Michael Jackson...role model?

[agame2323]

I agree. To a great extent, you have to be concerned about what is best for your child, not society. Some kids would need the closure of winning the trial, while others would be damaged by it.

This post should not be taken as my agreeing with those who insist that MJ was a molester, I do not.

I agree there is nothing wrong with wanting whats best for your child and allowing society to take care of itself. But, if closure (to you or your child) envoles receiving money then it paints a completely different picture about what’s important to you.

When you REALLY want closure you don’t care how much money or if any money is involved. You want it to be OVER. A nightmare is a nightmare. If something is that horrible to you, you don’t say “I'll endure this painful experience until I get my 1million.” No…you say just ended it. I don’t care about money , I just want it to stop.

Again, it goes back to whats important to you.

 

[sbell111]

I agree there is nothing wrong with wanting whats best for your child and allowing society to take care of itself. But, if closure (to you or your child) envoles receiving money then it paints a completely different picture about what’s important to you.

When you REALLY want closure you don’t care how much money or if any money is involved. You want it to be OVER. A nightmare is a nightmare. If something is that horrible to you, you don’t say “I'll endure this painful experience until I get my 1million.” No…you say just ended it. I don’t care about money , I just want it to stop.

Again, it goes back to whats important to you.

I think that you are reading more (or less) into these actions than you should.

If, as a parent, I decide to not put my child through a trial, I may accept an out of court settlement. This would serve two purposes. First, it would be some small amount of punishment. Second, it will help pay for any needed therapy.

Can we get further off subject? (Golly, this has to be the most unmoderated forum on the net. I'm shocked that so many people claim that it is over moderated.)

 

[agame2323]

You are missing the point and starting to compare apples to oranges. It would be a punishment to the guilty party; much the same as the damages that would be awarded in a civil suit.

It also doesn't become about making a profit. If your child could not deal with all the emotion and stress from a trial, you would want to do what is best for them. The money that you could be given in a settlement could go a long way in paying for the therapy that the child will probably need to come to terms with what happened.

A civil suit is completely opposite of a child being molested. COMPLETELY opposite.

But to you statment...I actually understand your point. You think there should be some level of punishment and if the child is unable to handle what’s to come, a settlement should be made to make up for the absence of going to court.

However, I think your missing my point. All I asking is what is important. Is it the well-being of the child or is it punishing the accuser? With you it seems to be the punishment, which is fine, but understand the means of which become questionable. Your method of punishment is to use money as a source. Suppose the accuser isn’t MJ, then what? Suppose they didn’t have millions of dollars. Or Better yet suppose MJ was broke and simply couldn’t pay you? Then what? What do you tell your child then? What lesson have they gained from that experience other than we need to check the person bank account next time?

My friend, money is an object. Its no telling how much one has to give or if one can give anything. There is a valuable lesson to be taught in this entire thing. Once your kids view money a way to “even the score “ or “punish” someone, it changes them. It creates the foundation to operate and live from going forward. At that age the child has no idea the value or importantance of a dollar, but they do know daddy used money as a way to get back at someone. How do you think they grow up from that point? Where do their morals and values rest once they fully understand the situation?

 

[luvsJack]

Money would still act as a form of punishment and as we have read on here and other sites, a sign of his guilt. I don't think it necessarily sends a bad message to the child as long as the money is used to assist the child recover.

To answer your questions: No I wouldn't walk away without the money; No money doesn't make it all better but it would help.

I just don't understand this way of thinking. How on earth could you live with yourself if you knew the person you took the money from molested another child? I couldn't. What if that person did so much to the next child that it caused that child to shut down emotionally or even committ suicide? Could you deal with knowing you could have prevented it? I just couldn't keep saying "I did what was best for my child."

 

[agame2323]

I think that you are reading more (or less) into these actions than you should.

If, as a parent, I decide to not put my child through a trial, I may accept an out of court settlement. This would serve two purposes. First, it would be some small amount of punishment. Second, it will help pay for any needed therapy.

Can we get further off subject? (Golly, this has to be the most unmoderated forum on the net. I'm shocked that so many people claim that it is over moderated.)

So in other words, if your child could not deal with the stress of going to trail, the next best alternative (IYO) is to “negotiate” a particular sum of money that “could” be used to help pay for “therapy?” However, there is no medical proof that states the child will even need therapy. There is no therapeutic dollar amount associated with the mental recovery of a child. Furthermore, there have been plenty of child who have gone on to have happy and normal life styles after being molested. So what exactly is the factual purpose of the money?

