SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Jul 08 2009 07:35 am

So now rumors are swirling that MJ is not the biological father of his children, the main "evidence" being that they're "too white". Bullshit or not? And does it even matter?

When his daughter spoke at the funeral she definitely looked mulatto. That, or freshly tanned.

Posted: Jul 08 2009 08:55 am

These rumours aren't exactly just now forming. Also, aren't we better than that here?

Posted: Jul 08 2009 09:10 am

Sounds like a reality show waiting to happen! Screw DNA tests, let's have a moonwalk-off and let America decide by text message!

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

This seems to be a legitimate question, in my opinion.

I really don't know, and I haven't even really speculated about it, but if I had to I would say that they are not his. If they are, than they were probably conceived in a different fashion than uh, normal.

But yeah, I really think it doesn't matter. These kid's have already had a messed up life and I highly doubt it is ever gonna be normal for them. We may think that because they had a sweet ass castle to live in and video games a-plenty that they had a happy childhood, but I really don't think that's the case. I would gladly trade money for privacy any day.

Posted: Jul 08 2009 11:10 am

God...they're in trouble once they get it older, unless they with a guardian who can teach them morals and the value of money.

Infowars must be having a feel day with all this.

Posted: Jul 08 2009 02:24 pm

OK, while I do believe there might be a shred of pedophilia in MJ (sorry, but if you're acquitted once, I may side with you, but if you're busted for it TWICE, I have my doubts), I have no reason to believe his kids ain't his. MJ was the type of person you COULD start a billion unfounded rumors believably about (such as the rumor about Metallica suing a guy over two chords?) but let's face it: There's nothing to suggest MJ didn't have a working cock'n'balls, or that he'd at the very least contribute his sperm to reproduction. It's sort of like saying a lesbian's kids aren't hers or something.

Posted: Jul 08 2009 02:46 pm

I'd certainly like to believe his kids are his. If they're not, you can bet whoever did contribute the sperm is going to sue for custody of those kids to try and get at some of their inheritance.

I do not believe MJ was a pedophile. He was simply living in a regressive fantasy. I mean Christ, he named his most famous residence after a place where people don't age.

Posted: Jul 08 2009 02:59 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

I'd certainly like to believe his kids are his. If they're not, you can bet whoever did contribute the sperm is going to sue for custody of those kids to try and get at some of their inheritance.

I do not believe MJ was a pedophile. He was simply living in a regressive fantasy. I mean Christ, he named his most famous residence after a place where people don't age.

Agreed, and agreed. I won't rehash my specific thoughts on that here because...yeah. But I think you nailed it.

I really don't think it matters if the kids are his or not, though. He obviously treated them like his, the best he knew how to. I mean, Angelina Jolie has how many adopted kids now, and I don't think anyone would dream of claiming that they "aren't hers."

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jul 08 2009 03:15 pm

Quote:

Also, aren't we better than that here?

What boards have you been visiting?

Quote:

(sorry, but if you're acquitted once, I may side with you, but if you're busted for it TWICE, I have my doubts)

He -was- only busted for it once. The other time, he settled a civil suit. No criminal charges were ever filed.

Anyways, my opinion: Who fucking cares?

Posted: Jul 08 2009 03:21 pm

In terms of his will, does it really matter if they were his biological kids or not? If they were legally his kids, they should be entitled to whatever his will gives them, right?

But honestly, in spite of his appearance over the last 20 years, he is biologically black. You'd think his kids should reflect that.

Posted: Jul 08 2009 03:47 pm

They don't need to be his kids to receive an inheritance, they just need to be listed as beneficiaries, which they are. I could list Arnold Schwarzenegger as the sole beneficiary in my last will and testament, if I really wanted to.

Posted: Jul 08 2009 03:58 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

They don't need to be his kids to receive an inheritance, they just need to be listed as beneficiaries, which they are. I could list Arnold Schwarzenegger as the sole beneficiary in my last will and testament, if I really wanted to.

Well if you did, at least you'd have the comfort of knowing all your earthly treasures would be safe after you're gone. He'd be the best caretaker ever.

Posted: Jul 08 2009 03:59 pm

And someday they'd end up at the Arnold Schwarzenegger Presidential Library!

