Michael Jackson

[Nyoibo]

I'm just saying that in a debate topic, merely saying "No he's innocent" doesn't really give anyone anything to debate with.

What I find funny is that in the first case, they didn't prosecute due to lack of evidence, there goes that one proving he's guilty, and in the second case he was found not guilty, 30 other kids were interviewed and denied MJ had molested them, others have spoken out in his defence, people who claimed he was a pedophile have retracted those statements, but no, he still must be guilty "because".

That's a fair bit in favour of him being innocent, so now Guilty people, your turn.

[Kalli]

Right, so if this was an abortion thread, and you believed passionately in abortion for everyone, you wouldn't allow anyone to post that it was wrong, cuz that's proving a negative? I'm confused.

Bad analogy. Proving a negative means that you can never prove something can't/didn't happen, all you can say is that something can/did happen.

Prove your side; if you're so sure you're right, then what have you got to lose?

You're so busy saying that that you failed to realise I have already posted an extensive argument for his innocence.

I'm just saying that in a debate topic, merely saying "No he's innocent" doesn't really give anyone anything to debate with. You could, for example, give out examples of good character, or of personal experiences; I know people have met Michael Jackson. Sort of like a character reference; in court you would not get away with just saying, "I know he's innocent of this crime cuz I say so".

That's PRECISELY what I did, about 4 posts ago. Read before posting.

I just like to read good arguments in a debate, as in both sides; rather than just a "I said so, so stfu" which is what Kelli is saying, pretty much. Not trying to be rude, just saying.

I beg your pardon?

1) I never said "I said so, stfu" or anything of the sort. I said I believed A and others believed B, but B is damaging and hurtful. That's paraphrasing gone way out of control.

2) I then asked those who believed B to present some kind of reason rather than just saying he was guilty, because as I've already pointed out, innocent is the default in ANY question of guilt. You have to prove guilt, not innocence.

3) I then went above and beyond any reasonable debate etiquette and posted my argument first, and THEN you continued to point the finger at me and say I haven't presented an argument yet when I actually have.

I would call that rude.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I was debating with Broomjockey about the debate, not saying "MJ is guilty" so I don't know why in the world you see fit to pull my post apart and post an incredibly spiteful post in reply to me.

[Kalli]

I was debating with Broomjockey about the debate, not saying "MJ is guilty" so I don't know why in the world you see fit to pull my post apart and post an incredibly spiteful post in reply to me.

You've got to be kidding. You don't see the things you said about "Kelli wants us to post an argument but she didnt post one herself" as spiteful, when I did? If you are only arguing with Broomjockey and choose to ignore me, then leave me out of it.

[telecom_goddess]

I have to disagree with you on that one.
There was not a single shred of evidence that she did or even could have physically done the double homicide of her father and step-mother.
You do know that during the trial the prosecution drugged her to get her testimony, right?
She never once wavered or messed up her version of the events.
Personally, I believe it was the painter maybe-boyfriend that disappeared after the murder.

People that commit violent axe murders rarely go through life without another single act of violence like she did.

I was talking about this subject just this morning! I think she DID do it.....I believe in the theory that she did the murders in the nude and then washed up afterwards and got dressed....and therefore was "clean" of blood. The only reason she got acquitted is because they didn't have the technology back then that they do now.....if they could do dna testing back then she would have been so busted.

The fact that she didn't commit another act is not surprising....it was clear that her father was a complete jerk and her step mother wasn't any better. She had a vengence against them, not anyone else. It's not like she went out and committed random acts of murder on strangers.

IN the recent past they have found blood traces in the basement, and a bowl with blood on it....probably the bowl she used to wash up with

[BroomJockey]

an incredibly spiteful post in reply to me.

You don't see the things you said about "Kelli wants us to post an argument but she didnt post one herself" as spiteful, when I did?

Okay, I think everyone (me too! )needs to take a step back, breathe deep, and admit that this is a terribly long thread, and occasionally posts will be missed, and that while we all may disagree or not on a topic, getting flamey over it isn't terribly useful.

We all gonna be cool now? Or do I need to break out the slushies?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

We all gonna be cool now? Or do I need to break out the slushies?

I don't think I was particularly un-cool at any point in this thread, but do I get a slushie anyway?

Still could benefit from stepping back regardless of how I feel I've been acting. I might just be going crazy and not think it because of my own personal confirmation bias

Ehm... on topic something... uhhhh...

Oh, yeah. You can't really compare opposite sides of an issue like abortion (I hate the pro-life, pro-choice monikers... say what you mean dammit) with things like yes/no guilt or yes/no existence.

Although, it has to be said that most morality issues stem from an assumption of harmlessness followed by proof of negativity and/or proof of positivity. Either way, it's healthiest, or rather most logical to assume that something is not until proof arrives. There is the possibility that proof will arive later, but until then it's just not logical to assume that there is any.

