Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You don't need proof to claim that someone is a paedophile? Quite disgraceful.-AC
Nope, that's why it's called an opinion, I'm basing it on what I believe and what makes sense to me from what I've heard and from what I know. Don't like it? Tough shit. I'm not saying it's fact, just saying what I believe.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Just because it CAN happen, doesn't mean that it will or that it is.
i didnt say it CAN happen. it DOES happen. this is not some rare anomaly as you seem to think.
Seems like because Jackson is rich, you are using that as an excuse for his possible innocence.
thats a cop out. you cant just flip it around and twist my own logic into:
-rich people getting away with crime happens
-jackson is rich
-therefore, i believe he'll only be found 'not guilty' because he's rich
it goes more like this:
-rich people getting away with crime happens
-IN MY OPINION jackson's actions are suspicious
-jackson is rich
-therefore, i believe he MAY be found 'not guilty' because he's rich,
whether or not he actually did it.
i really cant see how this logic is warped.
His behaviour warrants suspicion, to who? Not to me. I don't give a shit how he acts if he isn't doing anything wrong. If all he did was merely SLEEP in the same bed as those kids then it's odd...at worst. You can be suspicious all you like but I don't believe there is any reason to assume he's a child molester at all.
but you cant bury your head in the sand and say he didnt do it...on the grounds that YOU dont believe there is a problem with his thinking.
it seems that here you are using your own opinion on whether or not he is mentally unsound as fact. i see his behavior as worthy of this suspicion. how is your opinion worth more than mine?
Assumption City. I don't act in that way, misinterpretation is ripe in here it seems.If you're suspicious, fine. However, to most people here it seems as though the next logical step from liking to spend time with kids is sleeping with them. I'm sorry but that's not the case..
WHAT A GIVEAWAY!!!! cant you spend a moment and read your own words?
your logic:
-i dont believe this to be true
-therefore its not true
No, it implies that until they are convicted, they cannot be labelled guilty officially. That's what it means.
are you for real??? way to digress and dodge the point
About this whole suspicion thing: If you don't like his lifestyle, fine. However that is of scarse relevance to this case. If you don't like how he decorates his ranch or who he spends time with OR what he does to himself, that doesn't give you the right to say "Yeah I think he molests kids".-AC [/B]
his lifestyle is not the issue, and i NEVER said it was. dont try to peg me as some resentful prejudice finger pointer. thats cheap and i take it as an insult
Originally posted by PVS
i didnt say it CAN happen. it DOES happen. this is not some rare anomaly as you seem to think.
It does, I don't think it's some rare anomaly. You missed the point. Just because it can and does, doesn't mean it is right now. If you are gonna continually use his wealth as an excuse if he's proven innocent, then that's a bit bad.
Originally posted by PVS
thats a cop out. you cant just flip it around and twist my own logic into:
-rich people getting away with crime happens
-jackson is rich
-therefore, i believe he'll only be found 'not guilty' because he's richit goes more like this:
-rich people getting away with crime happens
-IN MY OPINION jackson's actions are suspicious
-jackson is rich
-therefore, i believe he MAY be found 'not guilty' because he's rich,
whether or not he actually did it.i really cant see how this logic is warped.
Well when you actually make it clear what you are saying, we're good. I was under the impression that you believed his wealth was going to be a reason for him being found innocent. He may be found innocent because he didn't do it, not necessarily (or likely) because he's rich. I don't see how his actions, odd or not, are relevant.
Originally posted by PVS
but you cant bury your head in the sand and say he didnt do it...on the grounds that YOU dont believe there is a problem with his thinking.
it seems that here you are using your own opinion on whether or not he is mentally unsound as fact. i see his behavior as worthy of this suspicion. how is your opinion worth more than mine?
I'm saying I don't believe he did it because I've been given no reason to believe he did. To ME, him hanging out with kids doesn't connect to paedophilia. It's none of my business what his thinking is, I just don't believe that his lifestyle should enter into it. Whether you like or dislike it, doesn't matter.
