Debates with the public

[InvincibleMJ]

:smilerolleyes: Even if that was true (and it isn't) since when a person's defense in trial is not a valid point? If it's backed with facts and evidences, why not? I doubt they would take us seriously if we say "The allegations are false because it's what accuser said to get Michael in jail"

 

[MJresearcher]

People who want to hold onto a belief will find any excuses they can think of to hold their position and I'm always aware of that when I enter a debate. I think when I started the debates the other day I was probably a little too aggressive,I was having a bit of an off day. Usually I like to try and keep it nice and civil since people respond much better to you but I slipped a bit. Even though Kevin isn't in agreement with me I think he softened to me a little when we had the bit of banter about motorcycles, I agreed with his taste in bikes and I think sometimes having a point of agreement about something even if it's not about the original topic can help with how people respond to you. I was expecting him or someone else to call bullshit on what I said about my involvement with the investigation line of work so it was pleasant when that didn't happen.

 

[barbee0715]

Markings can spread, so they can change shape or new white patches can show up in other places but you'll never have a time where a white patch will go back to being dark. This makes Clemente's claim about both Gavin and Jordan identifying the "same" "white" spot interesting because if the Chandlers were told that the markings were irrelevant because they were subject to change when they were only talking about a matter of months, then how can Clemente try to use the claim about the same patch being seen by two different teenagers 10 years apart? Oops...

You are right about the markings spreading and changing. But from what I've read and know about vitiligo (from books and people who have it), the pigmentation can and does come back. So a white patch can start having brown spots again. That's why you have to use the cream for the rest of your life.

In fact, I was watching a Lee Thomas interview, the newsman who has this disease and wrote a book) on YT yesterday where he pointed out some places that his pigment was coming back, just in that week.

Just wanted to say something in case somebody tries to pin you on that one little point-I admire your zeal for dealing with these morons. Clemente is a piece of work. I hope anyone considering him for employment takes a look at his Facebook page, or wherever he's posting this junk. What a fool.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

I need to catch up withe the thread but if justice being served depends partially on biased and unprofessional idiots like Clemente, no wonder why the court system in USA is so f*cked up!

 

[MJresearcher]

You are right about the markings spreading and changing. But from what I've read and know about vitiligo (from books and people who have it), the pigmentation can and does come back. So a white patch can start having brown spots again. That's why you have to use the cream for the rest of your life.

In fact, I was watching a Lee Thomas interview, the newsman who has this disease and wrote a book) on YT yesterday where he pointed out some places that his pigment was coming back, just in that week.

Just wanted to say something in case somebody tries to pin you on that one little point-I admire your zeal for dealing with these morons. Clemente is a piece of work. I hope anyone considering him for employment takes a look at his Facebook page, or wherever he's posting this junk. What a fool.

Thank you for the correction, I'm glad you pointed this out. It's a strange disease and I imagine it must be very frustrating for people who have it. MJ could already be pretty sensitive about his appearance so this would have hurt. I read the other day that vitiligo can have bad psychological effects on people and I'm not surprised.

 

[barbee0715]

Thank you for the correction, I'm glad you pointed this out. It's a strange disease and I imagine it must be very frustrating for people who have it. MJ could already be pretty sensitive about his appearance so this would have hurt. I read the other day that vitiligo can have bad psychological effects on people and I'm not surprised.

Oh, I'm sure it just killed him. I happen to know something about it, because I show and started showing a lot of symptoms of both lupus and roscaea, but autoimmune diseases are hard to diagnose.
But my heart ached for him with this-and the lupus-after going through that acne episode, and growing so fast during puberty, was a hideous time for him-which he mentions constantly in "Moonwalk"-so you know how much it hurt him. And then to get this? They're both such disfiguring diseases.

Especially for somebody whose only self worth and unconditional love he had was from across the footlights.Your appearance is everything.

 

[MJresearcher]

No counter argument for my usual information about civil vs criminal cases and how settlements of civil ones don't stop the criminal ones. Gee, what a "surprise".

 

[barbee0715]

^^this little excerpt that you posted from Ray's book is one of the things you all have posted that sound like even his brother thought Evan was positively an extortionist.

I'm very surprised Evan didn't take him to court to stop it since he was so litigation happy.

 

[HIStory]

They wrote the book together.

 

[analogue]

No counter argument for my usual information about civil vs criminal cases and how settlements of civil ones don't stop the criminal ones. Gee, what a "surprise".

 

[MJresearcher]

I'm not surprised there weren't any counter arguments from any of them, they just blindly follow what they've been told and then ironically act like anyone who gives a different view with facts to back it up is an idiot.

