Latest on MJJC

Debates with the public

Lots of people use the ''You got to separate the man from the music'' argument, but to me that only goes so far
 
Snow White luvs Peter Pan said:
All he has to support his beliefs is the Fermi Paradox (applied to this context, the probability or likelihood of accusations occuring in more than one occasion, I hope I'm not wrong.)
Click to expand...

I've never seen anyone try to use the Fermi Paradox to try to rationalize why they believe in a person's guilt before. I hadn't heard of it before this guy mentioned it so I looked it up and this was pretty much my reaction:

16752280137_3cdd1d017f.jpg


This is a very odd thing to compare allegations to. He was saying it's "not possible" for MJ to be innocent of every single thing because of "mathematical possibilities" which I think is a weak argument. You said you'd studied the evidence and wouldn't defend MJ if you thought he was guilty and then this guy says you're a"blind fan." Studying evidence does not equate to being blind, not studying evidence and believing MJ was innocent just because you like him would fit into that category but that's not what you've done.

You called him out on not responding to the evidence we'd posted and then he claimed that you were "attacking him for not agreeing with you." He hadn't said anything about this evidence in the first place and he was the one who leveled and attack on you when he called you "blind" straight after you said you believed in MJ's innocence because of evidence. That was a massive fail! He then says he's the only one who knows what he has and hasn't done after you talked about looking at evidence but when I directly asked him how much study he'd put into it and what his sources were he didn't answer the question. If he wants to be taken seriously, he should have. Only after you reassured him that you were aware that MJ was a human being with flaws but that you do not thin he was a criminal and nobody has been able to prove that he was did he calm down did he accept your position.

One thing that worries me even about other fans is the assumption people sometimes make that anyone who defends MJ must be blind to the fact that he was human and had flaws like anyone else. I don't know why people jump to that conclusion so quickly. Of course we're aware that he was human, we do not think he was perfect or that he was a god, especially since we don't believe in gods in the first place lol.

analogue said:
Lots of people use the ''You got to separate the man from the music'' argument, but to me that only goes so far
Click to expand...

Yes, that's a funny one. Sometimes people seem to assume that fans love his music therefore mustn't be able to look at him as a human with flaws and sure, I think there are some fans like that but it also seems to be used by people who like MJ's music but think he hurt kids so they separate their love of his music from what they feel about him as a person.

Some people don't seem to get that fans can accept that MJ was a flawed human being without having to believe that he was guilty of the allegations against him.
 
I had the feeling he just threw in scientific sounding terms in the hope of fooling people with that. He never even gave an explanation about how the heck the Fermi paradox or mathematical probabilities would be relevant here. LOL. If he really knew anything about mathematical probabilities he would know that when you calculate a probability you have to factor in all known circumstances and facts. Probabilities do not just hang out there in the air with no relationship to the facts which affect it.

By his position - which seems to be "the more people claiming a thing the more probable it is" - science should accept religions as true or more probable than not, because frankly, a lot more people are religious than not. A lot of religious people claim to have seen miracles, religious visions etc. - so because a lot of people claim that, does it make it probable? Of course, science does not work that way - on the contrary. Science will look behind a claim and eximine the facts behind it. Conclusions will not simply be made on how many people claim a thing.
 
Last edited:
Once upon a time most people thought the earth was flat, absolutely convinced of it and we know how that one turned out. Mathematical theories are simply that. Theories and speculation, not facts. While some are proved right, others fall by the wayside as evidence based on research is applied. One could also turn his use of the Fermie Paradox (if my understanding of it is correct) around and say that with all the children Michael encountered in his life, all over the world, if he truly was guilty, there should have been more allegations than there were, more direct evidence . But there wasn't, even after investigators searched decades for it, on a global scale no less. So therefore the conclusion is that evidence of his guilt does not exist, i.e he was innocent.
 
Once he said on another post that settlements are to keep people quiet. That told me a lot about what he "knows" about all of this, and on top of that he shies away from talking about the facts, he doesn't respond when something is brought up and when directly questioned about his knowledge and sources he ignores the question. That seems to say a lot on its own. He keeps his replies short and fails to explain things adequately then gets annoyed when called on something.
 
But I (we) am/are the "blind" fan(s) even when many of us have taken the time to look for, to read the court documents, transcripts, books or magazine articles on the matter which most of them represent evidence. From all the people I've encounter believing Michael was guilty, none of them have been able to provide actual facts, they just have opinions. Points of view/judgements are not facts, is it so hard to get the difference?

