OT: Let's talk about movies and TV - Part XXII

[Kriss E]

Then why did you say you found it weird when I asked you?

Because he's a grown ass man and sleeping with a stranger's child, so it's very weird looking at it from the outside, but weird=/=abuse.
Also, there was nothing ''normal'' about Michael Jackson or his life.

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

Because he's a grown ass man and sleeping with a stranger's child, so it's very weird looking at it from the outside, but weird=/=abuse.
Also, there was nothing ''normal'' about Michael Jackson or his life.

If my nephew or niece sleeps in my bed is it extremely strange, weird, inappropriate or bizarre?

Why wouldn't it be?

Dude come on. You're making this way more painful then it has to be. I was referring to when you said it was weird if a nephew slept in your bed.

 

[Kriss E]

Dude come on. You're making this way more painful then it has to be. I was referring to when you said it was weird if a nephew slept in your bed.

Yes. I said that to show you how we cannot make such a blanket statement.

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

Yes. I said that to show you how we cannot make such a blanket statement.

okay so you don't find it strange and inappropriate that MJ slept in the same bed with those kids? Since you're drawing parallels with family (which newsflash they're not the same. I've tried to stay on topic but yeah MJ's scene and an uncle sleeping with their nephews aren't the same) and saying they're the same and that there's nothing wrong with it means you think there was nothing inappropriate with MJ even after you said it was? Why else would you make those parallels if you weren't saying they're the same?

 

[ECWHSWI]

These are good points but I don't think the abuser has to be cognizant of their behaviour being bad in order to be abusive which I think is one of your points. I'm almost certain most emotional abusers aren't cognizant of themselves being 'abusive'.

Again, I feel that both MJ AND the parents were being abusive here. The parents for putting those children in that situation is saying that it's okay for them to sleep in a bed with a complete stranger. That blurring of the lines has huge consequences and can be deeply damaging to a child and set them up for a life of sexual abuse.

you might want to inform yourself on that before being "almost certain".

you know, sometimes... a LOT of times actually, people are just plain stupid, parents included.


anyway, I'm done with this, there's just waaaaaaaaay too many cliché written in here and I don't really feel like debunking any of them, no offense but you're just too sure of many things you do not know about.

 

[Kriss E]

okay so you don't find it strange and inappropriate that MJ slept in the same bed with those kids? Since you're drawing parallels with family (which newsflash they're not the same. I've tried to stay on topic but yeah MJ's scene and an uncle sleeping with their nephews aren't the same) and saying they're the same and that there's nothing wrong with it means you think there was nothing inappropriate with MJ even after you said it was? Why else would you make those parallels if you weren't saying they're the same?

I explained why time and time again. Let's just end it there as if you haven't understood by now then no other post of line will make anything clearer for you.

There is a difference between weird, inappropriate and abusive, if you dont know it I suggest you just pick up a dictionary.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

I personally think that we waste way too much time, individually and as a society, at assigning blame and responsibility. At the opposite end and on both levels, we do not spend nearly enough time informing ourselves and trying to find the underlying causes and mechanisms of specific abherent behaviors. For such a technology advanced civilization, it's just shocking how little the average person understands about human behavior and cognition, compared to how quickly they fall into their innate -social fairness/responsibility- frame of mind and innate ingouping and outgrouping mechanism.

The impact of punishment, the example it leaves upon others, can only go so far. Assigning blame and responsibility has elevated us as a civilization, there's no doubt about it, but we're now at a point where we need to take responsibility as a society and understand how the fundamental problems of our major societal structures is a root cause for many troublesome behaviors.

Accute social stratification tends to reduce and even eliminate social mobility, social cohesion, mutuality and reciprocity.

We leave people behind and then wonder howcome their children become a problem.

Want to change the world and reduce abherent behavior? Start by making sure every child has proper nurturing. And when I say proper, I mean in every which form suitable to our own biological needs and social-moral values.

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

you might want to inform yourself on that before being "almost certain".

you know, sometimes... a LOT of times actually, people are just plain stupid, parents included.


anyway, I'm done with this, there's just waaaaaaaaay too many cliché written in here and I don't really feel like debunking any of them, no offense but you're just too sure of many things you do not know about.

would you say it's reckless?

I explained why time and time again. Let's just end it there as if you haven't understood by now then no other post of line will make anything clearer for you.

