Isel said:

couldn't agree with you more.

Isel said:

I am also a educator who teaches in a Secondary Education Setting. I've found alot of what you said to be true. Basically at the end of the day, you have to set the boundaries at let them know in the beginnning that you are the adult and you here to instruct them and give them guidance. Also, what I found helpful is establishing a good solid working relationship with the parents and this cuts down alot of foolishness.
[Edited 7/31/05 12:07pm]

Ellie said:

You should be Michael's spokeswoman.
[Edited 8/3/05 5:19am]

Ellie said:

That statement tells me that you don't think its wrong, therefore we just have different morals when it comes to children. You can sit there and split hairs in an effort to defend Michael, but I call it as it is, and a grown man SHOULD NOT BE SHARING HIS BED WITH CHILDREN.

But how is it "morally" wrong? I agree that it's wrong to teach it as a practice that everyone should do, that it oversteps certain boundaries, but the act in itself isn't really wrong.

Is it just the final line that shouldn't be crossed, because people talk about it like the next step is sex I tell you, that in itself creates a false impression that molestation is most likely to occur in bed at night, when it doesn't and it's pretty dangerous if those are the only/main signs to look for in a sexual predator. So where should that line extend to? Should suspicion arise if a babysitter falls asleep on a sofa with the child they're looking after a few times?

I agree with Isel and the other educators here that in this day and age there are boundaries that adults must take to protects themselves, especially those who work and associate with children - boundaries that extend to even so much as being alone in a room with a child with the door closed (it's not uncommon for any form of abuse to occur even in that common situation). Crossing those boundaries can be dangerous; going against guidelines; looked down upon, but not really morally wrong. At least not in my eyes.

Ellie said:

You're living in a fantasy world

And what difference does it make if its in the past.

Oh yeah in the past I used to kill people violently, but I cant be bothered with all that now

Erm, maybe because paedophiles just can't help themselves. Not every murderer is an addictive serial killer. Child abusers don't strike just once, and multi-millionaire child abusers don't tell their blackmailers to fuck off when given the chance of a quiet settlement and then get their insurance companies to pay in public civil suits.

Ellie said:

You couldnt have missed the point anymore, I wasnt comparing him to murderers, merely inventing a scenario to highlight how stupid your point is. A wrongdoing is still wrong whether it is in the past or not

And for the record Michael just couldnt help himself. Inviting more kids over to his gargantuan fantasy land when he had his fingers burnt by jordy Chandler.

People like you do MJ no favours, excusing quite obviously disturbing behaviour with non existant reasoning.

I don't know if MJ is a paedophile and neither do you, but I do know his behaviour is highly alarming

So u reckon Janet finally gave him a Blowjob as he said this?
[Edited 7/31/05 16:20pm]

sermwanderer said:

I think I got the point perfectly, and since there are no "new" children to have claimed to have shared his bed since 93 (Culkin, Barnes & Robson were all friends with him previous to that), it's obvious that the trustworthy ones were invited back and since they continue to visit regularly as friends then they don't see a problem. He just fell off with those super strange Arvizos, and they never shared a bed anyway.

I see the description of his behaviour has changed now from "wrong" to "alarming". That I agree with.

I agree with Jermaine Dupri on this one

Ellie said:

No you didnt, he still shouldnt have slept with the 'trustworthy' kids, it's WRONG to sleep with children that are not your own

Here we go again. Can we agree to disagree? Although I'll probably open another can of worms by saying that most forms of child sexual abuse are incestuous.

Ellie said:

Yes lets agree to disagree

Ellie said:

What is morally wrong, is that you are placing your child in a situation, where inappropriateness can occur. The situation, is allowing your child to share a bed or bedroom with a grown man, without any security cameras at that.
YOU DON'T SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT, which I find DISGUSTING. But hey, let's just agree to disagree how disgusting and icky that attitude is.

A babysitter is a temporary guardian who takes on the duties of a parent, such as comfort while the parent HAS to be away from the home. And by the way, even in that instant some parents have cameras called Nanny Cams to make sure they don't cross the line. MJ is not a freaking babysitter, he's a grown ass man, and had no business or reason to have kids in his bed.

And what's the point in your second paragraph. How are you the expert on when and where child molestation occurs. Even if it occurs less than other places, that's enough for me.

Rhondab said:

Krytonite said:

Actually,Jermaine Dupri has it backwards.The truth is,MJ did receive alot of support from the black community.BET banned an Eminem video that made fun of MJ....influential black folks like Jesse Jackson,Smokey Robinson and Steve Harvey were very vocal,defending MJ and showing their support...there were even many folks in the hip-hop community who voiced their support (Missy,Outkast,LL Cool J,etc).Even Louis Farrakhan voiced his support for MJ.

Err, I'm not an expert but maybe because I myself have and know people who have experienced child sexual abuse I can make a comment.

And yes, the "morally" wrong person is the parent who allows it. That wasn't what was said earlier in the thread.

I gonna ask you all this question that relates to this topic. Do you all think think that the white community really has supported Elvis??

