Yes, Michael Jackson was a pedophile and sexually assaulted chlidren (white boys almost exclusively of course)

gaysexenjoyer said:
I didn't say they're "not that bad", I said they weren't pornographic, which they aren't. I also said that Jackson's fingerprints weren't present on it's pages before the trial, which they weren't, and that it was a gift from a completely different person, which it was.

I'm not upset at you trying to substantiate your argument here, I'm upset at you posting """censored""" versions with nothing but scribbles that you can still see through over it like a moron.

You can't post images of underage nudity here, even if it's not CP. Some retard named Headshot Reddot did the same thing where he posted medical journal images of underage penises and said it was indians, and the mods had to vaporize his ass.

You're being dangerously stupid.
Click to expand...
It's really obvious you're trying to save face here. That's the only reason you're freaking out about this. You and his other defenders should see a 10th of what you're defending.

Also you're not a mod. You don't get to decide what's posted here.
 
gaysexenjoyer said:
Okay even with the argument of weather or not it's sexual aside, that's still nowhere near enough censorship dude. It doesn't even cover it up all the way, what the fuck are you thinking?

Like illegal or not it's still pictures of underage boys, you can't post it here.
Click to expand...
wow the guy who defends the pedo is now going to claim the censored images proving the guy was a pedo are not censored enough for him (the images are completely censored).

jackson fag are the fucking worse. Face the wall retard
EDIT: his name is actually "gaysexenjoyer" - I bet that's supposed to be ironic eh? You got much going on in your discord server faggot?
 
The images I posted have been aired on TV, posted uncensored on blogs and censored versions have been posted on social media and elsewhere. I went ahead and drew past what a typical bathing suit would cover. I think any defenders at this point need to see some inkling of what they're defending. The images have been rendered unuseful for anyone that would misuse them but shows the actual horror of what Jackson actually did.

Also, this "gasexyenjoyer" really seems like he's trying to save face for defending something so obviously wrong.
 
Echinacea said:
It's really obvious you're trying to save face here. That's the only reason you're freaking out about this. You and his other defenders should see a 10th of what you're defending.

Also you're not a mod. You don't get to decide what's posted here.
Click to expand...
"Y-y-you're just trying to save face!"

You literally went back and added more censorship after I pointed it out because you know I'm right lmao, you left the kid's entire ass and genital area uncovered on the bottom. Great job dumbass.
 
It is worth noting that the book was determined by the California DA and the investigators on the case to be considered obscene and gross but not CSAM by definitions at the state level. Guessing the FBI felt the same way. Theres tons of information on the case and a lot of little oddities that pop up in the investigation that makes it super bizarre to dig into.
 
gaysexenjoyer said:
"Y-y-you're just trying to save face!"

You literally went back and added more censorship after I pointed it out because you know I'm right lmao. Great job dumbass.
Click to expand...
go sperg elsewhere with your pedo apology. you got caught with your pants down saying this shit was normal and ok but now you're trying to fake outrage.
Retrodogkiller said:
It is worth noting that the book was determined by the California DA and the investigators on the case to be considered obscene and gross but not CSAM by definitions at the state level. Guessing the FBI felt the same way. Theres tons of information on the case and a lot of little oddities that pop up in the investigation that makes it super bizarre to dig into.
Click to expand...
the problem isn't entirely the book itself but also at least 4 similar books were owned by the same guy who was accused of those things. the books are indicative as in "well he sure was weirdly interested in this"
 
Echinacea said:
the problem isn't entirely the book itself but also at least 4 similar books were owned by the same guy who was accused of those things. the books are indicative as in "well he sure was weirdly interested in this
Click to expand...
Yes, iirc one was an art book with actual drawings of naked boys. I feel like if that was found on some random bum he'd have been hit with csam charges, but since it was Michael they interpreted the law differently for him.
 
Echinacea said:
go sperg elsewhere with your pedo apology. you got caught with your pants down saying this shit was normal and ok but now you're trying to fake outrage.
Click to expand...
1) I never said it was "normal and ok", I just said it wasn't illegal and didn't prove Jackson was a pedophile because forensically there was no evidence he ever read it to begin with.

2) You bitched at me telling you it wasn't censored enough for the site then went back and covered it up more. The only one who's being dishonest and sperging here is you.
 
Retrodogkiller said:
Yes, iirc one was an art book with actual drawings of naked boys. I feel like if that was found on some random bum he'd have been hit with csam charges, but since it was Michael they interpreted the law differently for him.
Click to expand...
most of those books were written by confirmed pedos too.
gaysexenjoyer said:
1) I never said it was normal, I just said it wasn't illegal and didn't prove Jackson was a pedophile because forensically there was no evidence he ever read it to begin with.

2) You bitched at me telling you it wasn't censored enough for the site then went back and covered it up more. The only one who's being dishonest and sperging here is you.
Click to expand...
you tried to backseat mod to distract from the shame of defending such things being in a persons house. also how many times were you looking at that? kinda weird
 
gaysexenjoyer said:
You literally went back and added more censorship after I pointed it out because you know I'm right lmao, you left the kid's entire ass and genital area uncovered on the bottom.
Click to expand...
I'll be annoying and confirm that this did happen. The top and two side photos were censored decently enough, but the bottom middle photo had the boy's ass out.

Edit: Though it doesn't really mean much, because those photos aren't legally actionable cp, they've been publicly disseminated for years completely uncensored, and OP was just (attempting) to censor them out of decency's sake.
 
