|
Post by kremlinshadow on Feb 12, 2019 21:12:25 GMT
Yet fear of paedophilia often causes people to lose their minds. And the fear of innocent people being wrongfully accused, lives ruined and convicted is usually outweighed by this fear of paedophilia. You talk about fear of paedophilia as if it's an irrational or OTT reaction from the general public. I don't support mob mentality anymore than the next intelligent thinking adult, but as a parent myself, I have zero sympathy for paedophiles being treated as social pariahs. People feeling passionate about children's right isn't a "moral panic", it is called protecting the most vulnerable in our society. It's just a shame this doesn't seem to extend to societies barbaric treatment of animals. To play devil's advocate can I ask you what would be your attitude if when your child grows up they turn out to have an attraction to children, not actively but just attraction and can't help this? Would you be ok with them being outcast from society or would you support then in trying to get help or would you completely disown them? The hysteria stems from the not knowing. You will never know what's in someone's mind so you end up driving yourself into a panic about everyone, it's not healthy. I personally would discourage the mob mentality because why would you want to drive people underground where you don't know what they're doing? I'd rather that they were able to seek help without repercussion, help not to act on impulses, to control their thoughts. You can't just write people off for good because they have something within their make-up that they are unable to control. Again, terminology is a great issue too. A lot of the time people are labelled paedophiles when in fact it's not the case. The grooming gangs of Rotherham and the like, well that's just a whole different kettle of fish.
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Feb 12, 2019 21:32:27 GMT
You talk about fear of paedophilia as if it's an irrational or OTT reaction from the general public. I don't support mob mentality anymore than the next intelligent thinking adult, but as a parent myself, I have zero sympathy for paedophiles being treated as social pariahs. People feeling passionate about children's right isn't a "moral panic", it is called protecting the most vulnerable in our society. It's just a shame this doesn't seem to extend to societies barbaric treatment of animals. To play devil's advocate can I ask you what would be your attitude if when your child grows up they turn out to have an attraction to children, not actively but just attraction and can't help this? Would you be ok with them being outcast from society or would you support then in trying to get help or would you completely disown them? The hysteria stems from the not knowing. You will never know what's in someone's mind so you end up driving yourself into a panic about everyone, it's not healthy. I personally would discourage the mob mentality because why would you want to drive people underground where you don't know what they're doing? I'd rather that they were able to seek help without repercussion, help not to act on impulses, to control their thoughts. You can't just write people off for good because they have something within their make-up that they are unable to control. Again, terminology is a great issue too. A lot of the time people are labelled paedophiles when in fact it's not the case. The grooming gangs of Rotherham and the like, well that's just a hole different kettle of fish. Well, there is a difference between a paedophile and a child molestor. If someone I loved (my own child or a family member) told me they were attracted sexually to children, I would be disturbed, but as long as they're not harming anybody, then I don't think it would greatly effect my relationship with them. But if they told me they had intentionally abused a child, I wouldn't be able to understand that or support them in any way. I don't buy into the idea that a child molestor can't choose to suppress their urges. Plenty of straight/gay/bi people go about their everyday lives without feeling the need to rape or violate the object of their desires. We don't all get to satisfy our sexual urges, but the vast majority of decent people manage to control themselves, so why should we make excuses for a child molestor? I think a child molestor enjoys the feeling of power and control, much like a rapist. And these people are fucked up beyond help. It's sad, and I don't know what the answer is with people who commit these crimes. But they're pretty low down on my list of people to feel sorry for. If you violate someone elses human rights for your own gratification, then you deserve whatevers coming to you, as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
Post by kremlinshadow on Feb 12, 2019 21:54:17 GMT
To play devil's advocate can I ask you what would be your attitude if when your child grows up they turn out to have an attraction to children, not actively but just attraction and can't help this? Would you be ok with them being outcast from society or would you support then in trying to get help or would you completely disown them? The hysteria stems from the not knowing. You will never know what's in someone's mind so you end up driving yourself into a panic about everyone, it's not healthy. I personally would discourage the mob mentality because why would you want to drive people underground where you don't know what they're doing? I'd rather that they were able to seek help without repercussion, help not to act on impulses, to control their thoughts. You can't just write people off for good because they have something within their make-up that they are unable to control. Again, terminology is a great issue too. A lot of the time people are labelled paedophiles when in fact it's not the case. The grooming gangs of Rotherham and the like, well that's just a hole different kettle of fish. Well, there is a difference between a paedophile and a child molestor. If someone I loved (my own child or a family member) told me they were attracted sexually to children, I would be disturbed, but as long as they're not harming anybody, then I don't think it would greatly effect my relationship with them. But if they told me they had intentionally abused a child, I wouldn't be able to understand that or support them in any way. I don't buy into the idea that a child molestor can't choose to suppress their urges. Plenty of straight/gay/bi people go about their everyday lives without feeling the need to rape or violate the object of their desires. We don't all get to satisfy our sexual urges, but the vast majority of decent people manage to control themselves, so why should we make excuses for a child molestor? I think a child molestor enjoys the feeling of power and control, much like a rapist. And these people are fucked up beyond help. It's sad, and I don't know what the answer is with people who commit these crimes. But they're pretty low down on my list of people to feel sorry for. If you violate someone elses human rights for your own gratification, then you deserve whatevers coming to you, as far as I'm concerned. That's where the problem lies though people with attraction and those who actively abuse are all lumped into the same pot and why nothing ever get's done about it other than increased hysteria. I agree if someone acts on that urge then there has to be consequences but as with any crime rehabilitation is the key and if people do their time, as with any crime they should be given a second chance. I also think society has a lot to blame for this behavior also with the barely legal magazines and pictures of young women/men in school uniforms and the like and this is widely accepted for some reason, and then the same people who buy this crap are up in arms when someone actually has sex with an underage say 14yo school girl/boy, talk about contradictions.
