You mean I can't think he's guilty without having antipathy for the rich?
Yes you can but that is not what you said. Here is the full quote...
I still don't see any harm in offering an opinion prior to a celebrity trial. I would see the harm, as I said before and you agreed, if we were talking about some poor guy who couldn't afford his own attorney. That's not the case, and as I see it the system is already stacked in MJ's favor.
Does the above not suggest that you think that it is okay to do certain things in the case where the defendant is a celebrity, and so has the deck stacked in his favor, where it would not be okay for a poor schmuck?
If not, then I simply do not understand the above statement. If so, then that is antipathy toward the rich (or famous).
Given that it has once sentence explaining sympathy toward the poor, and the next saying this is not the case, it is pretty clearly worded as sympathy for poor antipathy for celebrity.
But who gets to determine when enough evidence is in?
Anyone with a sense of reason. It is well known that in this case neither the prosecution nor the defense has revealed all that they have to the public... that inherently means there is more to be revealed some of which may make or break the case.
If the prosecution had released some kind of vivid documentation that would be hard to refute, then you might have a case for saying it is reasonable to draw a conclusion. But this is not the case.
From what I understand the family came and stayed at MJ's place while he was gone, after the events were supposed to have taken place. On top of the fact that they sent their kid to his place despite knowing the rumors about MJ, doesn't their subsequent action raise some question in your mind about their believability?
MJ said he routinely sleeps with pubescent boys. Given the allegations against him and the similarity to earlier allegations against him and the fact that not only did he not attempt to clear his name when it happened before but in fact continued sleeping with little boys, I've made up my mind that he's guilty.
One thing in general does not lead one to any viable conclusion about a singular specific case. Indeed it could be just as likely that this family, or the DA, have decided to make a case because they see him as easy meat.
Prove it.
I already did and you have admitted it. Your opinion is based on very weak evidence which is logically inconclusive. Further it is known that people tend to believe repeated opinion, even if false. Thus your erroneous statements poison the well of public knowledge.
Do you need me to provide studies regarding the above?
How is that a plea for anything?
You are saying that despite the knowledge that your opinion is biased and essentially worthless, that because you have a right to say anything you want you will say anything you want no matter how worthless. You are also taking it as an assault on your free speech that I am criticizing what you are doing.
My free speech rights are to criticize those that state ridiculous opinions. Indeed that is part of the idea. You counter bad speech with rational speech. Here I am.
You want to be lazy, go ahead. I will point out why it is lazy and not beneficial.
Just as I will point out to any creo or ID theoris positing false notions about science and scientists... because they heard them say they don't deal with the supernatural, which must mean they hate god... that they are being intellectually lazy and not beneficial. Certainly their words don't help when good science is in the court room or the legislative arena.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)
™ Version 4.2