</Demolition Man>

Posted: Jul 08 2009 10:33 pm

Seven years from now, Paris will be smoking hot.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jul 09 2009 12:40 am

Syd Lexia wrote:

They don't need to be his kids to receive an inheritance, they just need to be listed as beneficiaries, which they are. I could list Arnold Schwarzenegger as the sole beneficiary in my last will and testament, if I really wanted to.

They do need to be your children if you want to name a guardian for them.

Posted: Jul 09 2009 12:47 am

UsaSatsui wrote:

Syd Lexia wrote:

They don't need to be his kids to receive an inheritance, they just need to be listed as beneficiaries, which they are. I could list Arnold Schwarzenegger as the sole beneficiary in my last will and testament, if I really wanted to.

They do need to be your children if you want to name a guardian for them.

Well, they don't have to be his biological kids though. He just has to be the one legally in charge of them, and then he can name a caretaker if he chose to do that.

Posted: Jul 09 2009 01:14 am

Syd Lexia wrote:

I could list Arnold Schwarzenegger as the sole beneficiary in my last will and testament, if I really wanted to.

I think you should really do this. The only negative is that he might kill you and make it look like an accident to get your stuff. You know he could do it.

Posted: Jul 09 2009 01:33 am

Black Zarak wrote:

Syd Lexia wrote:

I could list Arnold Schwarzenegger as the sole beneficiary in my last will and testament, if I really wanted to.

I think you should really do this. The only negative is that he might kill you and make it look like an accident to get your stuff. You know he could do it.

Are you implying that someone like Arnold actually has NEED of a mere mortal's insignificant material possessions? As one privileged enough to have him as my immediate Commander in Chief, I can tell you right now, sir, that he DOES NOT!

Posted: Jul 09 2009 01:44 am

SoldierHawk wrote:

Black Zarak wrote:

Syd Lexia wrote:

I could list Arnold Schwarzenegger as the sole beneficiary in my last will and testament, if I really wanted to.

I think you should really do this. The only negative is that he might kill you and make it look like an accident to get your stuff. You know he could do it.

Are you implying that someone like Arnold actually has NEED of a mere mortal's insignificant material possessions? As one privileged enough to have him as my immediate Commander in Chief, I can tell you right now, sir, that he DOES NOT!

He might not, but his state certainly does from what I understand.

Posted: Jul 09 2009 02:29 am

And if Syd did put that in his will, imagine the post-death fame he'd get for doing it. Think of the site, man!

Posted: Jul 09 2009 12:53 pm

Apparently Michael was buried without his brain:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jul/07/michael-jackson-buried-brain

Posted: Jul 09 2009 02:06 pm

I smell conspiracy theorist bait.

Posted: Jul 09 2009 02:09 pm

lordsathien wrote:

Apparently Michael was buried without his brain:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jul/07/michael-jackson-buried-brain

Wow...I understand the reasoning, but still...it's fairly creepy.

Posted: Jul 09 2009 03:41 pm

Andrew Man wrote:

lordsathien wrote:

Apparently Michael was buried without his brain:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jul/07/michael-jackson-buried-brain

Wow...I understand the reasoning, but still...it's fairly creepy.

Yeah. Although, especially with genuineness and in the case of people with diseases, this happens more often than we probably think.

I mean, I bet a lot of us here are organ donors (well I am anyway). So I could be buried sans most of my organs, including eyes. (Although my eyes are bad enough I doubt they'd harvest them.)

Posted: Jul 11 2009 03:34 am

SoldierHawk wrote:

Andrew Man wrote:

lordsathien wrote:

Apparently Michael was buried without his brain:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jul/07/michael-jackson-buried-brain

Wow...I understand the reasoning, but still...it's fairly creepy.

Yeah. Although, especially with genuineness and in the case of people with diseases, this happens more often than we probably think.

I mean, I bet a lot of us here are organ donors (well I am anyway). So I could be buried sans most of my organs, including eyes. (Although my eyes are bad enough I doubt they'd harvest them.)

They harvest anyways, if your family is cool with it they'd use them for research, if not they'd toss em. (or put them back... Confused

)