I hope I didn't bumble the wording too much there, I'll try to clarify if necessary.

[Flyndaran]

...
Oh, yeah. You can't really compare opposite sides of an issue like abortion (I hate the pro-life, pro-choice monikers... say what you mean dammit) with things like yes/no guilt or yes/no existence.
....

Huh? Pro-choice is what it is. We are for the woman's right to choose. Pretty self-explanatory to me.

...
That's a fair bit in favour of him being innocent, so now Guilty people, your turn.

I believe he did it. You have the right to disbelieve without overwhelming proof. But don't dismiss me please.
Sexual abuse is almost impossible to convict. The fact that he was found not guilty by twelve people, does not begin to prove that he was innocent of all sex crimes.
I know that I certainly wouldn't allow any of my prospective children to sleep in the same bed as such an adult man. You may be less discriminating. Your right to do take such risks.

[BroomJockey]

But don't dismiss me please.

I dismiss those who don't offer proof of their belief. Sorta like you and religion.

[Kalli]

I believe he did it. You have the right to disbelieve without overwhelming proof. But don't dismiss me please.

I do dismiss your opinion (not you), because you have made absolutely no effort to back it up at all. This is a fair reaction in a debate, as far as I'm concerned.

Also, nobody asked for overwhelming proof. We asked for an explanation of why you believe he is guilty. This is a far cry from overwhelming proof.

In any case, I should have clarified; as in, I mean for both sides to present an argument, rather than just saying "He's guilty, everyone knows it" and "No he's not, stfu".

......


That is what I meant when I refered to defending your position, thank you.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts about what I posted. I made the exact same point as Broom did, and more. Do you have any thoughts? You are the person who asked me to post it, after all.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

My point is that everyone more or less believes in people's right to choose what they do, and people are also generally in favor of people staying alive. The issue can be described in those terms but they strike me as a way of trying to swipe high ground out of thin air by accusing the other side of being unilaterally anti-rights or anti-not-dying.

I believe in a woman's right to choose, I also believe in everyone's right to life (liberty and blah blah blah) BUT when it comes to abortion I believe in the woman's rights in that the baby is not yet a person.

Make sense?

I guess I'm just generally against beating around the bush so to speak. Just say it: 'I am for abortion rights', or 'I am against abortion rights'. Alternative naming schemes always struck me as an attempt to get out of actually discussing the issue itself.

A parallel, in a unsurprising vain for me:

Pro-gun and anti-gun:
Everyone wants to be safe and/or to be able to defend themselves.
Everyone wants to keep guns away from criminals.
The actual issue is abolishing or not abolishing the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms for self-defense and/or recreation.

[Kalli]

I know that I certainly wouldn't allow any of my prospective children to sleep in the same bed as such an adult man. You may be less discriminating. Your right to do take such risks.

You keep saying that, about sleeping in the same bed. That was not the case. The children sometimes slept in the same ROOM as Michael, not the same bed.

[Flyndaran]

You keep saying that, about sleeping in the same bed. That was not the case. The children sometimes slept in the same ROOM as Michael, not the same bed.

Not what I heard from his testimony. He had a special room that other adults weren't allowed in.
Either way, the point is quite dead.

[AFPheonix]

now you too can have Billie Jean stuck in your head.

Oh no, no need to thank me. It was my pleasure.

[CaptainJaneway]

I am a big fan of Michael. I believe he is innocent of all charges.

Right now I am on information overload but from what I have been reading and watching. In the first case Michael did not want to pay out the money. The insurance company insisted and MJ was very upset as was seeing crying his eyes out over it.

I remember from the second case that the family tried to hit up Jay leno and one other celebrity for money. The kid's mother shaved his head and claimed he had cancer. MJ decided to stop supporting them financially and that is when the shit hit the fan.

I found this video while reading the Michael Jackson board on imdb.
http://atlantis2.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=680097n

That is from the second case.

Besides if he was a child molester wouldn't he be molesting his own children?

There is a book coming out this week by an Ian Halperin called Unmasked. He was at MJ's memorial ceremony. He was one of the ones that at first thought Michael was guilty as sin and he was going to prove it. Well come to find out he said after several years of investigation into MJ's camp and interviewing a thousand kids that stayed at neverland. He said that Michael was innocent and he did not touch any of those kids.

Though he does claim that MJ was gay and had two gay lovers and dressed as a woman. Not taking much stock in that.

Also i think it was Access Hollywood that had on MJ's long time friend Yuri Geller. Yuri stated that he had hypnotized Michael and while he was under he did ask him about touching children. Yuri said the MJ empathically told him no he did not.

If i have the time i will see if i can located the video otherwise i will try and get the video off of my tivo and upload it to youtube.

ETA:
I could be wrong but in the first case wasn't the father a screen writer or something? Michael offered to produce one movie for him but that wasn't good enough the guy wanted 5?