There is a difference between weird, inappropriate and abusive, if you dont know it I suggest you just pick up a dictionary.

You've yet to explain to me why you would use examples that you think are analogous and saying those examples are fine and not weird. Why would you use these examples and say they're fine to show what MJ did was fine yet you say what he didn't do was fine? This makes no sense to me and you've not explained that at all.

But yeah sure we can end it here.

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

you might want to inform yourself on that before being "almost certain".

you know, sometimes... a LOT of times actually, people are just plain stupid, parents included.


anyway, I'm done with this, there's just waaaaaaaaay too many cliché written in here and I don't really feel like debunking any of them, no offense but you're just too sure of many things you do not know about.

I explained why time and time again. Let's just end it there as if you haven't understood by now then no other post of line will make anything clearer for you.

There is a difference between weird, inappropriate and abusive, if you dont know it I suggest you just pick up a dictionary.

Here's an exlpanation of abuse from a mental health article:

Keeping these definitions in mind, some actions are easy to identify as
abusive, and some are not. For instance, it seems safe enough to say
that a spouse should never strike his or her spouse, or put him or her
down verbally; such actions are always abusive. It is also easy enough
to say that all instances of forced sexual behavior (particularly where
children are involved) are abusive, and that neglect of children and
dependent elder's well-being is abusive.
It is harder to define abuse in other circumstances, however. It is a
parent's duty to teach their children how to behave properly; to not do
so would be neglectful. It is highly controversial whether corporal
punishment (striking children) is an acceptable method for disciplining
children. It doesn't seem reasonable to say that all instances of
corporal punishment are always abusive. Some parents who use corporal
punishment may do so for very legitimate reasons and under appropriate
circumstances. However, it is equally clear that some parents do cross
the line into true abusiveness with their corporal punishment
practices. Seeking out the consensus opinion of respected others in the
local community and the nation is probably the best means of
determining whether an ambiguously abusive action is abusive or not.
There are individual difference between people in terms of their
comfort level with 'abusive' behaviors as well. For example, some
couples are very volatile with one another; they may scream and yell at
each other and fight constantly. Being subjected to this high-conflict
sort of relationship might be an instance of verbal abuse for some more
sensitive people. However, if both partners in a high-conflict marriage
are adjusted to that high level of conflict and are okay with it, then
their fighting may not actually be abusive at all as applied to their
individual situation. Similarly, people who willingly and consensually
practice sexual bondage in the context of their intimate relationship
are not engaging in abusive behavior, until and unless one partner uses
it against the will of the other partner. The important take home
lesson here is to note that when it is not clear whether a particular
behavior is abusive or not, it is best to fall back on whether that
behavior feels abusive or not. If it feels abusive, it is likely to be
abusive, at least for you, and in any case, you would be justified in
escaping from that abuse. However, the same behavior might not be
abusive for another person.

Here's the link:Abuse Defined

 

[ECWHSWI]

Here's an exlpanation of abuse from a mental health article:

Keeping these definitions in mind, some actions are easy to identify as
abusive, and some are not. For instance, it seems safe enough to say
that a spouse should never strike his or her spouse, or put him or her
down verbally; such actions are always abusive. It is also easy enough
to say that all instances of forced sexual behavior (particularly where
children are involved) are abusive, and that neglect of children and
dependent elder's well-being is abusive.
It is harder to define abuse in other circumstances, however. It is a
parent's duty to teach their children how to behave properly; to not do
so would be neglectful. It is highly controversial whether corporal
punishment (striking children) is an acceptable method for disciplining
children. It doesn't seem reasonable to say that all instances of
corporal punishment are always abusive. Some parents who use corporal
punishment may do so for very legitimate reasons and under appropriate
circumstances. However, it is equally clear that some parents do cross
the line into true abusiveness with their corporal punishment
practices. Seeking out the consensus opinion of respected others in the
local community and the nation is probably the best means of
determining whether an ambiguously abusive action is abusive or not.
There are individual difference between people in terms of their
comfort level with 'abusive' behaviors as well. For example, some
couples are very volatile with one another; they may scream and yell at
each other and fight constantly. Being subjected to this high-conflict
sort of relationship might be an instance of verbal abuse for some more
sensitive people. However, if both partners in a high-conflict marriage
are adjusted to that high level of conflict and are okay with it, then
their fighting may not actually be abusive at all as applied to their
individual situation. Similarly, people who willingly and consensually
practice sexual bondage in the context of their intimate relationship
are not engaging in abusive behavior, until and unless one partner uses
it against the will of the other partner. The important take home
lesson here is to note that when it is not clear whether a particular
behavior is abusive or not, it is best to fall back on whether that
behavior feels abusive or not. If it feels abusive, it is likely to be
abusive, at least for you, and in any case, you would be justified in
escaping from that abuse. However, the same behavior might not be
abusive for another person.