 

[Gold Pants Girl]

I commend those of you who debate with people who strongly think he's guilty, I can't do it, I get too frustrated that they just dismiss the actual facts I tell them and just keep insisting that he's guilty based on either the settlement or some bullshit "fact" they heard somewhere. It seems for whatever reason some people want him to be a child molestor, I find that really ****ed up.

 

[MJresearcher]

It can be like bashing your head against a brick wall and is definitely frustrating but it's more about who's reading, if people go unchallenged some people can erroneously think what's being claimed is true. I thought it was quite funny when someone said people don't pay when they're innocent but when I explained everything they had no counter argument to give. I also thought it was funny when someone said it was a "well known fact MJ paid people off" because all that shows me is that they believe a lot of what they hear and make no effort to establish facts better. I've noticed that a lot of people simplify the settlement too much which is why I think they come to wrong conclusions.

It reminds me of when Clemente was agreeing with haters who said that MJ must have been guilty because he didn't sue accusers. Very flawed logic there because it assumes that guilt is the only possible reason why a person would not sue. Time, cost, stress and already having dealt with the issue in court on more than one occasion are other reasons, it's not as simplistic or easy as people like to think it is. It's also very easy to say this from the outside, living it is an entirely different thing. How many times have people said they'd react a certain way or do a certain thing in a particular situation but then didn't when it actually happened? There are a lot of factors to consider.

 

[analogue]

I hate it when people bring up the O.J Simpson argument. No case should ever be compared with one another, but these people are using the celebrity argument. They think ''O.J was a celebrity who got away with it, so that must mean that all celebrities who are accused are guilty and can get away with it''

These people have this thing in their head that all celebrities are these powerful Mafia like bosses who are above the law

 

[barbee0715]

It can be like bashing your head against a brick wall and is definitely frustrating but it's more about who's reading.

Thats exactly right and that's why I am so glad you all do what you do.
I was reading comments and a debate on the internet one day, which led me to this forum in the first place. Many years ago I started reading as a guest.

I don't usually debate bc I'm not good at it and feel too emotional about it, but once in awhile I can't help myself. And I never get a proper argument in response. I usually get a comment like "you believe OJ was innocent too" or they call me a pedophile or worse. I think it's funny when they start calling me vile names so I just ignore it after that bc obviously they're stupid and I'm not going to waste my time.
But again, kudos to you because this is really for all those anonymous readers who don't know any facts and are learning from you.

 

[MJresearcher]

Thats exactly right and that's why I am so glad you all do what you do.
I was reading comments and a debate on the internet one day, which led me to this forum in the first place. Many years ago I started reading as a guest.

I don't usually debate bc I'm not good at it and feel too emotional about it, but once in awhile I can't help myself. And I never get a proper argument in response. I usually get a comment like "you believe OJ was innocent too" or they call me a pedophile or worse. I think it's funny when they start calling me vile names so I just ignore it after that bc obviously they're stupid and I'm not going to waste my time.
But again, kudos to you because this is really for all those anonymous readers who don't know any facts and are learning from you.

Oh that's cool, I didn't know that's how you found this forum. I can debate online but in person I get angry too quickly and easily, especially if the person is being a dismissive prick lol. It's sick that people have called you pedophile, I haven't had that yet but I'm sure it'll happen one day. I did see someone I was debating with ask another supporter if he shared MJ's "inclinations" because he was defending him. It was a pitifully stupid thing for him to say, how is a person who's arguing that someone isn't a pedophile meant to be a pedophile? I called him on it but got no response. I guess it was too hard to explain. Sometimes it can be hard to tell if these people are just trolling, or if they're really that stupid.

 

[analogue]

What I hate most about debating people in person, is when that person gets loud, aggressive and starts interrupting everything you're saying.

 

[analogue]

But to me, what's worse than a hater is a hater who disgises themselves as a fan. There's a ''fan'' forum where the people on there claim to be fans, but then will grab any opportunity they have to bash and disrespect Michael. They've called him a junkie, a train wreck and some of them even say he's guilty of child molestation. And if you call them out on this, they're response is always ''We separate the man from the music'' and ''We're not deluded like most fans are''

And what's worse, is that because this forum is labelled as a fan forum, then people who want to find out more about Michael come away from it thinking that even fans think he was guilty

Sadly, I can't mention the name of the forum here, because it's against the rules. I don't understand why because I think these people should be called out on they're bull s**t, but this isn't my forum. So I can't change the rules, but I'm sure many of you will know what forum I'm talking about

 

[HIStory]

Many of those "fans" say such things because they feel they need to say such things in order to be above the rest of the fandom and above "celebrity worship". It's just ridiculous because at the end of the day you are still a person spending time on a fan forum on the internet talking about someone you claim not to "worship". You are no better than the rest of the fandom who does the same, but dares to think that MJ besides being a great artist was also a good and decent person. Yeah, I think I know what forum that is. I went there a couple of years ago, maybe even have an account there, but I never really went back. Besides the negativity there I also found that forum very boring.