Originally posted by PVS
WHAT A GIVEAWAY!!!! cant you spend a moment and read your own words?your logic:
-i dont believe this to be true
-therefore its not trueare you for real??? way to digress and dodge the point
his lifestyle is not the issue, and i NEVER said it was. dont try to peg me as some resentful prejudice finger pointer. thats cheap and i take it as an insult
Thanks for telling me what my logic is but let's try again.
You people and your insults, jeez. I'm not insulting anyone, stop being so touchy.
I don't believe it to be true that he molested children, if you can prove to me beyond doubt that he did, I will concede. Until I am given reason enough to believe he did or might have, I am going to stand by my view.
-AC
oh come on now, quit reverting back to the opinion speech.
if you will not practice what you preach, its just a useless statement.
you have been trying so hard to make me and others believe that we have no right to think he could be a pedophile based on his behavior. and shame on us for even pondering it...bunch of lynch mobbers we are. 🙄
Originally posted by PVS
oh come on now, quit reverting back to the opinion speech.
if you will not practice what you preach, its just a useless statement.you have been trying so hard to make me and others believe that we have no right to think he could be a pedophile based on his behavior. and shame on us for even pondering it...bunch of lynch mobbers we are.
I am now going to call PVS "Lynchie" from now on. It's a good nickname and I think it will stick.
opinions should always be respected, but i just feel that you people cant label him a pedophile just because of his ODD behavior. His actions are of suspiction( did i spell it right?), but certainly you cant call him a pedophile based on that. But i guess opinions are opinions. every 1 has a right to say what they feel. so i say mj is innocent, you people say mj is a pedophile. will it matter what we say? no. what will matter is the verdict of the courtroom, wheather u think its a biased verdict or not, its simple the 1 that will count. no one knows of mj's innocence or guilt, we can NEVER truly find out. But the courtroom is the only way to find out, the only close way.
and ONCE again you people are refraining from the topic, the topic simply is michael jackson's current trial discussion. so i urge you all to please discuss the trial, if it is anything which is not about the trial, keep it out of here or start a new thread for it. i think i said it fair enough in this post, please cant we all be under simple rules
Originally posted by PVS
since when are you modding this forum?
you have no right to decide whether or not his behavior is on topic.
so why dont you quit dishing out orders and making up rules so that people wont argue your point. its getting lame.
the thing that is getting lame is you people refraining from the topic. the topic states MICHAEL JACKSON TRIALD DISCUSSION, so i think i am doing no wrong in stating the obvious when i am trying to emphasize the point that only the proceedings of the trial should be discussed.
and you are right this thread is getting nowhere now, one way or the other
Originally posted by PVS
oh come on now, quit reverting back to the opinion speech.
if you will not practice what you preach, its just a useless statement.you have been trying so hard to make me and others believe that we have no right to think he could be a pedophile based on his behavior. and shame on us for even pondering it...bunch of lynch mobbers we are. 🙄
I haven't been trying hard to make ANYONE do ANYTHING. Who am I to do such a thing?
If you think his behaviour WITH CHILDREN is suspect and could possibly lead to more, then fair enough. I don't agree with it and I think it's highly illogical but if YOU do, fair enough. All I'm saying is, it seems odd to me that people are calling the man a child molester based on the fact that you see him spend alot of time with kids.
Which doesn't necessarily mean anything, coz child minders do that. If it's because of his sleeping quote. Then yes, it was odd. However if that's all he's doing, there's not a problem, visible to me at least.
-AC
Looks like the judge is going to allow the prosecution to present testimony regarding the past allegations against MJ from five boys including the two that settled for $25 million and $2.5 million.
The Presecution sought to allow the testimony of 7 boys but the judge put the Kibash on two of the alleged victims.