Here's the link:Abuse Defined

I suggest you read the WHOLE article and take a few minutes to think about what you've just read. The very paragraph you quoted contradicts everything you seem to think on the matter here.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

Parents should be in jail.

Agreed.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

Here's an exlpanation of abuse from a mental health article:

Keeping these definitions in mind, some actions are easy to identify as
abusive, and some are not. For instance, it seems safe enough to say
that a spouse should never strike his or her spouse, or put him or her
down verbally; such actions are always abusive. It is also easy enough
to say that all instances of forced sexual behavior (particularly where
children are involved) are abusive, and that neglect of children and
dependent elder's well-being is abusive.
It is harder to define abuse in other circumstances, however. It is a
parent's duty to teach their children how to behave properly; to not do
so would be neglectful. It is highly controversial whether corporal
punishment (striking children) is an acceptable method for disciplining
children. It doesn't seem reasonable to say that all instances of
corporal punishment are always abusive. Some parents who use corporal
punishment may do so for very legitimate reasons and under appropriate
circumstances. However, it is equally clear that some parents do cross
the line into true abusiveness with their corporal punishment
practices. Seeking out the consensus opinion of respected others in the
local community and the nation is probably the best means of
determining whether an ambiguously abusive action is abusive or not.
There are individual difference between people in terms of their
comfort level with 'abusive' behaviors as well. For example, some
couples are very volatile with one another; they may scream and yell at
each other and fight constantly. Being subjected to this high-conflict
sort of relationship might be an instance of verbal abuse for some more
sensitive people. However, if both partners in a high-conflict marriage
are adjusted to that high level of conflict and are okay with it, then
their fighting may not actually be abusive at all as applied to their
individual situation. Similarly, people who willingly and consensually
practice sexual bondage in the context of their intimate relationship
are not engaging in abusive behavior, until and unless one partner uses
it against the will of the other partner. The important take home
lesson here is to note that when it is not clear whether a particular
behavior is abusive or not, it is best to fall back on whether that
behavior feels abusive or not. If it feels abusive, it is likely to be
abusive, at least for you, and in any case, you would be justified in
escaping from that abuse. However, the same behavior might not be
abusive for another person.

Here's the link:Abuse Defined

Clear you never read it. lol.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

I like Hardy too but he's sometimes playing the same role again and again in every movie. He's often the badass who doesn't talk much, grumbles and kick asses (Mad Max, the Drop, Dunkirk, Legend). His presence on-screen though

I forgot he played in Band of Brothers back then. I remember watching that series a year or two ago and noticing all the big actors starting the careers in there (Hardy, Fassbender, Pegg, etc.)

You left out Lawless, his best.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

so distinguish between putting your child in an extremely strange, bizarre and inappropriate situation KNOWINGLY that blurs the line between appropriate and inappropriate and sets a dysfunctional precedent AND being emotionally abusive?

I think the parents were extremely neglectful. Assuming Michael Did nothing wrong other than have kids sleep in his room/bed then there is no form of abuse here. The only reason you are mentioning abuse is because you think he's guilty. I think they're a bunch of money grabbing opportunists.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

One of the most disturbing parts of this whole Jackson thing is the group of fans that will defend him for life. They ignore all evidence and find him infallible. Tomorrow there could be a video released of him actually molesting a child and they would say it’s fake. We can see how there’s still a group that blindly follows the President too. It’s a scary time when we have such easy access to actual facts and they are completely dismissed because we have such easy access to them.

It's more scary when people think they know for a fact what is true when the facts state he was "acquitted" when tried and these same men testified at the time that he did nothing wrong. So, I ask you, what evidence do you have that no one else is aware of?

 

[Zorba]

It's more scary when people think they know for a fact what is true when the facts state he was "acquitted" when tried and these same men testified at the time that he did nothing wrong. So, I ask you, what evidence do you have that no one else is aware of?

Money talk and bull shit walks.
Micheal Jackson was a creepy human being.
We will never know for sure what he did or didn’t do to these children.
Shame on the parents of these children that allowed their kids To hang around , sleep in a bed with this creep.
We will never know how much money if any was thrown at these families to keep it under wraps
Jackson is a piece of shit. The kids parents though are complete and utter scum

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

It's more scary when people think they know for a fact what is true when the facts state he was "acquitted" when tried and these same men testified at the time that he did nothing wrong. So, I ask you, what evidence do you have that no one else is aware of?

If the sparkly silver glove fits you must acquit?

Btw, count me as somebody who is deeply skeptical about MJ just being 'weird'. At the very best, if we believe everything Jackson said in the Bashear interviews what he was doing was highly inappropriate.

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

I suggest you read the WHOLE article and take a few minutes to think about what you've just read. The very paragraph you quoted contradicts everything you seem to think on the matter here.

Agreed.

The part where it says that neglect is abusive and not showing them what is right from wrong supports my point. The parents Saying it was okay for him to sleep with those kids through written consent was normalizing wrong behaviour. Sleeping with eccentric Peter Pan billionaires isn't the same as sleeping with family. It sets a very dysfunctional precedent in a young child's life.

I get I'm on the outer limits of the word abuse. I'll say there's a grey area there. I'll admit to that. But acting like calling the putting of a child in a situation where he can easily be harmed 'abuse' is some kind of crazy stretch I think is pretty disingenuous. I've already said many times I'm not invested in the idea of him being a molester. I was neutral on him for years and somewhat defended him so these assumptions that I'm making this point wholly dependent on the idea he is guilty isn't right. I'm not someone who goes around judging or condemning people. I'm not hell bent on calling MJ a monster. I get there's nuance. I was trying to add nuance to the word abuse. Maybe I didn't do a good job.

 

[habdynasty]

He was just a kid lol

 

[Mrb1p]

View attachment 198899 He was just a kid lol

Now thats just having fun.

 

[Mrb1p]

 

[le_sean]

It's more scary when people think they know for a fact what is true when the facts state he was "acquitted" when tried and these same men testified at the time that he did nothing wrong. So, I ask you, what evidence do you have that no one else is aware of?

Sorry but the mere fact he fully admits to sleeping in the same bed as children of strangers is f***ed up. Then there’s the evidence presented at the trial of the vast amount of pornographic material found in his bedroom.

Those people were pressured not to say anything. Now they are less afraid with the current movements and the mere fact you’re going against his estate and not him.

 

[PaulD]

Money talk and bull **** walks.
Micheal Jackson was a creepy human being.
We will never know for sure what he did or didn’t do to these children.
Shame on the parents of these children that allowed their kids To hang around , sleep in a bed with this creep.
We will never know how much money if any was thrown at these families to keep it under wraps
Jackson is a piece of ****. The kids parents though are complete and utter scum

Parents should be in jail.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

Money talk and bull **** walks.
Micheal Jackson was a creepy human being.
We will never know for sure what he did or didn’t do to these children.
Shame on the parents of these children that allowed their kids To hang around , sleep in a bed with this creep.
We will never know how much money if any was thrown at these families to keep it under wraps
Jackson is a piece of ****. The kids parents though are complete and utter scum

He was extremely weird, no doubt about it. If you lived his life and has his childhood you'd be a bit creepy too, but luckily being creepy isn't a crime.

To say he's a piece of shit because he's weird and suffered abuse at the hands of his own old man I don't agree with. You speculate he threw money around, there is one known case where he settled for cash, but if I had his money I would have settled too. This has no bearing on his innocence or guilt. He was acquitted afterall, I know, I know, this doesn't mean he actually didn't do it, but all there is 2 guys looking for payday several years after his death. People are f***ing terrible, I think you underestimate how dirty some can be for money. Did you know the accuser sued his estate in 2013, but in 2005 said nothing happened lolol. No, can't be a money grab.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

Sorry but the mere fact he fully admits to sleeping in the same bed as children of strangers is ****ed up. Then there’s the evidence presented at the trial of the vast amount of pornographic material found in his bedroom.

Those people were pressured not to say anything. Now they are less afraid with the current movements and the mere fact you’re going against his estate and not him.

Vast amounts of pornographic material eh? They had a search warrant before he knew anything about it and they found f*** all.

You don't even have your facts right.