Andrew-Ryan Nah. I'm not doing some shitty back and forth quote for quote with someone who can't even fucking admit that MJ's intent lines up with what defines grooming, literally word for word. You're really gunna sit there and argue "well, maybe he
didn't have sexual intentions", when he admitted to sleeping with children in bed and fits the definition of a groomer to a T.
You don't get to claim strawman because you said something you didn't mean. My point was that I was clarifying that you do, in fact, acknowledge that he abused children, even without considering the accusations.
This started because you made a shitty defense, whether intentional or not, of MJ by trying to argue that's not factual that he abused children.
And yes he did have sexually explicit images of children. Someone posted it a few pages back:
Oh, ok, you're gunna put me on ignore because you can't admit that a grown man sleeping with strange children has a sexual component. You are a fucking coward and are trying to get out on the technicality of "well, we can't
prove that his intentions were sexual", even though
every single piece of evidence shows that this was the case.
You don't develop close relationships with children and their adults and sleep with them without an explicitly sexual intent.
Yet you're going to sit here and call my arguments disingenuous, lol. I know you'll read this so let me point you to the docs that prove he had child porn, even if it wasn't illegal at the time:
"A photograph of a a young boy holding an umbrella, wearing bikini bottoms, partially pulled down"
That is sexually explicit.