Thursday, June 25, 2009

Death: Michael Jackson

I do not glee in anyone's death, especially those who I believe find their souls in Hell at the end.

But...call me cruel, heartless, black, or whatever may be, but I must be honest. I am not sorry that this man is dead. Why?

...because it's one less child molester to worry about.

Spencer

11 comments:

guitargirl said...

Thank you so much for sharing your opinion!!! People are freaking out all over the place and it's getting on my nerves and I got flack from some random dude on Twitter for even HINTING that Jackson was weird. People are like "Omg! Where are we gonna get our party tunes/child offenders now?" :P

For the record though, his family is in my prayers. It's not their fault he was...himself ;)

olde.fashioned said...

I don't even want to bring up this subject on my blog. You're a brave man for braving the wrath of so many crazy fans!

GuitarGirl, your statement does you credit, but I do think Michael Jackson's father (who apparently beat him and his siblings whenever they made a "mistake") certainly contributed to his son's...inclinations. Pushing young children into stardom and a rigorous life of performance is not healthy, either, IMVHO. But having said that, plenty of people were abused by their parents and didn't grow up to be perverted wackos.

I'm more inclined to pray for the poor innocent children he abused, rather than for him. And for that, as Jane Austen so eloquently put it, you may "despise me if you dare." ;-)

Joshua Horn said...

Glee might be the wrong word, but we do see verses like this:

Let death seize them; Let them kgo down alive into 5hell, For wickedness is in their dwellings and among them. (Psalms 55:13)

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

GG: You're welcome. :-)

OF: Thank you. :-P

JH: Thank you, too. :-)

Mada said...

I don't think that it was conclusively proven that he was a child molester.

Personally, I am not in mourning, though it IS sad for his family (and record company, boo-hoo...yeah right). He had issues, but I hope that somehow someone got the Gospel through to him.

Nuttycomputer said...

Spencer we don't always connect and I'm afraid this may be one of those times.

I understand from a religious perspective how you may not feel inclined to mourn the loss of a sinner but I must also disagree with your child molestation comment.

We must remember something that is of great importance and fundamental to freedom in this country. That is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.

Now whatever actually happened will be between Michael Jackson and God, of course, but as far as our system is concerned MJ never molested a child.

Given the evidence (lack thereof) and the accusing Father's strong motivational need for money coupled with the lack of concern for his son; I'm inclined to believe he was innocent.

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

Jay, it's not a problem to me if we disagree, as long as it's not to you. :-)

In the eyes of the system he is innocent, yes, but I'm not the system. In my opinion there are way too many indicators. Maybe it's just me, but I watch people closely. Jackson was way too far on the slimometer (please excuse my word usage).

But, OTOH, what's more important is that we agree on the much more vital issue of the right to use of force in defense of our ladies. :-D And we agree. :-D

Spencer

P.S. And I actually am inclined to mourn the loss of a sinner....

olde.fashioned said...

Opening my big mouth here...

I just want to point out that while yes, we have a justice system that (for the most part) presumes innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the people serving out that justice, like all other human beings, are flawed, fallen, and imperfect. They are just as capable of making a mistake in judgement (in both senses of the word) as anyone else. And surely everyone would agree that sometimes the guilty walk free, while the innocent are condemned.

The father's apparent "lack of concern" for his child is more indicative of "slime" on his part (to borrow Spencer's word) rather than innocence on MJ's, IMVHO -- if his son was not victimized, then shame on him for wrongfully accusing (and for all intensive purposes "blackmailing") an innocent man! If his son was indeed victimized and molested, then what kind of a father would settle for monetary compensation for himself in exchange for justice for his son? So I say shame on him, in both situations.

While MJ wasn't ever convicted of molestation and therefore it was his right to go free as he was never proven guilty, it is Spencer's right to hold the opinion that he was wrongly acquitted, just as it is also Jay's right to believe he was rightly so. ;-)

Okay I'll get off my soapbox now, LOL! *hides*

Nuttycomputer said...

Defense of Ladies?

You know my wife, my firearm is to protect me lol ;)

On a serious note I did reply back to your PM.

It's never wrong to civilly agree to disagree. :)

guitargirl said...

It was never proven that OJ Simpson was a killer either...:P

Okay, seriously, I'll stop before I cause a fight. LOL! ;)

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

You know my wife, my firearm is to protect me lol ;)

LOL LOL LOL!!!

GG: LOL true! He did "confess" in his book I heard tho....