Originally Posted by Mucha na Dziko

I'm just rational

Not riding on the "not guilty" or "guilty" idea, because there is just too much contradictory data.



OJ Simpson was acquitted at first, but then found guilty. It's right there in the first paragraph on his Wikipedia page.





So asking for an explanation is being negative?

Saying "I won't listen to Xs music because we all know what a bastard he is" is fine, but asking "why is he a bastard?" is hate?
Come on...



Really, it works exactly the other way around.
I thought that rich/celebrty people can get past the juridicial system when I was like 12.
It might work that wa if you're like Elon Musk of=r she other banking clan type person, but it doesn't when you work in culture.

If you're a well-known musician selling millions of albums, you're more likely to be found guilty when charged, because the "society" makes an "example" out of you.

You can get out on bail, sure.
You can pay or something for your jail time, sure.
But you can't dictate whether you're found guilty or not.



Anyway, as long as someone isn't found guilty on strong evidence, they shouldn't be considered "guilty".
Otherwise we just go back to out caveman days when if someone said "he beat/raped me" we just go out and torch that person out to hell.

Originally Posted by rubber soul

So, OJ was found innocent because he didn't have to pay for the best legal defense in town (and he was found liable, not guilty, by a civil jury)?

Look, money has corrupted all sides when it comes to Michael Jackson. Jackson could also hire the best legal defense and the main reason he was acquitted in his trial was because the jury accurately saw it as a money grab by the kids' mother. If you want proof in the pudding, (and yes, Leaving Neverland is certainly one-sided), listen to the now men who told their stories. Don't forget, in 1994, they were just impressionable boys who may have feared Michael Jackson (don't forget how much power he had in those days).

I won't go as far as I hope he rots in Hell because, as you noted, he never really had a life of his own. It was like he was the boy King but with all the dysfunction around him. But where is the justice (forget monetary) for the boys he may have victimized?

Originally Posted by Mucha na Dziko

My point exactly RB is that he "might have"

I just can't stand the kind of thinking that allows us to say "I hope rots in hell" when things aren't clear and obvious

Originally Posted by Mucha na Dziko

Saying "that dude is a rapist" is fine if you live in a society of a hundred people, or a thousand. It doesn't when you have to put up with 300M of other citizens who you know **** about.

Also: it's not "my standards", it's the standards that the society had put on us, so that we can all live in a sort-of-harmony



Maybe so, but that's the price you've got to pay in order to live in a society

Originally Posted by Plankton

If you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and then make a change.

Originally Posted by rubber soul

Claims of pedophilia are not proven

But, as Dan Rather says, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Originally Posted by Mucha na Dziko

(Not with the second part though – ever heard of the Ugly Duckling?)

Originally Posted by Frownland

...we should not form an opinion about whether or not it's a duck until a court does DNA testing on the animal, develops an intensive family tree showing duck lineage, and has a jury certify it as a duck.

Originally Posted by Mucha na Dziko

If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck we shouldn't assume it is a duck, because it might not look like a duck