Leaving Neverland, Michael Jackson Documentary, HBO

[Scream of the Butterfly]

38 minutes ago, downzy said:

Sorry, but what?  Under what circumstances would a child sharing a bed with a total stranger be considered normal?

For example, under circumstances where it is the only way to stay warm and stay alive.

[OmarBradley]

53 minutes ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

For example, under circumstances where it is the only way to stay warm and stay alive.

Well, in this case there was a sprawling manor which had heating and air conditioning/climate control, so I think your temperature-related excuse for children sleeping in a bed with strangers is moot here, in addition to it being totally ridiculous in general.

Michael Jackson: Oh you're cold, child? Come sleep in the bed with me under the covers, instead of the 70 spare guest rooms with beds of their own.

 

[Dazey]

56 minutes ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

For example, under circumstances where it is the only way to stay warm and stay alive.

So let us for a moment assume that none of these kids became separated from their parents and suddenly found themselves camping in the Arctic and conclude that you're talking bollocks.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Dazey

[downzy]

4 hours ago, OmarBradley said:

Well, in this case there was a sprawling manor which had heating and air conditioning/climate control, so I think your temperature-related excuse for children sleeping in a bed with strangers is moot here, in addition to it being totally ridiculous in general.

Michael Jackson: Oh you're cold, child? Come sleep in the bed with me under the covers, instead of the 70 spare guest rooms with beds of their own.

 

 

4 hours ago, Dazey said:

So let us for a moment assume that none of these kids became separated from their parents and suddenly found themselves camping in the Arctic and conclude that you're talking bollocks.

 

In fairness guys, it does get quite chilly in Southern California...

[DieselDaisy]

7 hours ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

The families of the alledged victims have said Jackson was like family to them so rightly or wrongly he wasn't perceived as a stranger.

That is a good point. Considerable emphasis (in the documentary) is placed on how the parents - especially the mothers - were befriended so that there is little doubt that Michael Jackson would be no longer perceived as a ''stranger'' in their eyes. Michael actually used Safechuck's unassuming house as a retreat from the celebrity craziness of his world, becoming like an adopted son. Lengthy phone calls would transpire not just between Michael and the children but Michael and the mothers also. 

[Len Cnut]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

That is a good point. Considerable emphasis (in the documentary) is placed on how the parents - especially the mothers - were befriended so that there is little doubt that Michael Jackson would be no longer perceived as a ''stranger'' in their eyes

Part of being mega fuckin’ famous I guess is that, to a point, you ain’t a stranger to no one.  Shit, I know more about say Mick Jagger in a way than I do members of my own family, if I met him it’d be like ‘yeah, I know him, thats Mick’ though you don’t really, do you?  But then I guess in that sense who do you REALLY know to trust with your kids or whatever?

[DieselDaisy]

9 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Part of being mega fuckin’ famous I guess is that, to a point, you ain’t a stranger to no one.  Shit, I know more about say Mick Jagger in a way than I do members of my own family, if I met him it’d be like ‘yeah, I know him, thats Mick’ though you don’t really, do you?  But then I guess in that sense who do you REALLY know to trust with your kids or whatever?

Finally, somebody understands it! People seem to be treating this as if the bloke in the house next door, attired in a trench coat, ''National Health'' spectacles, stringy greasy hair, and stinking of whisky, has just had a private conversation with your kids, no doubt impeccably raised, on whether they should stay in his 2 up 2 down semi-detached. Jackson has to be surely analysed through a different lens. You remember how big Michael was, especially around Thriller-Dangerous era? He was bigger than life itself. There has only really been Presley and The Beatles in mid-late 20th century popular culture as big.

As Chris Rock said, ''we were even able to forgive him for the first kid (Jordan Chandler)'' haha. He has a point.

[action]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

That is a good point. Considerable emphasis (in the documentary) is placed on how the parents - especially the mothers - were befriended so that there is little doubt that Michael Jackson would be no longer perceived as a ''stranger'' in their eyes. Michael actually used Safechuck's unassuming house as a retreat from the celebrity craziness of his world, becoming like an adopted son. Lengthy phone calls would transpire not just between Michael and the children but Michael and the mothers also. 

that's what I thought.

the argument that you don't let your child sleep with "a complete stranger" doesn't quite apply to the jackson case when the first part of the docu is spent convincing us how jackson was alsmost family to them, with one of the mother cooking him meals and stuff.

A little bit of intellectual honesty would be welcome in all of this

Edited March 19, 2019 by action

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, action said:

that's what I thought.

the argument that you don't let your child sleep with "a complete stranger" doesn't quite hold up when the first part of the docu is spent convincing us how jackson was alsmost family to them, with one of the mother cooking him meals and stuff.

A little bit of intellectual honesty would be welcome in all of this

There are a lot of people commenting who haven't watched it I believe.

[action]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

There are a lot of people commenting who haven't watched it I believe.

I maintain that the docu is propagande, specifically produced to transfer an idea.

Since these people are suing the jackson estate for a lot of money, it is in their interest to do so and the docu is a companion piece to their actions.

It's no different than a pepsi commercial in that respect, or those commercials of washing powder that promise your laundry will be "whiter than white".

In a case like this, where it is "word against word", you'll have a much better chance of getting to the truth, with "neutral" pieces of evidence like the house search or the latoya statements.

[SoulMonster]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Finally, somebody understands it! People seem to be treating this as if the bloke in the house next door, attired in a trench coat, ''National Health'' spectacles, stringy greasy hair, and stinking of whisky, has just had a private conversation with your kids, no doubt impeccably raised, on whether they should stay in his 2 up 2 down semi-detached. 

But no one has said anything like this. Complete straw man argument. The discussion has been on whether children are likely to invite themselves into the beds of adults who are not their parents. 

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, action said:

I maintain that the docu is propagande, specifically produced to transfer an idea.

Since these people are suing the jackson estate for a lot of money, it is in their interest to do so and the docu is a companion piece to their actions.

It's no different than a pepsi commercial in that respect, or those commercials of washing powder that promise your laundry will be "whiter than white".

In a case like this, where it is "word against word", you'll have a much better chance of getting to the truth, with "neutral" pieces of evidence like the house search or the latoya statements.

Well it'll always be their word against, the deceased, Michael's testimony. If you are judging solely off something more substantial legally then Michael is innocent as he was found not guilty on all charges in 2005, and even in the Chandler pay-off of 1994 Jackson ''disclaims any liability to, and denies any wrongful acts". 

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But no one has said anything like this. Complete straw man argument. The discussion has been on whether children are likely to invite themselves into the beds of adults who are not their parents. 

Exactly my point: ''adults''. You are proceeding through this discussion as if this adult was not Michael Jackson, and clearly have not watched the documentary so it is a waste of time (me) commencing any further discussing this with you.

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Exactly my point: ''adults''. 

Err, Jackson was an adult and I am sure kids recognized that. A weird-ass ghoulish adult sure, and one that behaved in inappropriate -- and fun! -- ways for what is expected of adults, but still an adult. And kids wouldn't ask Jackson, or any other adult except a parent, if they could sleep in his bed with him, because kids only do that when they need comfort or with other kids. So no.

 

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Err, Jackson was an adult and I am sure kids recognized that. A weird-ass ghoulish adult sure, and one that behaved in inappropriate -- and fun! -- ways for what is expected of adults, but still an adult. And kids wouldn't ask Jackson, or any other adult except a parent, if they could sleep in his bed with him, because kids only do that when they need comfort or with other kids. So no.

 

If every adult had Jackson's celebrity on account of his genius; if every other adult could project a media persona globally of an altruistic asexual/quasi-androgynous personality; if every adult had the millions to create a citadel dedicated to children...

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

If every adult had Jackson's celebrity on account of his genius; if every other adult could project a media persona globally of an altruistic asexual/quasi-androgynous personality; if every adult had the millions to create a citadel dedicated to children...

None of these things work the way on children as you think they do. Kids around the age of 6 aren't mesmerized by these things like you seem to be. Kids sleep in the bed with an adult when they crave comfort from their primary caregiver. Not to cozy up to a celebrity. 