Fortunately when someone writes "michael jackson fan forum" in google it's not on the first page, while MJJC is Nr 1., so I think people will find this forum sooner.

 

[analogue]

One argument I heard from that ''fan'' forum was this

''I think he was guilty, because I'm a mother''

Clearly this person's emotions as a parent have gotten the better of her

 

[MJresearcher]

What I hate most about debating people in person, is when that person gets loud, aggressive and starts interrupting everything you're saying.

Oh, I really hate that! My Uncle did that to me a few years ago, he wouldn't listen to anything I had to say. People like that show a complete lack of respect for you when they do that, and they prove that they're bigots.

They've called him a junkie, a train wreck and some of them even say he's guilty of child molestation. And if you call them out on this, they're response is always ''We separate the man from the music'' and ''We're not deluded like most fans are''

They're assuming they're right when saying other people are deluded but a person can't claim to be factually correct without being able to factually prove their premise. This is where people start mixing up speculation with fact, too many people act like these two things are interchangeable but they certainly are not.

One argument I heard from that ''fan'' forum was this

''I think he was guilty, because I'm a mother''

Clearly this person's emotions as a parent have gotten the better of her

I hope this wasn't the same person who thinks other fans are deluded for thinking MJ wasn't guilty. Contrary to what some parents like to think, they do not become experts on pedophilia simply because they've become a parent. Reacting emotionally to the thought of their children or other children being molested is not proof that such a thing has occurred. A person can't argue guilt or innocence without giving evidence to prove their position and as we know, emotions are not evidence. I have to wonder how many of them are bowing to social pressure when they adhere to this way of thinking, some people may be afraid of being viewed as or called stupid but that's not a good enough reason not to have a differing view from others.

 

[analogue]

I hope this wasn't the same person who thinks other fans are deluded for thinking MJ wasn't guilty. Contrary to what some parents like to think, they do not become experts on pedophilia simply because they've become a parent. Reacting emotionally to the thought of their children or other children being molested is not proof that such a thing has occurred. A person can't argue guilt or innocence without giving evidence to prove their position and as we know, emotions are not evidence. I have to wonder how many of them are bowing to social pressure when they adhere to this way of thinking, some people may be afraid of being viewed as or called stupid but that's not a good enough reason not to have a differing view from others.

This is true, and I hate it when they start all their arguments with ''Well, speaking as a parent''. Like that's suppost to give them more credibility

 

[MJresearcher]

This is true, and I hate it when they start all their arguments with ''Well, speaking as a parent''. Like that's suppost to give them more credibility

Exactly, they're just thinking about how they'd feel if something happened to their child. From what I've seen, a large number of people don't seem to know much about pedophilia at all, not long ago when I saw people speaking about it on the internet it seemed that many of them thought that they're people who lure kids into cars or vans with candy to kidnap and molest them. In reality this isn't very common because it's too risky.

 

[SoulQueen]

I know I don't normally comment here much but today at volunteer work someone was reading "the man behind the mask" by Bob Jones and Stacy Brown. And I told her it wasn't a good book and that it was not an honest portrayal Michael. I then later went on to find out how mislead she was, like she said "oh but he payed off all those children" and that he still had all those kids staying at Neverland and so on then another person there mentioned that there were those employees who claimed he abused them I think he was referring to those body guards and Adrian Mc Macmanus. but on the bright side she stopped reading the book and told me "now you ruined it for me, I just wanted to know the truth!" lol
I would have said more but if I did I would have been there for ages going through every detail about the allegations. I was so shocked that everyone there believed(well I don't know if everyone believed it or not) that Michael bought his accuser's silence which I know is a load of rubbish. It really never occurred to me how mislead the public really still is about the allegations and Michael. Its such a shame how one sided the media was. I just kept saying "that's not true", "this isn't true" I really really wish I would've elaborated more but I didn't have any time and since it was volunteer work I had to do other stuff but anyway

Just a quick question Bob Jones admitted that he lied in that book right? I swear I read it somewhere that he did I think it was in court when he gave his testimony. Please someone correct me if I am wrong. Cause I kinda told her that.

I usually don't get in debates about him much. But to be honest I don't really like debating with people as they are too entitled to their opinion no matter what you throw at them. Plus it never really gets brought up much as these days no one seems to care much anymore well at least that's what I noticed so far. This is by far the first and only one I've come across in real life. The only debates I've had are on the internet.