I got into a little discussion with someone about this who believes that the white community has supported Elvis. Well, I strongly disagreed. I think that white community can be VERY expedient when it comes "legends." I mean it's fine if the legends never do anything that's strange or to damage their legendary status. But if they do, people make fun of em. I remember watching this episode of Designing Women that not only kinda sorta ridiculed Elvis, but also portrayed his fans as zombie-like hicks. Of course, at the end the plot turned that Elvis had helped this sick boy, but still that Las Vegas, over-weight, self-obsessed Elvis with his cultish fans is the first image that is portrayed or ridiculed by comedians, movies, or sitcoms, not documentaries necessarily, that I've seen.

I don't think that the white-culture is very forgiving of decline of each other at all except if a legend has a chance to redeem him or herself in the public eye, then of course it's a different story coz the legend has become risen over some sort of adversity then he/she is a "hero" once again. Unfortunately, Elvis never got that opportunity, but at least Priscilla seems to be trying to redirect attention on his music and charitable nature without even denying that the other side of him existed. But she is responsible for protecting his legacy, not the white community at large.

By the way, I'm white so it's not like I'm prejudiced against my own community: I just see it for what it is sometimes: people are just people.
[Edited 8/1/05 6:13am]

A - Jermaine Dupri blasts the black community for not supporting MJ after the trial is over. Why not say these things while the trial was going on? MJ could have used the support then. I don't remember any public statements from Dupri proclaiming MJ's innocence.
B - If Jermaine Dupri is crying over lack of support for black entertainers that have criminal cases then why isn't he out drumming up support for R. Kelly? He is a black entertainer that has touched many people - why no public support for R. Kelly from Jermaine Dupri? Sounds like he is guilty of the same lack of support like the rest of the black community.
Instead of attacking the black community why not go out & lead by example?

thedoorkeeper said:

But I still want to know why we as a community should just automatically stand behind people who may have fucked up ? I understand the impulse, guven the history that we as Black people in this country have faced. It's natural to try to rally around folks when they're down. But in this day and age, I think that this "reflexive" support does the Black community more harm than good. It's almost like saying to the rest of America : "Black people don't care about facts, or the truth, or Right and Wrong. They only care about their image ."
Me personally, if someone does something I think is wrong, I'll criticize for it. I wouldn't care if it was my own parents. Fucked up behavior is fucked up behavior, no matter who did it or how much you liked their last CD

jjhunsecker said:

That's how it should be. Unfortunately society (not singling out any demographic) tend to be led and not think for themselves.

Michael had and has support from those that care and that's all matters.

whatever the colour.

jjhunsecker said:

-----
"automatically stand behind people who may have fucked up ? " We don't stand behind everyone. I don't know anybody black who really cared about O.J. we just wanted him to get a fair trail.

There is so much history in the USA of discrimination

that we still need to stand together. You don't want the divide and conquer technique to start becoming effective.

At the same time we also need to correct people when they are wrong. You could blame Mike's family for some of is behavior.

I think the black community should give MJ the same support he has given them, which isn't a whole hell of a lot.
Maybe MJ can tour the country and pass out free bleach and plastic surgery coupons to the black community so we can f*ck up our faces just like he did.
But more to the point, why should you support someone who you feel is a criminal? OJ was found not guilty by a jury, but I still believe he murdered two people. Obviously the opinion of the jury was more important to OJ, but my opinion didn't change cause 12 people said not guilty. And because 12 people said MJ's not guilty didn't change my opinion one iota. I believe he is a child molester and he got away with it.
Truth is, MJ doesn't give people of any race a whole lot to support. He's just a pathetic character who did himself in.

Jermaine is going crazy


http://www.canada.com/nat...150f42d420

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

NEW YORK (AP) - If Michael Jackson took Jermaine Dupri's advice, he'd be on TV flaunting his acquittal instead of retreating from the public eye.

"(If) I was him, I would have gone on TRL immediately and said look, 'Everybody who wanna say something about me, good, y'all could say whatever y'all wanna say, there's nothing you can say about me at this point, no more than what just happened,"' said Dupri, who is dating Jackson's sister, Janet. Jackson was acquitted in June on child molestation charges.

While other scandal-plagued stars have launched the comeback route with a teary-eyed interview with Oprah Winfrey or Barbara Walters, Dupri scoffed at the suggestion that Jackson should be remorseful.

"He don't have to do that, because he didn't do nothing wrong. Everybody else did something wrong but him. What did he do wrong? Why should he come back and cry?" Dupri asked.

And though some have doubted whether the pop star could make a successful comeback, Dupri says Jackson has a magical quality that will always keep people interested.

"If Michael Jackson came in this room right now, there would be no one in this room who could not stop looking at him. As long as you've got that power, you're never damaged," Dupri told The Associated Press in a recent interview. "He has that power over anybody. If people can't stop looking at you, you're so interesting to people, there's no way you can be damaged."

Ya know, I don't think that Jermaine's idea is all that bad after Michael has had a chance to rest a bit. It would be nice if MICHAEL spoke for himself at some point in the trial's aftermath rather than family, friends,and representatives speaking for him I wish Micahel the best.

I'm not sure about the aura and power thing, but he has a point that as a culture we are in awe of celebrities, period.
[Edited 8/2/05 17:05pm]

Jermaine is pussy whipped for sure

lilgish said:

"Eat it! EAT IT! And when you're done, there's another press conference."

I like Jermaine, but this has to be his crowning achievement.