[DieselDaisy]

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

None of these things work the way on children as you think they do. Kids around the age of 6 aren't mesmerized by these things like you seem to be. Kids sleep in the bed with an adult when they crave comfort from their primary caregiver. Not to cozy up to a celebrity. 

Wade Robson first met Michael whilst being a Michael Jackson impersonator haha! Aged seven,

To say he was not besotted with Michael, even before he met Michael, is the underestimation of the century.

PS

You'd know all this if you watched the thing. 

Edited March 19, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Wade Robson first met Michael whilst being a Michael Jackson impersonator haha! Aged seven,

To say he was not besotted with Michael, even before he met Michael, is the underestimation of the century.

...not to the extent you seem to be, and as I said, the mechanism when a kid wants to sleep in the bed with an adult is for comfort. It would be just as absurd if a child of 6 went up to a celebrity and said, "hey I really like you, can I sleep in your bed tonight?" as it would be if you went, "hey [insert name of famous crickets player], I adore you, can I sleep in your bed tonight?". It is simply not how it works. Neither you nor kids wants to sleep in a bed with someone simply because they are famous. Kids want to crawl into the bed of primary caregivers because they need comfort. And I find it equally unlikely that a child would go, "Ooh I am scared now, Michael, can I sleep in your bed tonight?", unless, of course, you are now going to argue that Michael Jackson showed they horror movies just before bedtime. But of course, now that I have mentioned that argument I am sure you will come up with something else.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

...not to the extent you seem to be, and as I said, the mechanism when a kid wants to sleep in the bed with an adult is for comfort. It would be just as absurd if a child of 6 went up to a celebrity and said, "hey I really like you, can I sleep in your bed tonight?" as it would be if you went, "hey [insert name of famous crickets player], I adore you, can I sleep in your bed tonight?". It is simply not how it works. Neither you nor kids wants to sleep in a bed with someone simply because they are famous. Kids want to crawl into the bed of primary caregivers because they need comfort. And I find it equally unlikely that a child would go, "Ooh I am scared now, Michael, can I sleep in your bed tonight?", unless, of course, you are now going to argue that Michael Jackson showed they horror movies just before bedtime. But of course, now that I have mentioned that argument I am sure you will come up with something else.

Nobody is even making such an insinuation as such a hypothetical scenario (to the best of our knowledge) simply didn't happen. Again, if you understood anything about the case you'd know this. 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Nobody is even making such an insinuation as such a hypothetical scenario (to the best of our knowledge) simply didn't happen. Again, if you understood anything about the case you'd know this. 

The argument is still that the kids themselves asked to sleep with Jackson in his bed. Or did you actually start discussing something else?

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

The argument is still that the kids themselves asked to sleep with Jackson in his bed. Or did you actually start discussing something else?

Why the obsession with this? Your obsession with the ''sleeping in the bed'' thing is sixteen years out-of-date. This whole world debated this as a consequence of Living With Michael Jackson in 2003!! The allegations in Leaving Neverland go much much further and are far more heinous. Leaving Neverland almost reduces the bed issue to an irrelevancy.

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Why the obsession with this? 

Because someone claimed the kids themselves asked to sleep in Jacksons bed. Hence that's why I am discussing whether that is something a child would do. You should appreciate it, you obviously don't know much about kids.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Because someone claimed the kids themselves asked to sleep in Jacksons bed. Hence that's why I am discussing whether that is something a child would do. You should appreciate it, you obviously don't know much about kids.

You don't know anything about my personal life so I don't know why you'd make that assumption.

 

To put it bluntly, if you believe the allegations made by Safechuck and Robson, Michael was fucking children everywhere. The bed issue is a virtual irrelevancy now. 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

You don't know anything about my personal life so I don't know why you'd make that assumption.

Because you don't seem to know how kids behave and why they what they do? 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Because you don't seem to know how kids behave and why they what they do? 

Of course you know how every kid who has ever existed would behave as your arrogance is astonishing.

I would equally say you don't know anything about this issue but then you haven't seen the documentary and clearly know nothing about the allegations.