Your saying I’m reading into your actions (too much or less…pick one) but you have yet to explain what’s important to you. Or better, how much money is enough? Does it have to do with how much the ACCUSER has or is it how YOU need to feel satisfied? The child does not know the value of money. You as a parent can do as you wish, but is it really for you or the child? How do you know your child couldn’t handle a trail? Have they been involved in one before? Plenty of children go to trail and perform remarkably.

I think its more about paying for that “therapy” / trip to Hawaii the child (and parents) may need and less about punishment.

 

[agame2323]

I just don't understand this way of thinking. How on earth could you live with yourself if you knew the person you took the money from molested another child? I couldn't. What if that person did so much to the next child that it caused that child to shut down emotionally or even committ suicide? Could you deal with knowing you could have prevented it? I just couldn't keep saying "I did what was best for my child."

Exactly. I don't understand that way of thinking.

 

[redrosesix]

Okay whatever “theory” you want to use as to who has answered and who is on the fence is up to you. How you can make that determination is beyond me. But hey…

ANYWAY, look I ask this question to you and anyone else “on the fence.” Some of you like to look past the facts. The man was acquitted but oh, there are flaws in the system (I knew that one was coming). I also heard, he settled out court and that proves he did it. So here’s my question:

If your kid was the victim of a pedophile and the accuser want to settle of court, would you do it? Remember this is your child. I like to believe ethics and principals should play a part in your decision and if they do, NO amount of money is worth the well-being of your child and other children who may come into contact with this pedophile. It comes down to morals and character. Morals being this person did wrong and should be punished because he is truly a danger to society. Character because never in a million years would I place money above my children.

So when I look at the character traits of these people, they did the opposite. Took money and let a “pedophile” walk free. If you except and support that way of thinking… I feel sorry for your kids.

I characterize myself as being "on the fence" about MJ's guilt or innocence because and I seriously question his judgement regarding the things he has admitted to. For example, although I know that I would not molest a child if they were sleeping in my bed, in the interests of the child it would be best for them to maintain some privacy between us -- the next person whose bed they sleep in may not have the same ethics as I do. If he only did the things he has admitted too, in my books I would still call that endangerment of a child -- not looking out for their well-being enough.

And although I would never take money to "shut up" which I agree with others is all that is accomplished, I can tell you that there are many, many parents who would never report a crime in the first place. For example, when I was 14 I was assaulted by a man who made no secret of what he was about to do -- luckily nothing happened and I got away and ran home. I had to fight with my mother to call the police because she didn't want to risk the embarassment. Yes, I believe that my mother would be the type of person to accept the hush money, not because of weak morals but because of ignorance. BTW, I still haven't forgiven her for believing that in some way it must have been my fault and was something to be ashamed of. I was walking down the street, for pete's sake.

But I'm not the type of person who would use my sick child to get close to a pop star, let them spend time alone with a stranger, or in any way let money force me to change my morals. For example, there may have been many doctors who were willing to risk their license to give Diprivan to MJ, but if I were a physician I would not be one of them (but let's face it, doctors don't have a corner on ethics -- there have been many who assisted in torture chambers throughout the world)

A civil suit is completely opposite of a child being molested. COMPLETELY opposite.

But to you statment...I actually understand your point. You think there should be some level of punishment and if the child is unable to handle what’s to come, a settlement should be made to make up for the absence of going to court.

However, I think your missing my point. All I asking is what is important. Is it the well-being of the child or is it punishing the accuser? With you it seems to be the punishment, which is fine, but understand the means of which become questionable. Your method of punishment is to use money as a source. Suppose the accuser isn’t MJ, then what? Suppose they didn’t have millions of dollars. Or Better yet suppose MJ was broke and simply couldn’t pay you? Then what? What do you tell your child then? What lesson have they gained from that experience other than we need to check the person bank account next time?

My friend, money is an object. Its no telling how much one has to give or if one can give anything. There is a valuable lesson to be taught in this entire thing. Once your kids view money a way to “even the score “ or “punish” someone, it changes them. It creates the foundation to operate and live from going forward. At that age the child has no idea the value or importantance of a dollar, but they do know daddy used money as a way to get back at someone. How do you think they grow up from that point? Where do their morals and values rest once they fully understand the situation?

Given your scenario, I believe the outcome is that the child will eventually think that their well-being and safety has a dollar value, when all children should feel priceless.

