Dr. Feel Good
Banned
Holy shit this guy needs to lay off Thesaurus.com
But I agree, there's no proof on MJ.
But I agree, there's no proof on MJ.
The defenders of MJ never cease to amaze me. It's like children who continue to believe in Santa Clauss even after finding out their parents were the ones who left the gifts and ate the cookies.
You don't understand, I really like his music.
I wanna say Razor has an English degree he takes serious. He is also fluent in Japanese I believe. Not a dumb dude by any means, but I often have to double check what exactly he is talking about sometimes. Ha!Holy shit this guy needs to lay off Thesaurus.com
But I agree, there's no proof on MJ.
You don't understand, I really like not adding anything substantive to the conversation and ignoring the facts that may actually prove I'm wrong in my conclusions.
He made Thriller, man. Thriller.
You realize your post is exactly the type of post I'm mocking, right?
Yeah. Watching at moment as I get ready for work. I do kind of take back my statement. He just needs to take a chill pill and lay off the "I'm so angry" voice. He might be genuinely pissed but it isn't great for conmunicating information.Did you watch the video?
You should've linked that into the response. LOL It's been awhile since I saw that. I don't think the other poster was referencing that at all.
Would you tell a lie for 20 million dollars? Do you know people who would tell lies for millions dollars? Do you think parents, to get what they want, could manipulate their children into telling lies or half truths?So those child victims were all lying huh?
Famous pop stars? 🤔Would you tell a lie for 20 million dollars? Do you know people who would tell lies for millions dollars?
Famous pop stars? ��
Holy shit this guy needs to lay off Thesaurus.com
But I agree, there's no proof on MJ.
What if it was 40 children but no physical evidence other than he did it?
Oh and the folks saying stuff like "he made thriller man, thriller." And nonsense Comments that "MJ defenders bla bla bla," without taking into account that they actually DO know wtf they are talking about.....can those people kindly fuck off? Because it is quite clear you have nothing to add.
What if it was 40 children but no physical evidence other than he did it?
Once you start to actually listen to what he has to say it stops being an issue, if you ask me.I wish such a well researched video wasn't so offset by such an insufferable presenter.
what's your stake in this? why are you losing your temper about what other people think? a smiley face doesn't make "fuck off" a good response.
I don't know whether Michael is a pedophile or not but I'm generally wary of hero worship. People tend to overlook things when one of their idols is involved. Just look at how Penn State students and alumni reacted when people suspected that Joe Paterno knew about Jerry Sandusky's pedophila and was covering it up. They flew into an outrage but as more information has come out, it only confirms our suspicions that Joe Paterno knew and actively covered for Sandusky.
Also, sex crimes are very difficult to prove. Sadly, there's also a lot of evidence that suggest that ridiculously rich people are able to get away with crimes that other people would go to prison for. That of course does not mean that Michael is guilty but there is some smoke in this case.
Dude was fucked up in the head to the point where he probably did wrong things to kids, but I don't think this is "evidence" of it.
I would imagine not, as it is trying to explain the evidence for him being innocent.
Would be quite a poor video if it proved his guilt.
Dude was fucked up in the head to the point where he probably did wrong things to kids, but I don't think this is "evidence" of it.
Hmmmmm.
Bothers me that there are people like Wade Roboson that at first defended Jackson in court, but 8 years later came out against him: http://www.today.com/popculture/wade-robson-pedophile-michael-jackson-abused-me-7-years-1C9948163
The whole child porn thing was always a red herring, and Jackson was never convicted for it, but stuff like the above gives me more pause. Why would you go from defending him in court to coming out about it 8 years later? He claims having his own children opened up his eyes to the abuse. I suppose it's one of those things people will never truly know the truth about.
Hero worship is bad, true, but coming to a conclusion about someone without going through the proper channels to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt is like a failure to understand the scientific theory.
"I'm convinced, he's guilty!" is a meaningless statement.
If he weren't possibly the most famous pop star ever I'd bet there'd be alot fewer people giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Yep and he talks with big words a lot, too.Razorfist is so verbose. He is sesquipedalian loquaciousness personified
That's kinda what I was thinking.How is it a BIG jump to go from to an adult who likes to sleep in the same bed with kids to child molester?
Still, based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence, I believe he was probably guilty. To be honest, I struggle to understand how so many can be so convinced that he was innocent--or spend so much time and energy trying to prove to others that he was.
No, it's not. People reach conclusions based on incomplete evidence all the time. In fact, the reverse is damn well the exception to the rule in life, as well as the courtroom. I understand that they never found literal child pornography at Neverland, that there is no video of abuse, and that there is reason to doubt the veracity of some of the accusers.
Still, based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence, I believe he was probably guilty. To be honest, I struggle to understand how so many can be so convinced that he was innocent--or spend so much time and energy trying to prove to others that he was.
Money? He was suing the Michael Jackson estate, but his claim was dismissed in court.
Still a BIG jump between "creepy dude who has sleepovers with kids" and "child molester".
No, it's not. People reach conclusions based on incomplete evidence all the time. In fact, the reverse is damn well the exception to the rule in life, as well as the courtroom. I understand that they never found literal child pornography at Neverland, that there is no video of abuse, and that there is reason to doubt the veracity of some of the accusers.
Still, based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence, I believe he was probably guilty. To be honest, I struggle to understand how so many can be so convinced that he was innocent--or spend so much time and energy trying to prove to others that he was.
Undeniably.
No, it's not. People reach conclusions based on incomplete evidence all the time. In fact, the reverse is damn well the exception to the rule in life, as well as the courtroom. I understand that they never found literal child pornography at Neverland, that there is no video of abuse, and that there is reason to doubt the veracity of some of the accusers.
Still, based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence, I believe he was probably guilty. To be honest, I struggle to understand how so many can be so convinced that he was innocent--or spend so much time and energy trying to prove to others that he was.
There's defending of Michael Jackson against poor, lack of, or completely disproven evidence that still get's reported as truth.
He's a child predator. End of story.
He's a child predator. End of story.
Wade Robson was already famous and made a lot of money with his dancing and choreography with super stars. If anything, coming out against Jackson has hurt his fame/career. So I'm not so sure it was about money.