Official - Michael Jackson was scum

[TragicMonkey]

Let's all agree that the Catholic Church sex abuse cases are strong evidence of Michael Jackson's guilt. Because... not sure. I hope someone can explain how.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Conceded.

But, my point stands: the victims of the Catholic priests did not sit in a courtroom and claim nothing happened under oath, only to repeatedly put themselves in the spotlight later by selling sordid tales to the contrary for thousands of dollars.

Sure they have, dioceses have been driven to near bankruptcy by that very money hungry "victims". It is just like that Arizona senator trying to ruin the reputation of a good man by claiming to be raped and never reporting it because she thought they would retaliate against her as a victim, she should be thrown out of the senate for that kind of slanderous self aggrandizing behavior!

Or victims relationship with abusers are rather more complex than people seem to want to think.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Let's all agree that the Catholic Church sex abuse cases are strong evidence of Michael Jackson's guilt. Because... not sure. I hope someone can explain how.

I am just looking for some kind of uniform standard of evidence. Here it seems to be no physical evidence ignore it. That would get rid of the vast majority of the catholic claims.

 

[DragonLady]

Sure they have, dioceses have been driven to near bankruptcy by that very money hungry "victims"

Really? They claimed nothing happened under oath, but received judgments anyway?

Here it seems to be no physical evidence ignore it.

That is the American justice system. No evidence = no crime.

We can't just "know" something happened. We have to prove it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I am just looking for some kind of uniform standard of evidence. Here it seems to be no physical evidence ignore it. That would get rid of the vast majority of the catholic claims.

The best evidence that could be obtained was provided to a jury, who concluded it didn't prove the accusations against Jackson. Is there more and better evidence now?

 

[Elagabalus]

Given the degree to which supposed evidence against Jackson has been misrepresented and even falsified, and testimony apparently manipulated, I would take such claims years after the fact with a pinch of salt.

Just watch the show and then see what you think.

 

[DragonLady]

Just watch the show and then see what you think.

I will watch the show when I can. But my stance is only going to change if I see genuine EVIDENCE to convince me this isn't just another grab for cash and name recognition.

 

[Belz...]

The best evidence that could be obtained was provided to a jury, who concluded it didn't prove the accusations against Jackson. Is there more and better evidence now?

Well, there's that video...

 

[DragonLady]

Well, there's that video...

Link?

 

[Matthew Best]

Maybe they WERE truthful.

That's the problem with telling lies. After, no one knows what to believe, so we're all forced to disregard all the words & examine the EVIDENCE instead.

No, we're not FORCED to disregard all the words, even if that's what certain Jackson fanboys would like us to do. In cases of rape, there's often not much evidence other than the word of the victim against that of the perpetrator. That was apparently enough to convict Cardinal Pell the other day - why wouldn't it be enough to convict Jackson? - at least in the court of public opinion, if not an actual court (as he's dead and unlikely to face charges).

We can take the words into account, weigh them up, see if they match the accounts of the numerous other accusers over the years and decide for ourselves whether we believe them. There's no rule that says we have to "disregard" them, I'm sure.

 

[applecorped]

Billie Jean sure picked wrong

 

[Cavemonster]

I don't think it's splitting hair. No other victim made a movie. They made public statement. Via newspaper, TV, or even just social media post.
Movie, even if movie like this can be done cheaply, is a project. Investment. Seems really weird to me.

I think given the history of this case, they would be reasonable in thinking that a simple public statement would not be believed, and would need to be accompanied by a well presented case.

I haven't seen the film, so I can't speak to how successful they were in creating a well presented case, but I can see a reasonable motivation.

And as Joe said, there's no reason to rule out cashing in being a motivation, but that's independent of whether or not they're victims.

 

[Cavemonster]

Let's all agree that the Catholic Church sex abuse cases are strong evidence of Michael Jackson's guilt. Because... not sure. I hope someone can explain how.

The point was that a gap of decades is not a particularly compelling argument that an accusation is untrue. It's a counterargument.


And I get a bit frustrated when I see this particular strawman, where an argument used to counter a specific point is addressed dismissively as though it is a stand alone argument for the larger case. I know you know better.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Jackson, Weinstein, Cosby, Spacey...

Well, at least I always disliked R. Kelly, so I have that going for me...

 

[TragicMonkey]

The point was that a gap of decades is not a particularly compelling argument that an accusation is untrue. It's a counterargument.