 

[HIStory]

^ Yes, Bob Jones and Stacy Brown were called to testify for the prosecution in 2005 because of the claims in their book. At the time the book was still in the making, but the prosecution had the manuscripts. However Jones famously backtracked about his claims on the stand under oath and he admitted they were lying for money. Here is an article about it:

http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/bob-jones-and-stacy-brown/

Yet the book went on to be published after the trial. Only when you slander Michael Jackson you can publish a book about that you formerly admitted on a stand under oath that it is full of lies and people still believe it...

As for the myth of pay-offs. Ask them this simple question: if such pay-offs really happened why then that evidence was never introduced to Court at MJ’s 2005 trial? Tell them that the only evidence of pay-offs which came out at the trial was the money the tabloid media paid to people to slander MJ.

 

[MJresearcher]

As for the myth of pay-offs. Ask them this simple question: if such pay-offs really happened why then that evidence was never introduced to Court at MJ’s 2005 trial? Tell them that the only evidence of pay-offs which came out at the trial was the money the tabloid media paid to people to slander MJ.

This is something a lot of people don't seem to think of. I don't understand why people think that if MJ had tried to "pay" anyone to keep quiet that this would somehow be legal. They really don't get it.

 

[analogue]

Some people really don't understand how ''hush money'' works. If Michael was really guilty, and wanted to pay The Chandlers to shut up, then He would have done so before all the allegations leaked into the media.

 

[HIStory]

This is something a lot of people don't seem to think of. I don't understand why people think that if MJ had tried to "pay" anyone to keep quiet that this would somehow be legal. They really don't get it.

Yes, and the recent developments are too very telling about this. When the Mirror wrote that crappy "FBI files" articles Robson's lawyer, Maryann Marzano immeditately commented it saying how it proves MJ was a "serial molester" bla-bla-bla. However, in there current third amended complaint apparently there is no word about any pay offs. They basically just repeat their previous complaint. Let's not forget their task was for this third amended complaint to find some evidence of MJ's companies knowing about Wade's alleged abuse and knowing about past abuse by MJ. If there was any evidence of pay offs they sure would have used it to prove the companies knew about past abuse by MJ. Since there does not seem to be any such claim in their complaint it means these rumours and lies that are in tabloids such as the Mirror, did not lead them anywhere.

Think about it, we have had an investigation in 1993, in 2003-05. They sure try to dig up dirt on MJ now for these civil suits. But after more than 20 years of digging and digging no one ever found any evidence of secret pay offs. That's because it's a media myth and there is nothing to support it in real life.

Some people really don't understand how ''hush money'' works. If Michael was really guilty, and wanted to pay The Chandlers to shut up, then He would have done so before all the allegations leaked into the media.

Yes, that too.

And you know if MJ had really molested all these boys - Jordan, Wade, Jimmy - it would have been all the more reason for him to immediately accept Evan's offer. Not just because of Jordan. He sure would not have wanted a police investigation. That's why I always say that there are many ways that Chandler book is exonerating MJ even if it wasn't Ray Chandler's intention.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

People who claim to be fans of Michael's music but believe the allegations perplex me, I can't conceive it. One of my fb friends is one of those "fans." You know the typical one who believes Michael settling with the Chandlers and Francia made him guilty when he has no idea how the settlement worked and it didn't stop a criminal trial from taking place, He hasn't even bother to read the information on the matter MJresearcher and I provided. 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.) Multiple accusation didn't made Michael guilty knowing Jordan and Jason were coerced to come up with a confession using improper questioning techniques.

Maybe I'm overreacting but I seriously can't even! :doh:

 

[HIStory]

I can understand if someone is not a fan, not interested in MJ and so he does not want to spend time with researching facts around him. But for a fan in my eyes there is no excuse to deliberately remain ignorant about the facts just to be able to hold on to his own beliefs. The Fermi Paradox? Ridiculous. It is about the probability of extraterrestrial life and it cannot be applied to child abuse allegations where people are motivated by money and each other's examples and by a corrupt prosecution. The hope of financial gain will affect the probability of such allegations popping up. People seeing other people get rich with such allegations will affect the probability of such allegations popping up.

And actually there are even cases with multiple accusers (a lot more than MJ had) where there was no money involved, yet there were many allegations, but at the end it turned out they were false. Eg. the McMartin case or the people in that Sean Penn documentary Witch Hunt, where kids were coerced into making allegations by an over-zealous prosecution.

In my eyes for a fan there is no excuse to intentionally remain so ignorant about these allegations and trying to find all kind of stupid excuses for that. Just because you throw around scientific terms like the Fermi Paradox it does not mean you are being scientific. A scientist will base his conclusions on actual research and facts, not on inappropriately applied theories.


ETA: LOL, that conversation just popped up on my timeline, so I had to answer to him on FB as well.