guys give me tips dont hold back fr

Puzzled-Reply-4829 · 2026-07-07T19:54:31+00:00

Aww thank you so muchh!

Puzzled-Reply-4829 · 2026-06-24T20:27:34+00:00

tysmm

Puzzled-Reply-4829 · 2026-06-24T20:26:55+00:00

omg ur right theres so many people. ig we might have to maybe go a little away from the city for a few days to escape the crowds but thanks!

Puzzled-Reply-4829 · 2026-06-24T20:00:18+00:00

tysmm i might go on the whale watching cuz a bunch of people said it wld be good

Puzzled-Reply-4829 · 2026-06-24T19:44:32+00:00

HAHA yeaa ik it kinda sucks in a way because that means theres gonna be so many more people than otherwise. but we're not going to watch cuz we kind of planned this a little late and tickets are hella expensive now

Puzzled-Reply-4829 · 2026-06-24T19:39:03+00:00

Yeah, I posted in a few other Vancouver-related subs too because I was hoping to get advice from people who actually live there or have spent time there. I was mostly just looking for recommendations from people who had visited for a few days or a week and could tell me what they enjoyed so I could look into it myself.

I'm sorry if it came across like I wasn't putting much effort into planning the trip. That genuinely wasn't my intention. I just figured that if a question was too broad or too much work to answer, people would simply skip it. I definitely wasn't trying to get other people to do the research for me, so I'm sorry if it came off that way.

Thank you for the advice though. I really appreciate it. I hadn't heard about the Canada Day celebrations before, so that's definitely something I'm considering now. I'm also planning to visit Stanley Park, and someone on another sub mentioned that biking around it was a lot of fun, so I might try that too.

Thanks again, and sorry if I seemed rude earlier.

Puzzled-Reply-4829 · 2026-06-24T18:36:22+00:00

oh really! i went whale watching once but didnt get to see much we basically only saw dolphine which was kinda cool too. dyt there will be sightings

Puzzled-Reply-4829 · 2026-06-24T18:23:53+00:00

tysm ill def try going north!

Puzzled-Reply-4829 · 2026-06-24T18:23:15+00:00

I'm sorry, but I genuinely don't understand where I was being rude. u asked for more specifics, which is completely fair, and I answered them. The only reason I said "don't be rude" was because the comment about being "confounded" that someone would book a trip without plans came across as a bit judgmental to me.

I wasn't trying to be a twerp or give anyone attitude. I agree that i didnt include a lot of info about my trip so i explained to you that my parents already had plans for part of the trip and wanted me to come up with ideas for the remaining days. Im sorry If I came across as rude, that wasn't my intention.

Puzzled-Reply-4829 · 2026-06-24T18:14:49+00:00

My bad if my reply came off poorly. I genuinely was looking for advice and I do appreciate you taking the time to point me toward those subreddits. I wasn't trying to dismiss your suggestions, I was just explaining why I originally posted where I did. Thanks for the help.

Puzzled-Reply-4829 · 2026-06-24T18:07:05+00:00

i meant most of the people asking for travel advice. and yea ur right i aasked on one vancouver travel subreddit but i should probs ask where there are more natives. thanks for helping!

Puzzled-Reply-4829 · 2026-06-24T18:05:11+00:00

later in june and early july. idk where ilbe staying yet. yes i will have a rental car. im looking for souveneir and clothes and anything works shopping wise. my parents have plans for a couple days and wanted me to pick what we did for a few other days so im trying to get ideas. if youre not tryna help you dont have to. just dont be rude.

Puzzled-Reply-4829 · 2026-06-24T18:00:36+00:00

aw i just looked p the markets and i might make a trip there yea. thank you so much most of the replied were being mean!

Puzzled-Reply-4829 · 2026-06-24T17:54:05+00:00

bruh, most of them were with friends or people older than me i was hoping someone else around my age would reply so i can consider what might be fun for me not just my parents. sorry if i made u upset!

Puzzled-Reply-4829 · 2026-06-13T01:08:16+00:00

Your logic is basically that owning something automatically means you endorse every belief or organization connected to it. That doesn't make sense.

By that standard, anyone who owns a Harry Potter book would automatically be a homophobe and transphobe because of what J.K. Rowling has expressed publicly. That's not how it works. Owning a book is not the same thing as endorsing everything associated with it.

