Posted on 06/14/2005 7:32:32 AM PDT by Asphalt
I addressed that earlier a couple of times. This is NOT the situation with Michael Jackson - in his case we are talking about a single middle aged man who sleeps regularly with young boys in the same bed who are unrelated to him. This is not remotely similar to the case of a father who might sleep with his young son for whatever reason, or a couple of brothers who sleep together. There is nothing unusual or abnormal about that. However, I would say that any man like Jackson who admits to sleeping with young boys in the same bed that he is not related to, is a perv and a freak. That is highly abnormal behavior.
I don't see why you would consider that a bizarre statement - I think there is a continuum between what might be considered erotic to various people and what might be pornographic. Pornography is very graphic and has the specific and probably sole purpose of sexual titilation. Erotica might be sexually titilating but it can also have an artistic purpose. Thus, a collection in a book of pictures of old world nudes might be considered erotica for some people. The context in this case is that of an accused pedophile, and someone who openly admits he sleeps with young boys in his bed, who has a book like this which features pictures of boys in various poses and various degrees of undress. THe context is creepy. Hell, the pics I've seen from the pic are kind of creepy. what the book does is FETISHIZE young boys. I think that's what makes it erotica for pedophiles and what makes it creepy for most normal people.
LOL!!! Hey, I was 17 once, too. I thought I knew everything then, too.
This is a forum for adults; remember that and act accordingly.
Nice. Arguing with logic too much for you?
I don't not "like" him. (/schoolyard)
See, that's your problem, (other than saying the same thing over and over and over in your posts) to you, it's about the emotion.
I "like" to debate with logic and facts, like conservatives do, not emotion, like you do. I may disagree with sink occasionally, but at least he knows how to debate, and he knows it's not about "liking" people.
You picked a fight with me. It was not the other way around. So, you my dear need to check your own maturity at the door.
I notice you're not too good at answering questions. So how dog-eared is your copy of "The Boy?"
It's in the same condition of your kids after you burn them with cigarrettes.
Are you this lame to think you're "zinging" me with your tough questions? Seriously. Try logic. It's really effective.
I missed this post first time around Miz, I love your comment about the Telemarketing calls. They should try to stay away from the Psychic Friends Network too.
Maybe you should demonstrate some "logic" to me and I'll get some idea of what you think it is. Right now all I see you calling logic is a rather sneering hostility.
By the way, what do you think of Michael Jackson stating publicly that he sleeps with little boys not related to him in the same bed? Is that okay with you?
I noticed your viciousness in response to a post that wasn't callled for.
And I gave you some advice.
And you told me to "go to hell."
If I decided to be immature about it, you would have been reported to the mods and had your posting privileges revoked.
What I have noticed about your posts this evening is that you have been constantly hostile and nasty in a way that seems uncalled for. I believe your remark to American Butterfly was to "Grow up". I don't know what that remark is supposed to mean or how it adds logically to this debate.
No it's not okay.
I think he's a pedophile.
The prosecution failed in the absolute worst way to prove its case.
Okay, that's reasonable. I disagree with you about the trial, but I don't want to go over it again and again. Obviously you can read my earlier comments if you choose to.
What I have noticed about your posts is that you only argue from emotion.
NOT THAT IT'S ANY OF YOUR BUSINESS,
The "grow up" was in response to a post of Butterfly's where she implied that if she were on a jury, she'd let the guy who assaulted a poster's children get off --- just because she disagreed with the poster.
Is it okay if Butterfly acts nasty because she's on your side?
I notice that you are consistently nasty and I don't know why that is. My last post to you was very civil. You've been nasty to pretty much everyone you've posted to for no apparent reason, regardless of their position on the topic. Sinkspur for example, disagrees with me radically. I don't like your blatant hostility so frankly I'm not responding to you again.
Stands2reason is one of the nastiest posters I've seen on FR. Frankly I don't get him, he seems to hate everybody. I'm not answering him again. I suggest we ignore him.
I am heading off to bed, good night all.
You asked how dogeared my gayboy porn was, and I'm the nasty one?!?!? I guess it's okay for you to say that, though. Right?
I noticed you have no problem with Butterfly's comments.
I'm not surprised you're bugging out. I finally asked you a question you didn't want to answer.
I'm female, like you.
And I never called you a name.
YOU started with the namecalling, remember that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.