Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Jesus.Wake up man. 'Innocent' in the legal sense is the same as 'not guilty' in the legal sense. Got it? They are cleared- therefore they are 'not guilty' AKA 'innocent'. I'm not saying the man definitely did not do it.
The distinction you make is faulty anyway- you don't need to cite the word 'innocent' at all to make that point. If someone is found 'not guilty', it doesn't mean they are definitively 'not guilty'. There's no need to try to create a false separation between the words not guilty, and innocent.
Yes I know I accepted that...I just tried to use the word innocent because it sounds somehow stronger you know. I don''t argue that Not guitly is not innocent...I argue that you shouldn't take everything a court says for granted....but don't we basically agree on each others side...and for some reason just argue?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes I know I accepted that...I just tried to use the word innocent because it sounds somehow stronger you know. I don''t argue that Not guitly is not innocent...I argue that you shouldn't take everything a court says for granted....but don't we basically agree on each others side...and for some reason just argue?
Well, I'm saying to you that we are agreeing on the legal meanings, and the practical likelihood. Here-
'I was talking about 'innocent' in the legal sense- which you have just admitted is correct. I'm not disputing anything else- that's the end of it.
I know that this does not guarantee not having done the crime. I think everyone does, it's not critical aesthetics.'
Then you are saying:
'I still ca't belive that you just say because someone was found "not guilty" they are innocent yand you don't think for yourself if they are'
Which is not something I have said, as shown above.
Otherwise this would be done and done.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Well, I'm saying to you that we are agreeing on the legal meanings, and the practical likelihood. Here-'I was talking about 'innocent' in the legal sense- which you have just admitted is correct. I'm not disputing anything else- that's the end of it.
I know that this does not guarantee not having done the crime. I think everyone does, it's not critical aesthetics.'
Then you are saying:
'I still ca't belive that you just say because someone was found "not guilty" they are innocent yand you don't think for yourself if they are'
Which is not something I have said, as shown above.
Otherwise this would be done and done.
I am talking to AC because he said that my point of view was naive and that you should accept a decision of a court.
I am sorry I might have mixed up you two.
Well I must say I do not know what I have started here! As much as I have enjoyed all of your debates I kind of wonder what is the point.
OK lets start with the facts. Michael Jackson is Innocent and not guilty. OK you don't believe me, well lets look closer! If Michael was sleeping with boys and there was sexual things going on between them do you think Michael would admit to sharing his bed? I don't think so! And lets go back to 1993, if we must, because if your son said that Michael had sexually abused him, what you want, to see Michael stand trial and go to jail or have millions of dollors instead? I would do the right thing and and see justice made. That being seeing Michael take trial. Unless of course your son was lying, and so I would take the money, and that is what happened. Although the right thing to do is to admit that your son is making it all up, which is what happened in this lasted case. So give me a break and most importantly give Michael a break.
Lets face it you can't accept the truth because you wanted him to be found guilty and go to jail. But I'm afriad your wishes did not come true, because you were not searching for the truth.
OK unless you want to still be reminded of the truth lets leave the debate here and answer my first question! Please.
Thank You
No one...and with NO ONE I mean me, claimed that Jacko was guilty...and yes, your post makes sense and it seems logical but it is also possible that he is so twisted that he admitted it and didn't think aboot the consequences, and well the people can also be greed y if something has happened to their son...you can't just say because you would want justice tat other people won't want the money...so it remains yes he is legally innocent...and yes he seems really innocent too...but no one knows except for Jacko and the boy.