 

[disneyworldluvr349]

I found this article to be an interesting read.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0709200...ing_the_veil_on_jackos_kids_178330.htm?page=0

 

[beachgrl001]

I don't think that having someone as a role model means trying be an exact replica of that person. No one is perfect. We don't aspire to repeat the failures of our heroes or adopt their flaws. We look for the best in them and try to emulate those aspects. There was much that was wonderful and amazing about Michael Jackson and if those good qualities are emulated by others the world will be a better place.

What I admire about him is the huge amount of humanitarian work that he did. It is truly amazing how much theworld has benefitted from him. I cannot hope to compare to the good works that he did.

I also admire how much his children love him.

 

[raysnkaysmom]

Understandable, but money is nothing more than an object. Money can not be used as a tool for punishment. If you miss too many days at work, eventually you get fired. Your boss doesn’t say, “I’m punishing you. Give me $5,000.”

My problem with the notion of excepting money is that your placing a dollar value on a very serious situation. Then you get into an entirely different situation pertaining to how much money. How much money does it take a child to recover from being molested? It’s not like buying a car. There is no Kelly Blue book that says “Oh the child is 9yrs old…that’s worth 2million.” To the accuser its X, to YOU its Y. The child / victim doesn’t even matter at that stage.

My point is it becomes less about the victim and more about those people looking to make a substantial profit. The child is pushed aside and the matter at hand becomes “how much you gonna give us to make this go away.” When you say the money “helps” who does it help? If the child never needed it before, how does IT help?

I think you are now just running at the mouth for the sake of making an argument....

You are missing the point and starting to compare apples to oranges. It would be a punishment to the guilty party; much the same as the damages that would be awarded in a civil suit.

It also doesn't become about making a profit. If your child could not deal with all the emotion and stress from a trial, you would want to do what is best for them. The money that you could be given in a settlement could go a long way in paying for the therapy that the child will probably need to come to terms with what happened.

Would I want this to happen to another child. Hell no. But, if MY child wanted it to stop and it was further damaging him, I'd stop it and settle out of court to end it. It was already public knowledge anyway (in MJs case)

FTR, I dont' think he did it.

 

[luvsJack]

Exactly. I don't understand that way of thinking.

I guess some of us think of more than "me and mine"?

And I would still like an answer from them.

How could someone live with themselves knowing a another child was molested because you didn't do everything you could to get the molestor put away?

 

[luvmy3]

I guess some of us think of more than "me and mine"?

And I would still like an answer from them.

How could someone live with themselves knowing a another child was molested because you didn't do everything you could to get the molestor put away?

The truth of the matter is, my child would come before all others. If settling out of court protected my child I would have no problem living with my decision.
Just as you can't understand my way of thinking I don't understand how anyone could make their own child go through something like a trial (if they couldn't bear to do it) after going through the horrors of sexual abuse.

 

[WDWBarb]

I can't bring myself to read this whole thread. But, to answer the original question -

I would love for my child to have tremendous amounts of talent, like MJ did. I would love for my child to have a heart the size of Michael's. I would wish them to have the hope and joy that Michael had. How wonderful to retain that sense of wonder and excitement that most of us only experience in childhood.

But I wouldn't want that same child to suffer through trying to navigate their way through this world. Society eats people like that up. It's ruthless and vengeful.

Michael was a good role model in so many ways, but he wasn't able to survive his own life.

 

[declansdad]

A civil suit is completely opposite of a child being molested. COMPLETELY opposite.

But to you statment...I actually understand your point. You think there should be some level of punishment and if the child is unable to handle what’s to come, a settlement should be made to make up for the absence of going to court.

However, I think your missing my point. All I asking is what is important. Is it the well-being of the child or is it punishing the accuser? With you it seems to be the punishment, which is fine, but understand the means of which become questionable. Your method of punishment is to use money as a source. Suppose the accuser isn’t MJ, then what? Suppose they didn’t have millions of dollars. Or Better yet suppose MJ was broke and simply couldn’t pay you? Then what? What do you tell your child then? What lesson have they gained from that experience other than we need to check the person bank account next time?

My friend, money is an object. Its no telling how much one has to give or if one can give anything. There is a valuable lesson to be taught in this entire thing. Once your kids view money a way to “even the score “ or “punish” someone, it changes them. It creates the foundation to operate and live from going forward. At that age the child has no idea the value or importantance of a dollar, but they do know daddy used money as a way to get back at someone. How do you think they grow up from that point? Where do their morals and values rest once they fully understand the situation?

I'm not missing your point at all but you keep implying things in mine that are not there. I think that you have a problem with accepting differing opinions. You dress it up nice, but the undertones in your writing say something completely different.