Not only are the boys' testimony being allowed, but all others' involved with the case (i.e. members of Jackson's security team who he has dismissed and the boys' parents.
I'm suprised the judge allowed the testimony of the other cases, but what he reviewed he must have considered relevant which doesn't bode well for Jackson.
To top it all off, Jackson recently did an interview with the Rev. Jesse Jackson and stated that he was being targeted because he was black and drew similarities to himself and Nelson Mandela and Muhammad Ali. I think he should just keep his mouth shut and stop drawing even more attention to himself.
He's tried that by hiding away in his fantasy world.
Didn't work too well did it? Because people are always looking for SOMETHING to pick out on him.
The only thing anyone can say about the pay off is that it made him look bad, which it did. It doesn't guarantee guilt though. If anything the fact that the parents allowed a pay off is detrimental to their case.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He's tried that by hiding away in his fantasy world.Didn't work too well did it? Because people are always looking for SOMETHING to pick out on him.
-AC
Very nice, I see that you refered to my old post, very unique and special of you. Unfortunatley while hiding in that fantasy world he invited children into his bed and put himself in this mess.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The only thing anyone can say about the pay off is that it made him look bad, which it did. It doesn't guarantee guilt though. If anything the fact that the parents allowed a pay off is detrimental to their case.-AC
Actually, the fact that parents took money is no more detrimental to this case than the fact that MJ paid them off.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Very nice, I see that you refered to my old post, very unique and special of you. Unfortunatley while hiding in that fantasy world he invited children into his bed and put himself in this mess.
Dunno where you're getting all that from. I refered to a phrase you used, no way connected to the post you said it in.
He invited children into his bed? Bit of an odd way to put it. Parents let their kids go there. If ALL that he did was sleep, then there's nothing you can say besides "That's odd" or weird. Because he isn't harming anyone or doing anything illegal. Sorry.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Actually, the fact that parents took money is no more detrimental to this case than the fact that MJ paid them off.
Oh yeah, true. True.
Coz it obviously shows that they never cared about the money at all and really wanted to nail Jackson for molestation doesn't it?
I mean if they had TAKEN the money, it would look bad. Coz that would mean that they put money over their children, in which case there probably wasn't any moles...oh wait. Didn't they take the money?
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I mean if they had TAKEN the money, it would look bad. Coz that would mean that they put money over their children, in which case there probably wasn't any moles...oh wait. Didn't they take the money?
-AC
whatever the situation, jackson paid them off instead of going through with the case and clearing his name. you cant cancel that out by matching it with the scummy nature of the parents who would throw their children into the fire for profit.
i think some of those f'n parents would have done the same even if they knew MJ was a molester. point is the motive of the parents is irrelevant.
they probably didnt know what they were sending their kids into and they probably didnt care...just looking to profit
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Coz it obviously shows that they never cared about the money at all and really wanted to nail Jackson for molestation doesn't it?
-AC
Actually it might mean that they didn't want to put their kid through a trial. I'm not saying that it does, but as I have said many times before each of these kids come from families that are not financially well off. They may not have taken advantage of their children, but they may have taken advantage of the situation once it happened. Who knows, whatever the case, whether wrong or not, the parents are not on trial here, MJ is.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I mean if they had TAKEN the money, it would look bad. Coz that would mean that they put money over their children, in which case there probably wasn't any moles...oh wait. Didn't they take the money?-AC
Like I said, maybe the parents took the money so their kid did not have to go through the court system, who knows, maybe they thought that they could build a better life for the kid with the money. Then again, maybe they are scum of the earth and knew what might happen. There have been many kids and many families, their motivation cannot be all the same, the only constant here is Jackson.
You are so ready to condemn the parents for taking the money, yet feel safe in assuming that Michael Jackson is innocent even though he paid off the families to leave him alone. That's a bit of a double standard isn't it?
Originally posted by PVS
point is the motive of the parents is irrelevant.
-AC
with that I agree