It gives me the impression people think we forcefully want him to be innocent. If there wasn't evidence exonerating him, which there is, (a lot) many of us would have walked away from him already. The fact Michael was a flawed human being, like any of us doesn't make him a bad person because he wasn't. He didn't commit any crime.
 
Some people want Michael to be guilty. Not because they're concerned with the safety of children, but because they enjoy the witch hunt against him. They get a thrill out of ''burning the freak''
 
I often wonder if it's worth debating with people who think Michael was guilty since they just have opinions/beliefs rather than actual facts. I guess what keeps me going is the fact I can't stand those individuals spouting bullshit and sheer ignorance, I don't know why the make comments if they have ZERO knowledge on the matter, they just regurgitate the shit the media told. I don't know how lurkers do it, I can't handle it. As soon as I see them expressing their crap, I activate the defense mode, idealistically I want them to reflect and/or reconsider they don't have evidence to support their clams but I don't know if it will ever happen. The closest thing I achieved regarding the allegations was a guy reconsidering Michael wasn't committing a crime for having sleepovers with children. I just had people apologizing as soon as I show them convincing pictures he had vitiligo.

Have you guys succeeded on educating people?
 
I have succeeded in educating people. The thing is though whether or not they want to learn. If they don't want to, well, that's their problem, and that's fine.
 
It's not just about this subject but whatever the subject is (politics, social issues, science etc.) comment sections are full of ignorant know-it-alls with absolute certainty in their half-informed opinions.

If I debate that's not necessarily to change my debate partner's opinion (which is unchangable if the person is not open to the fact that his knowledge about the matter might be lacking - which people often are too proud to admit and rather than seeking the truth they just want to be "right", no matter what), but rather to represent to the readers of that debate that the other person's POV is not the only one.

I rarely debate in internet comment sections though. I definitely do not go after such debates to deliberately pick a fight. But I made my website for people who are open enough to be informed and who do not only look for salacious soundbites and out of context information that they can find on hater websites but want to see the totality of these cases and genuinely want to understand what happened between Michael and those accusers and their families.

I think the potential audience of that may be people who start liking Michael's music, but are unsure about him as a person and are open to learn about him. Those who already have a set opinion are rarely changable because people just do not like to be wrong.

I also often hear the argument "my opinion is equally valid as yours". Well, that's not always the case. It depends on how informed an opinion is. If one person is more knowledable about an issue than another then their opinions about the case are not "equally valid". It's a modern day internet fallacy that all opinions are equally valid.
 
Last edited:
Fermi Paradox? Isn't that just another way of saying 'there is no smoke without fire'? The person is just trying to sound clever to throw the person they are conversing with.

I honestly believe that sometimes people just won't think out of the box, people who believe Michael was guilty know very little about him, only what they see and believe from the tabloid press, they don't bother to learn anymore. And they don't want to, this image they have of this extraordinary man fits comfortably within their black and white world.

What is disturbing is that there is a whole group of WR supporters/MJ haters very active online.

Personally if if I have conversed with real life people on this subject my answer is always the same ... The man stood trial - he was found not guilty on all counts.. After years of the DA looking for anything and the FBI keeping files - they found NOTHING. No further discussion required. Lol
 
Them not guilty verdicts must have been a real blow to a lot of people's ego's
 
I find it really disappointing when people who are usually rational thinkers fall into the trap of not digging into this properly before reaching conclusions. Recently there was a good thread on a facebook page I'm on about MJ but it eventually descended into one person calling him a "vile pedophile". When she was challenged about proof she came out with the typical "No, it wasn't proved because he paid most people off." When people said that kids had been manipulated into saying things she accused them of "victim blaming" but when I challenged her on things I never got a response. Funny about that!
 
Sometimes I wonder what would happen if Jordy finally came forward and vindicated Michael. I know we were all hoping he would after Evan committed suicide. I like to hold out hope that one day, he finally will. It's not likely, but maybe.

While I wish that it would finally clear his name once and for all, I have a feeling it wouldn't. Like someone said earlier in the thread, some people just want him to be guilty no matter what.
 
reibish said:
Sometimes I wonder what would happen if Jordy finally came forward and vindicated Michael. I know we were all hoping he would after Evan committed suicide. I like to hold out hope that one day, he finally will. It's not likely, but maybe.

While I wish that it would finally clear his name once and for all, I have a feeling it wouldn't. Like someone said earlier in the thread, some people just want him to be guilty no matter what.
Click to expand...

