Michael Jackson

[BroomJockey]

But don't dismiss me please.

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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Sowwy; that's slang round where I am for getting all het up, usually over an innocent or innocuous question. ^^;; Like yelling at a child asking why you're wearing that hat. XD

I don't see that Flynn has been on since he was asked to defend his position so he hasn't really had that chance to. However, I tend to stay out of this kind of thing, especially when the person in question is the only person who knows what happened and if there are fans involved, it tends to end up as a free fight. O.o I've seen way too many internet flame wars in the Kiss fandom to want to get involved elsewhere.

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".

I defend my position by saying that if there is no evidence that it happened, then it probably didn't, and saying that people, by-and-large read the worst in to actions that are likely innocent, and MJ, as a child-performer, didn't have a proper childhood, thus likely more easily identified with children than adults to the point of taking on childish mannerisms as demonstrated by his naming of his estate "Neverland" and his massive video game collection, then doing anything untoward is unlikely. My position is alterable by the simple production either of a confession or incriminating transcript, a medical report detailing signs of abuse, or other such similar materials.

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

[BroomJockey]

No need to drop the dummy over this; 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,

Not how I read it at all. Instead, I read it as other people saying "MJ's a child abusing bastard because I say so." Kalli then asked for something to back that up. No one has actually bothered to do so. THEN the comment of "if you can't back it up, stfu" came along. While not the most diplomatic of debating techniques, I feel it still goes to the heart of "If you can't defend your position, why do you have it?" I defend my position by saying that if there is no evidence that it happened, then it probably didn't, and saying that people, by-and-large read the worst in to actions that are likely innocent, and MJ, as a child-performer, didn't have a proper childhood, thus likely more easily identified with children than adults to the point of taking on childish mannerisms as demonstrated by his naming of his estate "Neverland" and his massive video game collection, then doing anything untoward is unlikely. My position is alterable by the simple production either of a confession or incriminating transcript, a medical report detailing signs of abuse, or other such similar materials. Since none of that has been provided, and a court of law found insufficient evidence to substantiate a claim, then my position is so-far well defended.

On a separate note... "drop the dummy?" I've never heard that before. What's it mean?

[Lace Neil Singer]

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".

No need to drop the dummy over this; 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.

[BroomJockey]

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.

Er, no. I'm quite sure you don't understand the concept of proving a negative. Prove that a person is incapable of jumping to the moon.

Prove that God doesn't exist.

Prove that a person cannot survive a 10,000 ft free fall.

You cannot do those, because while it might be true in one individual case, you cannot prove that it's always true. A person with mechanical assistance could very well jump to the moon in the future. God might exist, but cloak his existence from the human mind. People HAVE survived falls from that height.

Your example is fallacious because the positions aren't that something cannot happen or doesn't exist. One side says "abortion is an acceptable procedure. The reasons are *insert reasons for believing so." The other side says "abortion is unacceptable because of *insert reasons for believing so."

No one actually says "abortion does not, and cannot exist," which is what the negative would be. It would only take one person with video evidence of an abortion to show their position incorrect.

Thus, you're asking me to prove that someone did *not* do something. How can I do that? Provide video evidence of all the times where MJ didn't molest a boy? The burden of proof rests on those asserting something did happen, France's legal system not-withstanding, since in that case, they're making an assertion, then you disprove it, and is thus a different systematic approach, which still starts with the assertion of something happening.

[Lace Neil Singer]

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.

I'm not really interested in proving either way; the guy's dead now, so I'm sick and tired of hearing the constant stories. Just that you can't say "I believe he's innocent, so all you others can stfu" cuz that is not presenting your side, that's just basically faith. Like saying "I believe in god, therefore there is one, so you atheists can stfu". Prove your side; if you're so sure you're right, then what have you got to lose?

[Kalli]

I have to disagree with you on that one.
There was not a single shred of evidence

Hang on a sec....

So if there's no evidence of guilt in Lizzie Borden's case, she's obviously innocent.

BUT, if there's no evidence of guilt in MJ's case, he's obviously guilty?

Please explain this inconsistency.