I would do what is best for my child, PERIOD.

 

[declansdad]

I just don't understand this way of thinking. How on earth could you live with yourself if you knew the person you took the money from molested another child? I couldn't. What if that person did so much to the next child that it caused that child to shut down emotionally or even committ suicide? Could you deal with knowing you could have prevented it? I just couldn't keep saying "I did what was best for my child."

I could live with myself because I did what was best for my child. At some point our responsibility to the rest of society has to have limits.

 

[declansdad]

I guess some of us think of more than "me and mine"?

And I would still like an answer from them.

How could someone live with themselves knowing a another child was molested because you didn't do everything you could to get the molestor put away?

At some incidents, nothing you could do would convince a jury in a criminal court that the person did wrong. You do what is best for your child.

 

[redrosesix]

I found this article to be an interesting read.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0709200...ing_the_veil_on_jackos_kids_178330.htm?page=0

Am I going to be the only one that finds this horrifying? It reminds me of the Dionne Quintuplets

At some incidents, nothing you could do would convince a jury in a criminal court that the person did wrong. You do what is best for your child.

ITA! And if my child had any doubts at all about being able to go through with it, I wouldn't want to be up against the likes of Michael Jackson. In most cases of this type, everybody respects the anonymity of the victim -- against a celebrity, the press will do everything to find out who the victim is.

But I think most of us would support our child in fighting back if they did wish to prosecute.

 

[Tigger1]

MJ was a great singer. He was also very strange, and in my opinion, a pervert.

I am glad my children never went to his sleep over.

 

[agame2323]

I'm not missing your point at all but you keep implying things in mine that are not there. I think that you have a problem with accepting differing opinions. You dress it up nice, but the undertones in your writing say something completely different.

I would do what is best for my child, PERIOD.

...You think there should be some level of punishment and if the child is unable to handle what’s to come, a settlement should be made to make up for the absence of going to court.

^^^^That is what your trying to say correct? Please correct me if I am misinterpreting what you are trying to state. Where do the incorrect implications take place?

Look, I’ll make this simple. God forbid, If my child were to come to me one day and say he was violated I would WANT to go to great measures to make sure that individual gets punished in a court of law. However, if my child could not handle it, and knows that if they truly can’t this person walks away, I would have to end it. The person who violated my child better move away from me and hope I never see them again.

I guess, again tell me if I’m wrong, you would not drop it but instead say “I want X amount of dollars because I'm punishing you and this is what’s right for my child.”

Now, if I’m correct about your point (which I believe I am) the only difference between what I said and what you are saying is the issue of money. Your stance is punishment by money. My stance is punishment by the Justice System or nothing.

Okay…I think we are on the same page now, right? So from here, its all about how you view your own morals and standards.

To some calling the acceptance of money a means of punishment sends a message to your kids that says, lessons can be taught with money. Now money becomes an equalizer. You wanna settle the score, hit’em in the pockets. I can’t do it. Its too hard, money will fix. Money fixed my childhood problem. It protected me from facing my fears. It’s a way to punish and reward, all in the same instance. If that somewhat reflects your belief, more power to you.

To others the message is even in the most difficult times we must always do what’s morally correct. We will not take money from a criminal and walk away saying “yup, we sure showed him not to mess with us.” Some people may believe situations like going to trail to face a sex offender builds character in a child. It empowers them. Because of THEM (the child) other children in the world are a bit safer. Mom and Dad stood behind me and supported me and because of that we are closer as a family. If this somewhat reflects your belief, more power to you.

I think your a decent guy so I'm going to suggest the ladder. Although I could be wrong. I've been wrong before.

BTW…I didn’t dress it up too much for you did I? If I did it was completely by accident. I went without the tie and the sports coat.

 

[luvmy3]

...
To others the message is even in the most difficult times we must always do what’s morally correct. We will not take money from a criminal and walk away saying “yup, we sure showed him not to mess with us.” Some people may believe situations like going to trail to face a sex offender builds character in a child. It empowers them. Because of THEM (the child) other children in the world are a bit safer. Mom and Dad stood behind me and supported me and because of that we are closer as a family. If this somewhat reflects your belief, more power to you.

It's very easy for an adult to say they would most definitely do what is morally correct in this situation. Its is not the same for a 10 year old victim to think in those terms.

Do you really know any child that was sexually abused at the hands of an adult they most likely trusted who would be willing to face their abuser and have to relive their whole ordeal in front of a judge, 12 jurers and a court full of spectators because they believe it builds character in them? If so I think you know some remarkable children.