While there always would be people who would want him to be guilty no matter what, I think Jordan telling the truth would mean a lot because he was the first accuser on whom everyone else built their cases on. Just look at how heavily Robson and Safechuck are building on the Chandler case! Safechuck directly took elements from Chandler's allegations (eg. "duck butter"), so if Chandler came forward and told it wasn't true and his father told him to say those things, then of course that would collapse and expose Robson's/Safechuck's allegations as well.

So yes, it's on Jordan to put a lot of things right. Unfortunately he is a coward.
 
respect77 said:
So yes, it's on Jordan to put a lot of things right. Unfortunately he is a coward.
Click to expand...

That's why I would want the Estate, if this shit goes to trial, to subpoena this piece of shit and cross-examine him and force him to explain how he
could miss the foreskin if he indeed mastrubated MJ 10 times and why thst part of his story vanished in the post-strip search declaration and how is that he parroted his father's exact words to Garner if they never talked about the whole thing after the dental office scene.
How is it that he looked so comfortable with MJ at the 1993 WMA, smiling and singing and sitting on his chair if he was molested just the day before?
How is that that he claimed Brett Barnes and Mac Culkin also mastrubated in front of MJ when both have been adamant that nothing sexual ever happened and both remained MJ's friend to the very end!
How is it that he contradicted his mother about what happened in Las Vegas.
How is it that he never wanted to get away from MJ instead he told him mother that he wanted to be with MJ in his room!
How could he miss the scars on MJ's buttocks if he indeed saw him naked?
And WTF was he doing in Barry Rothman's office for hours with his father if he was not coached?

And a bunch of other questions. And I sure would like it to be televised so that Americans could finally see how full of shit this bastard is.
 
castor said:
How is it that he looked so comfortable with MJ at the 1993 WMA, smiling and singing and sitting on his chair if he was molested just the day before?
Click to expand...

Oh, I'd also like to ask his sister why she liked the Monaco 1993 video on YouTube if it was the beginning of such horrible events for her brother? See: http://mjmyinspiration.blogspot.hu/2012/05/what-fk-lily-chandler-is-mj-fan.html
I'd ask the step father of Evan's other two kids, Nick and Emmanuelle, why he said on social media that the Spike Lee documentary Bad 25 moved him to tears? How can you cry for a guy who allegedly molested your quasi step-son?

There are lots of other things I'd ask them as well.
 
respect77 said:
Oh, I'd also like to ask his sister why she liked the Monaco 1993 video on YouTube if it was the beginning of such horrible events for her brother? See: http://mjmyinspiration.blogspot.hu/2012/05/what-fk-lily-chandler-is-mj-fan.html
I'd ask the step father of Evan's other two kids, Nick and Emmanuelle, why he said on social media that the Spike Lee documentary Bad 25 moved him to tears? How can you cry for a guy who allegedly molested your quasi step-son?

There are lots of other things I'd ask them as well.
Click to expand...

Isn't her real name Lilly Schwartz? She is not Chandler's daughter. She is Jordan's stepsister.
Or am I wrong?
 
castor said:
Isn't her real name Lilly Schwartz? She is not Chandler's daughter. She is Jordan's stepsister.
Or am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Curiously they all use the Chandler name. Lily too, even though she is not Evan's daughter. That's really her.
 
Maybe they want to be found? Not only the don't use aliases, they use the Chandler name when they're not actual Chandlers. I think Gavin, Jordan and Jason are probably using fake names on social media.
 
Gavin and Star used fake names initially, but they do not use it any more. None of these people use any fake identity, which shoots down the notion of incredibly dangerous MJ fans as a reaoson why accusers cannot come forward or why the Chandlers did not pursue a criminal trial.

I don't think they want to be found. When Lily was found by fans she made private all of her accounts. I think they just do not expect fans to find them. Or, in the case of the Arvizos, do not care.
 
respect77 said:
I'd ask the step father of Evan's other two kids, Nick and Emmanuelle, why he said on social media that the Spike Lee documentary Bad 25 moved him to tears?
Click to expand...


What's the evidence that that indeed happened?
 
castor;4092833 said:
What's the evidence that that indeed happened?
Click to expand...

It's still there on his account. But I am not going to post the url. Either you believe it or not. But I did send it to the Estate. You never know what might be useful.

But here's another one. This article was written by a person who is in Jordan's inner circle.