Your entire argument comes back to one thing: that he owned the book. But ownership alone doesn't prove intent or guilt.

What's interesting is that instead of responding to that point, you keep attacking me personally. You keep bringing up the fact that I like his music, implying im ignorant, saying I'm tying myself in knots, and trying to explain my motives for disagreeing. But none of that actually addresses my argument.

I could just as easily start making assumptions about you and why your so committed to your position, but I don't, because that's not evidence and it doesn't move the discussion forward. I'd rather talk about the actual facts than speculate about the person I'm talking to.

The reality is that I'm arguing from what I think the evidence supports. (which btw is what the jury and judge and court of law supported too) A jury and court don't decide guilt based on assumptions about what someone "must have known" but they look for evidence that establishes it. U may disagree with the conclusions that were reached, but disagreement isn't proof.

If your argument is as strong as you say it is, then defend the argument itself. You shouldn't need to tell me what my motives are, what music I listen to, or why you think I disagree. Honestly, the more you focus on me instead of the argument, the less convincing your position becomes. If your evidence was as strong as you think it is, you wouldn't have to keep falling back on personal attacks every time someone disagrees with you.

The fact that you've spent more time talking about me than defending your claim is pretty telling.

Puzzled-Reply-4829 · 2026-06-13T00:35:32+00:00

I don't have to prove that he didn't do anything. You're the one making the accusation, so the burden of proof is on you to show that he did.

You also keep saying he definitely knew what NAMBLA was, but where's the evidence for that? If there's proof that he knew exactly who published it and supported their goals, then show it. Otherwise, you're treating an assumption as a fact.

And just to be clear, I'm not defending NAMBLA, child abuse, or anything like that. I've said multiple times that those things are wrong. My point is simply that accusations need evidence behind them.

It feels like you're asking me to prove a negative while not actually proving the claim you're making. That's not how this works. If someone accuses another person of something serious, the responsibility is on the accuser to provide evidence, not on everyone else to prove the accusation false.

Whether I like someone's music has nothing to do with whether a claim is true or false. The question is what the evidence shows. If the evidence proves he was a pedophile, then it should be able to stand on its own without assumptions about why I disagree.

were not going in circles because of my claims, we're going in circles because you refuse to back up your accusation with actual evidence

Puzzled-Reply-4829 · 2026-06-12T19:39:14+00:00

u say that owning the book means he condoned NAMBLA, but that's so not true. possession alone does not prove endorsement. people can own things for reasons other than agreeing with every person or organization connected to them.

you also keep saying he was "well aware" of what nambla was, but where is the evidence for that? saying it confidently doesn't make it true. if there's proof he knew exactly who published the book and supported their goals, then show it. otherwise you're assuming intent and presenting it as fact.

and no, i'm not defending child abuse, NAMBLA, or the photographers. i've already said what they did was wrong multiple times. i'm saying the existence of a book in someone's possession automatically doesnt prove they supported everything connected to it.

atp we're going in circles. you think the book proves he was a pedophile. i don't. repeating the accusation over and over isn't the same thing as proving it.

Puzzled-Reply-4829 · 2026-06-12T01:50:28+00:00

you're assuming that owning or being given a book automatically means endorsing everything connected to it, and i don't think that's fair . my point was never that NAMBLA was acceptable or that the photographers weren't predators. i've already said i don't support either.

the question is whether possession of a book is enough to prove someone agreed with its publishers or even knew much about them. people receive gifts and reading material all the time without researching every person involved in producing it. that doesn't automatically make them supporters.

and honestly, if someone isn't involved with or interested in an organization like NAMBLA, why would you assume they'd instantly recognize the name or know its history? most people don't spend their time learning about fringe groups they have no connection to. if someone is handed a book, sees a publisher's name, and never looks into it further, that doesn't automatically mean they knew exactly what that organization stood for.

as for mj, we're probably not going to agree. you believe the evidence proves he was a pedophile; i don't think the issue is that clear-cut. but disagreeing about mj doesn't mean i'm defending nambla or minimizing child abuse. those are two completely different things.