|
|
|
Post by mjjfan810 on Feb 12, 2019 22:08:14 GMT
So an email has been leaked from Wade in 2011 begging to do the MJ One show and sounding flakey as fuck. How long was this email before his supposed breakdown?
|
|
|
Post by kremlinshadow on Feb 12, 2019 22:23:55 GMT
So an email has been leaked from Wade in 2011 begging to do the MJ One show and sounding flakey as fuck. How long was this email before his supposed breakdown? His contradictory blog post is interesting too!!! Nothing like the shame of being found out to be a liar eh .......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2019 22:24:42 GMT
So an email has been leaked from Wade in 2011 begging to do the MJ One show and sounding flakey as fuck. How long was this email before his supposed breakdown? Which story does this fall into? I'm so confused by his several different universes
|
|
|
Post by Liberian Girl on Feb 12, 2019 22:46:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Feb 12, 2019 23:25:31 GMT
So an email has been leaked from Wade in 2011 begging to do the MJ One show and sounding flakey as fuck. How long was this email before his supposed breakdown? This is five days AFTER Robson went into therapy for the first time. And he made zero allegation of abuse at this time. If I recall correctly, it wouldn't be until 2012 when he would do so. So, his breakdown had everything to do with his career and nothing to do with any alleged abuse.
|
|
|
Post by kremlinshadow on Feb 12, 2019 23:33:44 GMT
No problem, Innuendo should possibly be included in that tag too for discussing historical cases in Ireland in great detail too .
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Feb 13, 2019 5:11:26 GMT
So an email has been leaked from Wade in 2011 begging to do the MJ One show and sounding flakey as fuck. How long was this email before his supposed breakdown?
It was after his first breakdown in May 2011. He didn't make allegations yet. Tried to get with the Cirque show, then it later failed and then a year later in May 2012 he made his allegations.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Feb 13, 2019 5:13:32 GMT
This too. He claimed in a declaration under oath that before March 4, 2013 he didn't know about the administration of the MJ Estate (to get around statutes). But evidence shows he not only knew but he even negotiated with them. Like this e-mail from his agent to him from 2011 which specifically mentions the Estate.
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Feb 13, 2019 5:34:36 GMT
With this leak of emails it shows that Robson more than an abuse victim, he was a disgruntled and entitled prick who didn't get his way failing to secure the Cirque du Soleil gig. His breakdowns were because he succumbed to the pressures of success but it's easier to blame the one who is no longer here to defend himself trying to get easy money rather than confronting his own issues.