Michael Jackson, the King of Pop: a fashion autopsy

June 26, 2009

Laurie Brucker
LA Women's Style Examiner




Michael Jackson had a fashion gift. The gift of originality, consistency and his own stylistic perspective. The King of Pop has left us with fashion and style ingrained in our minds. Forever will we all look back and remember every single look, outfit and detail so clearly and forever will we can say that his look defined the music and fashion at the time.

Over the years we have seen Michael Jackson’s transformations and I am talking about from a clothing perspective. And in doing some research I have found something relatively consistent with all of his fashion styles. Sequins jackets! Which at first makes you chuckle, but then makes you think. Wow, he really did love wearing sequins. Call it the true entertainer in him. But, yes! Throughout his career the sequin jacket has made its fashion mark and can absolutely be considered Michael Jackson’s true style staple.

From a fashion designers standpoint, there is a fine appreciation, not only for the wearing of such stunning jackets but also the intricacy of each design. Being encrusted in sequins in not an easy thing to pull off, and it most definitely is not an easy thing to sew. But when you look closer, Michael’s jackets have so much detail and character, yet consistency which gave him his signature look. Whether it was a tuxedo jacket or a military jacket, Michael always kept it flashy. Depending on the look that day, he tops it off with sequin armbands, sequin sashs, gold epaulettes, his single sequin glove and in contrast, his tapered cropped tuxedo pants and glowing white ankles. These are all beyond the trend concepts that will resonate with us in our fashion membranes forever. Therefore they become timeless. Check out the slideshow below, his now timeless fashion influence has already taken effect.... You know this the fashion industry....they love something from the past to inspire for the future!

But it is pretty amazing when you look back and see everything complied in one setting. This man, this legend, this style icon has a fashion all of his own and for that he is truly what makes me just love fashion. For me. it is all about the people to beat to their own drum, who do what they want, do what they feel and do what makes them feel like a super star. Maybe wearing a sequin jacket can do that for all of us?

Guess what is on my shopping list for Fall? From your Editor-in-Chic...I’ll see you on those sequined streets!
Click to expand...

http://www.examiner.com/article/michael-jackson-the-king-of-pop-a-fashion-autopsy

I wrote about it more detail here: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...he-Chandlers?p=3989880&viewfull=1#post3989880
 
respect77 said:
It's still there on his account. But I am not going to post the url. Either you believe it or not.
Click to expand...


I believe you I just would like to have the link so I can use it in arguments with doubters.
 
castor said:
I believe you I just would like to have the link so I can use it in arguments with doubters.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why I am not going to give you the link. No need to storm the accounts of these peoples by either fans or haters. That would only make them make it private.
 
respect77 said:
That's exactly why I am not going to give you the link. No need to storm the accounts of these peoples by either fans or haters. That would only make them make it private.
Click to expand...


well if noone can see it then it doesn't matter whether it's private or not, does it?
 
castor said:
well if noone can see it then it doesn't matter whether it's private or not, does it?
Click to expand...

It does matter if it's private or not because if it's private there is no more chance to catch them saying such things. Like I said I sent these to the Estate, you never know when they may become useful.

Unfortunately that's exactly what happened to Lily's accounts: many fans learnt about it and they just did not use their brains. They started to harrass her which only resulted in her making all of her accounts private.
 
People trying to shame you for defending Michael

This is something that pisses me off. Whenever you try to defend MJ, you'll get some people who will try to shame you for it. They'll call you crazy, deluded, and accuse you of seeing MJ as this perfect angel who can do no wrong. They try to make you feel embarrassed for defending him. While their acting all smug about how ''level headed'' they are.

Sorry for the rant, but that just annoys me.
 
Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

analogue said:
This is something that pisses me off. Whenever you try to defend MJ, you'll get some people who will try to shame you for it. They'll call you crazy, deluded, and accuse you of seeing MJ as this perfect angel who can do no wrong. They try to make you feel embarrassed for defending him. While their acting all smug about how ''level headed'' they are.

Sorry for the rant, but that just annoys me.
Click to expand...

I know, i feel the same.
People are just so into their theories (MJ is weird,nuts,creppy...) and you cant prove them theyre wrong.
Well everyne has right for their opinion, but they could at least listen to what i have to say about MJ.
And of course he isnt perfect, everybody have their flaws even MJ.
BTW most of people wo arent his fans, have opinion about him that they pulled together by reading gossip magasine and yellow print and all tose media negatives.
I really like when MJ is asked why he made this film (In Private Home Movies) he sais: "Well i thought its time to do so, because many people have opinion about me but they didnt even met me. They dont know me. Im simply Michael Jackson."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top