Last edited:
beautiful person said:
I'll be annoying and confirm that this did happen. The top and two side photos were censored decently enough, but the bottom middle photo had the boy's ass out.

Edit: Though it doesn't really mean much, because those photos aren't legally actionable cp, they've been publicly disseminated for years completely uncensored, and OP was just (attempting) to censor them out of decency's sake.
Click to expand...
Look I want to make it clear that at no point in this entire conversation did I say the books were fine or normal, shit I certainly wouldn't trust kids around a guy that had them in his house, I'm just saying they weren't CSAM like people are asserting and I don't think they automatically prove Jackson's guilt, namely because according to the very same court cases they were brought up in they couldn't actually prove Jackson read or bought them in the first place.

It seems like a fairly basic requirement in accusing someone of using a book for pedophilic purposes that you actually prove they read the thing first. If the guy's fingerprints weren't in it and it was a gift from a completely different person then I can see why the court didn't take it as compelling evidence.

If I'm wrong and Jackson really was a chomo then I hope he suffered and gets molested by satan for the rest of eternity, I'm just not convinced by what was presented in court that was the case.
 
frickmaxxing said:
He literally admitted to sleeping with young boys, saying that it is a beautiful thing. He clearly had a type. It's a shame the guys from the documentary were called liars, just cause they misremembered some details.
Click to expand...

I got shit once for saying that his victims acted like how a person who was molested would behave, and because I said they came off as legit and not actors.


If you look up the behaviors of victims who are sexually abused, it becomes easy to see.
 
gaysexenjoyer said:
Look I want to make it clear that at no point in this entire conversation did I say the books were fine or normal, shit I certainly wouldn't trust kids around a guy that had them in his house, I'm just saying they weren't CSAM like people are asserting and I don't think they automatically prove Jackson's guilt, namely because according to the very same court cases they were brought up in they couldn't actually prove Jackson read or bought them in the first place.
Click to expand...
Tbf, I don't think the OP is looking for an actual debate lol.

gaysexenjoyer said:
It seems like a fairly basic requirement in accusing someone of using a book for pedophilic purposes that you actually prove they read the thing first. If the guy's fingerprints weren't in it and it was a gift from a completely different person then I can see why the court didn't take it as compelling evidence.

If I'm wrong and Jackson really was a chomo then I hope he suffered and gets molested by satan for the rest of eternity, I'm just not convinced by what was presented in court that was the case.
Click to expand...
The biggest problem with the MJ Question is that the most convincing evidence against him is all circumstantial. It's easy to see how he couldn't be convicted in criminal court, with its "beyond a reasonable doubt" standards and all that, and how the FBI couldn't find anything solid to pin on him. But it's also hard to look at all of that circumstantial evidence, not as individual pieces, but as a whole picture, and not come to the conclusion that Michael Jackson was at the very least, very sussy baka. It's just that the combination of him being dead and not benefitting from a rejuvenated legacy, and the existence of that reasonable doubt, which largely hinges on there being a lot of money to be made from ruining him (if MJ was completely and absolutely financially fucked, he would've been forced to sell his half of the ATV catalog; Sony was only able to buy it from his estate after his death), is enough for most people who are casual fans of his music to be like, "eh whatever."
 
General Patton said:
They were made by convicted members of NAMBLA. That's enough. It wasn't CSAM, yes. But ask yourself, why would NAMBLA people publish a book of nude underage boys?
Click to expand...

Furthermore, just because something can’t legally be classified as CSAM and subject to prosecution doesn’t mean chomos weren’t cranking their hogs to it. I feel like anyone using this angle is being purposely obtuse.
 
Taser Confetti said:
Furthermore, just because something can’t legally be classified as CSAM and subject to prosecution doesn’t mean chomos weren’t cranking their hogs to it. I feel like anyone using this angle is being purposely obtuse.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Pedophiles use innocent books to get off on their sexual interests in children. They do the same thing to pictures of children on social media and videos of children on YouTube.

I'm not going to trust anything published by NAMBLA members. They made that work for obvious sinister reasons. So they can get off on naked children.

Just like I'm side eyeing fans who sent those books to Michael. Why the fuck did Michael Jackson fans send him books of naked boys? That's what I want to know. Who does that to celebrities?

It's not normal to send celebrities books of naked people.
 
gaysexenjoyer said:
Look I want to make it clear that at no point in this entire conversation did I say the books were fine or normal, shit I certainly wouldn't trust kids around a guy that had them in his house, I'm just saying they weren't CSAM like people are asserting and I don't think they automatically prove Jackson's guilt, namely because according to the very same court cases they were brought up in they couldn't actually prove Jackson read or bought them in the first place.

It seems like a fairly basic requirement in accusing someone of using a book for pedophilic purposes that you actually prove they read the thing first. If the guy's fingerprints weren't in it and it was a gift from a completely different person then I can see why the court didn't take it as compelling evidence.

If I'm wrong and Jackson really was a chomo then I hope he suffered and gets molested by satan for the rest of eternity, I'm just not convinced by what was presented in court that was the case.
Click to expand...
He wrote his fucking initials in the book

In an interview with Diane Sawyer from 1995 when asked about the books, MJ lied saying that he was not aware of them and had not seen them, despite having them locked in his room and having written inside the cover of “Boys will be boys” (p. 8173):

"Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys' faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children. M.J."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom