enjoying reading the magazines that have unclothed children in it. It's not illegal, it's not morally wrong. It's not a sexualised content. In fact, the content could just as easily be used as evidence against child molestation: where are the child abuse images that MJ would have had if he was a predator? It's hard to argue that MJ wouldn't have child abuse images if he was a predator, given that the vast majority of people who are convicted of child sex offences are found to possess child abuse images as well.

You seem to be looking at the list of items individually, rather that looking at the entire list and putting it in context. Having maybe a few books containing non-sexual nude photos of children doesn't make one a child predator, I agree. However, this was a guy who had an extensive collection of it, coupled with pornographic materials featuring young "barely legal" models, "images of nude adults with children’s faces morphed on top", AND he was known to have children sleep over in his bed (regardless of his claim that he slept in a cot, not with the children, though that's ultimately unprovable either way). When you look at all of that as a whole, I think all kind of attempts at justification fly out the window.

[Catholic_Lady]

Right, let's take this a whole step further. In 1969 Denmark became the first, and only country, to legalise all forms of pornography. Companies like ColorClimax produced traditional porn, others produced child pornography - legally. Denmark realised their mistake and banned child pornography production effective 1/1/1980. However by that time it is estimated that at least 10-20% of Danes (IIRC) had viewed child porn at some time in the 1970's.

You wouldn't claim that everyone who accessed the said material was a child predator would you?

It depends on why they accessed it. If they thought they were watching an adult film and it happened to include children, then no. However, if they actively sought it out, then yes, that makes them a child predator. Something being technically legal doesn't make it right or moral.

The material mentioned in the link is not child pornography. It is true that it can be used to groom children, I'm not disputing that, but there's actually nothing wrong with Michael simply enjoying reading the magazines that have unclothed children in it. It's not illegal, it's not morally wrong. It's not a sexualised content. In fact, the content could just as easily be used as evidence against child molestation: where are the child abuse images that MJ would have had if he was a predator? It's hard to argue that MJ wouldn't have child abuse images if he was a predator, given that the vast majority of people who are convicted of child sex offences are found to possess child abuse images as well.

You seem to be looking at the list of items individually, rather that looking at the entire list and putting it in context. Having maybe a few books containing non-sexual nude photos of children doesn't make one a child predator, I agree. However, this was a guy who had an extensive collection of it, coupled with pornographic materials featuring young "barely legal" models, "images of nude adults with children’s faces morphed on top", AND he was known to have children sleep over in his bed (regardless of his claim that he slept in a cot, not with the children, though that's ultimately unprovable either way). When you look at all of that as a whole, I think all kind of attempts at justification fly out the window.

Yeah it's kind of hard to ignore all that, sadly...