|
|
|
Post by Russg on Feb 13, 2019 7:15:47 GMT
This too. He claimed in a declaration under oath that before March 4, 2013 he didn't know about the administration of the MJ Estate (to get around statutes). But evidence shows he not only knew but he even negotiated with them. Like this e-mail from his agent to him from 2011 which specifically mentions the Estate. I think the trouble is with a lot of this stuff that fans are presenting as evidence, most of it is, at best, circumstantial. What does Wade lying about knowing MJ had an estate actually have to do with his allegations against MJ? I know you will probably say that it shows that he was prepared to lie under oath in the pursuit of furthering his case, but that still isn't proof that he is lying about the sexual abuse. I'm not saying I believe Wade (I don't), but I'm thinking about how much of this so-called evidence that fans get so excited about actually means anything? Imagine you're a member of the general public who watches this documentary and then you spot MJ fans on Twitter presenting this stuff as evidence? It's hardly compelling and doesn't actually prove jack. Same with Brandi Jackson's recent tweets. What does her having dated Wade for seven years have to do with anything? I agree it is odd that it was MJ who set them up, but I guess you could counter that by saying "keep your friends close and your enemies closer." People who believe Wade will just say MJ wanted to keep him in the Jackson family fold so he wouldn't be tempted to turn on him. Until such a time as Wade/James/Gavin/Jordan are caught out admitting they lied, nothing is going to PROVE MJs innocence. It will just be a fan theory and the whole thing will, at best, go down as a massive question mark over his life story.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Feb 13, 2019 7:46:45 GMT
This too. He claimed in a declaration under oath that before March 4, 2013 he didn't know about the administration of the MJ Estate (to get around statutes). But evidence shows he not only knew but he even negotiated with them. Like this e-mail from his agent to him from 2011 which specifically mentions the Estate. I think the trouble is with a lot of this stuff that fans are presenting as evidence, most of it is, at best, circumstantial. What does Wade lying about knowing MJ had an estate actually have to do with his allegations against MJ? I know you will probably say that it shows that he was prepared to lie under oath in the pursuit of furthering his case, but that still isn't proof that he is lying about the sexual abuse. I'm not saying I believe Wade (I don't), but I'm thinking about how much of this so-called evidence that fans get so excited about actually means anything? Imagine you're a member of the general public who watches this documentary and then you spot MJ fans on Twitter presenting this stuff as evidence? It's hardly compelling and doesn't actually prove jack. Same with Brandi Jackson's recent tweets. What does her having dated Wade for seven years have to do with anything? I agree it is odd that it was MJ who set them up, but I guess you could counter that by saying "keep your friends close and your enemies closer." People who believe Wade will just say MJ wanted to keep him in the Jackson family fold so he wouldn't be tempted to turn on him. Until such a time as Wade/James/Gavin/Jordan are caught out admitting they lied, nothing is going to PROVE MJs innocence. It will just be a fan theory and the whole thing will, at best, go down as a massive question mark over his life story. You know that there is no such thing as proving someone's innocence, right? So you basically set MJ fans up to the impossible task of having to prove a negative. You, who seem so easily to believe everything you read in tabloids now come back to us and say evidence of these people lying under oath, while claiming their case is about getting the truth out there, is somehow irrelevant? No, it isn't. Just like it isn't irrelevant and it wasn't irrelevant to a jury that the Arvizos were lying. To people who want MJ to be guilty everything will be irrelevant, of course. But it isn't. The burden of proof is not on us, but on those who claim MJ committed these crimes. That works like that in court and in science as well, exactly because you can't prove a negative, that something did not happen. So why don't you demand them to show evidence of their claims? Why do you place the burden of proof on the accused? By your standards, let's just lock up everyone who is ever accused of this type of crime and let's consider them guilty until proven innocent. If the circumstancial evidence of an accuser being a liar cannot be used then how would you defend a person falsely accused of such a crime? Just lock him up, right? Fans aren't the ones in the wrong here. The media is, who consider allegations in themselves as facts. No, they aren't and if people had brains and the media had morals they would not treat them as facts either. The "theory" here is not fan's "theory" of him being innocent. The never proven "theory" here is that he is guilty. You have it all backwards. The burden of proof is on those who allege something.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Feb 13, 2019 8:57:42 GMT
And let's be honest here: if all of these lies, inconsistencies, fuckery would come out about MJ's side of the debate, it would all be seen as very much relevant and plastered all over the media as evidence of MJ's guilt. And you would post all those articles here as well as evidence of MJ's guilt.
The media is hell bent on using ridiculous crap like Adrian McManus's lies or made up phantom victims and claims of exhumation of MJ's body, but somehow evidence of lying by these two men in actual court documents is "irrelevant". Yeah, right.
If you do not see the one-sided agenda in all this then I don't know what to say. All I wish for is that the media actually reported of both sides of the debate with equal measure and distance. That would suffice. Yes. There would still be guilters, but I think a lot more people would actually realize something is wrong with these two men and their allegations.
And for those who want him to be guilty no evidence of his innocence would be enough anyway. Not even Jordan coming clear. They would say he got paid by the Estate or something. I have personally seen folks who, after reading up on the cases, admitted that they don't believe Jordan, Arvizo and Wade. But still believed him to be a molester based on "he must have molested others then". If all the real accusers crumble then let us fantasize about phantom victims. That's what MJ(non)Facts mostly does. They talk more about Brett Barnes than they do about Arvizo. Lol. Let's not act like it's rational people on the other side of this debate. Some just want him to be guilty no matter what.
|
|