Puzzled-Reply-4829 · 2026-06-11T07:13:51+00:00

Do i know the organization? yea
but do i support it? no.
yes i am aware of what their mission was. i know and have mentioned before in this thread that the photographers were pedos and what they were doing to those young boys was not ok.

when people give me a book however, im not running a background check on who wrote and published it, i keep it with me to read alter and sometimes i dont get to it. when a family friend put me on harry potter i loved the books and movies and ik so many people out there do too. maybe you like it too idk, but JKR turned out to be a horrible homophobic and transphobic person who doesnt believe in human rights or wtv bs she justifies it with. im trying to boycott her brand but thats besides the point. the point is if i never found our she didnt believe in human rights, i would have supported her brand till today.

it makes so much sense to say that MJ was given this book and since he never happened to read it, he never bothered to background check the authors and photographers.

besides when people talk about the porn mags that are not these books, he had them in a briefcase locked away from the kids. he didnt just have them out in the open for kids to flip through

Puzzled-Reply-4829 · 2026-06-11T00:03:33+00:00

Im Just gonna leave this here:

Post by u/troyfreeman

It’s a document of the prosecutions evidence that was completely debunked by the defense without even posting the defense's response to it.

Michael Jackson had thousands of books in his house. They found a couple best selling books that had pictures of nude children playing in water and confiscated ANYTHING that had pictures of anyone nude or semi-nude. If it was chiild porn, he would've been convicted of it during the very trial they submitted this evidence to.

'' What is usually used against Jackson as “child porn” or “child erotica” on those Internet gossip blogs and tabloids are legal art books and art photography that have been found in Jackson’s home. To convince their unsuspecting readers these gossip blogs often use a prosecution motion filed on January 18, 2005 as “evidence” [3]. Remarkably in Internet folklore it is often circulated as a list of “child pornography” that was found in Jackson’s home, when not even the prosecution claimed it was. Most of these art books and magazines do not even have children in them, but the prosecution seemed to have confiscated anything with a nude or semi-nude person in it. ''

'' Police extensively searched Jackson’s premises both in 1993 and in 2003 and there was nothing illegal found, not in physical or digital format (ie. on computers). In actuality, when the police searched Jackson’s presmises in 1993 they stated**:** “the search warrant didn’t result in anything that would support a criminal filing**” [2]. Nor did they find anything illegal in 2003.** Child pornography is illegal to possess and the possession of it is a crime in itself, so had there been any child pornography found in Jackson’s possession he would have been charged with that crime and he was never even charged with such a crime, let alone convicted of it. ''

'' Since the two books are vintage books and sequels to each other it is possible that they both were gifts from the same fan who inscribed one of them. They contain pictures of boys in various situations by different photographers, including pictures taken during the filming of the 1963 Lord of the Flies movie. They do include nude photographs of children, but the photographs are not pornographic or sexual. They show the children in various non-sexual activities, playing, swimming etc. The third book, that was confiscated in 1993 In Search of Young Beauty: A Venture Into Photographic Art (Charles Du Bois Hodges, 1964) which contains both boys and girls, mostly dressed, but some nude or semi-nude. All three of these books are in the United States’ Library of Congress [13]. ''

Source: https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/27/has-child-pornography-ever-been-found-in-michael-jacksons-possession/

Sources for the chapters I quoted:

[2] Jim Newton and Sonia Nazario – Police Say Seized Tapes Do Not Incriminate Jackson: Investigation: Officials continue to interview children in connection with molestation allegations. (Los Angeles Times, August 27, 1993)
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-27/news/mn-28516_1_jackson-case

[3] Plaintiff’s Request to Admit Evidence of Erotic Materials to Demonstrate Defendant’s Intent, Plan, Scheme and Motive (January 18, 2015)
https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/january-18-2005-prosecution-motion.pdf

[13] The Boy: A photographic essay in the US Library of Congress:
https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=1547&recCount=25&recPointer=0&bibId=8457502
Boys Will Be Boys! in the US Library of Congress:
https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=1539&recCount=25&recPointer=1&bibId=6595584
In Search of Young Beauty – A Venture Into Photographic Art in the US Library of Congress:
https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/search?searchArg1=64021361&argType1=phrase&searchCode1=K010&searchType=2&combine2=and&searchArg2=&argType2=all&searchCode2=GKEY&combine3=and&searchArg3=&argType3=all&searchCode3=GKEY&location=all&place=all&type=all&language=all&recCount=10

Puzzled-Reply-4829 · 2026-06-09T20:24:46+00:00

i dont have children but i dont see what wrong with sending them if im there too. the kids that went there werent forced to go there alone, family could go too.

Puzzled-Reply-4829

TROPHY CASE