And I get a bit frustrated when I see this particular strawman, where an argument used to counter a specific point is addressed dismissively as though it is a stand alone argument for the larger case. I know you know better.

I disagree with your interpretation. The church abuse wasn't brought up for a counterargument, it was brought up to paint Jackson with the same brush. That's what this thread has always been about: there's no evidence, so fling as much mud as possible, repeat unbased allegations, suggest similarities to other people and other crimes, draw conclusions from feelings, argue from incredulity, and indeed strawmen: after I pointed it out this one was repeated again anyway, the characterization of those who don't believe in Jackson's guilt as 'rabid fans'.

'Official: Michael Jackson Was Scum' tells you all you need to know of the quality of thought that went into this thread. Opinion, not facts. Allegations, not verdicts. Suspicion, not proof. Feeling, not thought. This thread is a damning indictment of the purported skepticism of this place.

 

[Darat]

I will watch the show when I can. But my stance is only going to change if I see genuine EVIDENCE to convince me this isn't just another grab for cash and name recognition.

What at this point of time would you consider "genuine" evidence?

 

[Arcade22]

"If you are famous, consent seeks you." - Donald Trump.

Exactly. If Trump is a sex fiend that gets a little too handsy with the girls backstage, or with the white house staff, and they don't resist him or voice any complaints then that means they are okay with it and have no one else to blame than themselves.

 

[Cavemonster]

I disagree with your interpretation.
The church abuse wasn't brought up for a counterargument, it was brought up to paint Jackson with the same brush.

Can you link to who you believe was bringing up Church abuse that wasn't a counterargument? It looks like I was the first to mention it this year, and I assure you, it was a counterargument.

That's what this thread has always been about:
...

'Official: Michael Jackson Was Scum' tells you all you need to know of the quality of thought that went into this thread.

The title comes from cullenz, who hasn't commented in the latest revival here, so not for about three years. Tarring everyone who disagrees with you because of someone who is not part of the current discussion doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[Arcade22]

The best evidence that could be obtained was provided to a jury, who concluded it didn't prove the accusations against Jackson. Is there more and better evidence now?

People that testified in court that they had never been sexually abused by Michael Jackson have admitted in the documentary "Leaving Neverland" that they lied and that in fact he did abuse them.

For those that somehow find it doubtful that children could ever lie to cover-up their own sexual abuse, here's a good explanation of how Children can come to defend those that abuse them:

I had only a foggy idea about all this before starting work on the film. The complex, counter-intuitive and repugnant truths of child sexual abuse that Wade Robson, James Safechuck and their families have courageously unravelled on camera came as a shock to me.

In particular, the repellent but undeniable fact that a powerful attachment often forms between the predator and the child, who experiences the adult’s sexual advances not as abuse, but quite the opposite: as love. Equally disturbing to any parent is the child’s subsequent urge to shelter the abuser from parents or police. This misplaced loyalty often persists into adulthood, even though the adult knows by now that child sexual abuse is a crime. “I felt anointed,” as Wade puts it.

And then there’s the fear of consequences. “Michael told me we’d go to jail for the rest of our lives,” said Wade, describing a conversation that he had at Neverland when he was seven, but was repeated many times. The combined weight of love, shame and fear can lead to a lifetime of silence. The psychological strain of keeping the secret corrodes the soul, resulting in depression, feelings of worthlessness, substance abuse, suicidal thoughts. And the victim doesn’t connect these symptoms with the childhood sexual relationship. I am no psychotherapist but this all started to make a dreadful kind of sense to me. As James observed poignantly in a recent interview: “Your whole childhood is a lie.”

And here is the saddest truth of all. We trust our children to warn us of any unwelcome physical contact by an adult. But what if – sickening though it sounds – they do enjoy it, and do feel special? Oprah Winfrey, herself a survivor of child sexual abuse, goes so far as to say that child sexual abuse is a misnomer; it should be called “child sexual seduction”. When Wade tells his mother that Jackson molested him, she turns to him: “How could you not have told me?” Wade chokes up as he describes this. “That’s a really complicated question,” is all he can manage to say.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...cked-those-wont-accept-michael-jackson-abuser

The same kind of thing can be seen with children who are physically and/or emotionally abused by their parents yet love them in spite of this.

 

[Belz...]

Link?

...I meant the documentary. I wasn't being serious.