Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   fair trial?
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 137 (183434)
02-06-2005 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Silent H
02-06-2005 4:08 AM


holmes writes me:
quote:
...the stage where it becomes "okay" (better said "reasonable" or "useful" or "noncounterproductive") to express one's opinion as if it matters...
But I didn't offer an opinion as if it mattered. In fact, I've said repeatedly that my opinion doesn't matter. I have no influence on this case at all, so I still don't see any harm in offering an opinion. I shouldn't have to qualify that opinion with phrases like "based on what I've seen so far" because I expect that to go without saying.
regarding OJ's trial:
quote:
I think there was a problem.
Okay, my poor choice of words for the day. But whatever problems there were they didn't relate to OJ getting a fair trial.
quote:
You don't take that kind of opinion expression from creos or more closely related than that (because it is moral judging), homophobes
No, but this isn't the same thing. You can argue all you want that my opinion is wrong, but that's not what you're doing. You're arguing about whether or not I should offer an opinion at all, not about the opinion itself.
quote:
If we want this to be a free and safe country then each of us needs to be striving to be, and striving to set a good example of being, such people and not simply counting on the fact that someone else will be capable of doing the job right.
Too much idealism. The type of example you're striving to set goes against human nature. If the problem is that our justice system needs to be improved in order to insure a fair trial for everyone, then that improvement will have to take human nature into account.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Silent H, posted 02-06-2005 4:08 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Silent H, posted 02-06-2005 8:38 AM berberry has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 137 (183435)
02-06-2005 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Silent H
02-06-2005 4:15 AM


holmes writes me:
quote:
As a purely theoretical, what happens if it turns out MJ has surveillance tapes always documenting activities in his house and he can show himself simply sleeping in the bed with the kid and nothing else occuring?
Then I'd change my mind. But I think it's infinitely more likely that MJ would be proved to suffer from some sort of mental impairment.
quote:
Now let's say that same thing happened but he didn't have surveillance tapes. Wouldn't the onus be on the prosecution to prove something did occur, rather than on Jackson to prove why he likes to sleep with kids in general in order to somehow disprove the prosecution's specific allegations?
Yes, yes holmes, the onus is always (at least in theory and certainly, given the caliber of legal counsel MJ has at his disposal, in this case) on the prosecution at trial. But if MJ wants to clear his name to the general public he's going to have to prove his innocence. That'll be true regardless of what my opinion is and whether or not I've expressed it.
quote:
If your theory that sex inherently causes harm in children is true...
When did I express that opinion? I remember once many months if not a year or more ago when I first heard you say something along these lines and I misunderstood you, but I've since come to understand your views on this, and I pretty much concur. Still, I think Rrhain had it right when he said that although some kids might not be negatively affected by having sex with an adult, the potential for harm is so great that the only possible solution is to make any sex between adult and child, at least below a certain age, illegal.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Silent H, posted 02-06-2005 4:15 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Silent H, posted 02-06-2005 8:58 AM berberry has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 137 (183439)
02-06-2005 6:25 AM


This might belong in the humor thread...
but I'm putting it here because it addresses the issues raised in this thread's OP. Michael Musto's piece in The Village Voice is just lovely. Sample quote:
And what jurors they'll end up with! To be truly objective about this case, the chosen ones would have to be blankly indifferent slates with no preconceptions about Jackson and his alleged high jinks. In other words, they'd have to either be complete nut jobs or have been trapped in a well for more than two decades. Whatever he islawn elf, groundbreaker, dream snatcherJackson's never been the kind of personality who elicits no reaction whatsoever. Tofu in matador pants he certainly isn't. When people hear his whispery coos, they either go limp with joy or tremulous with ragenothing in the middle column.
So the jury will no doubt be a heavily medicated bunch, and that means things are looking pretty good for Mr. Jackson.
Enjoy!
EDIT: formatting correction. EDIT2: ...that didn't work, oddly enough. I was trying to correct the lack of a line space between my first paragraph and the qs.
This message has been edited by berberry, 02-06-2005 05:26 AM
This message has been edited by berberry, 02-06-2005 05:29 AM

Keep America Safe AND Free!

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 64 of 137 (183460)
02-06-2005 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by berberry
02-06-2005 5:28 AM


But I didn't offer an opinion as if it mattered. In fact, I've said repeatedly that my opinion doesn't matter. I have no influence on this case at all, so I still don't see any harm in offering an opinion.
Once again I will point out that you did not start by saying your opinion was flawed, and if one wants to actually take into consideration human nature you should know that people throwing around worthless opinions actually has the effect of creating false truths... Otherwise what's the problem with FoxNEWS (particularly individuals like O'Reilly, Colmes, and Coulter)?
You know as well as I do that putting out worthless and emotional statements of any kind can create emotionally charged atmospheres which lead to equally worthless actions by people acting on emotion rather than fact.
Hahaha... You've got to start with the man in the mirror.
But whatever problems there were they didn't relate to OJ getting a fair trial.
Well, I would certainly disagree with that. If you meant to say he did not get a trial that was unfairly weighted against him, then I agree.
You're arguing about whether or not I should offer an opinion at all, not about the opinion itself.
The analogy was appropriate.
You have completely insufficient information to state that MJ is guilty, thus I am calling into question that opinion as well as your throwing it around when it is not formed rationally.
To you, those saying homosexuality is bad or harmful have completely insufficient information as well. You call into question their statement, and that they should be throwing it around when it is not formed rationally... right?
And frankly the MJ issue is more important. That is an actual individual whose life is on the line at this moment. Any amount of poison, especially unqualified invective, does not help.
Too much idealism. The type of example you're striving to set goes against human nature.
I can agree that I am being idealistic in that I would hope most people will try and follow what is beneficial for making a democratic nation function properly. However I am not discussing things that are beyond or against human nature.
Discipline is as much part of human nature as is laziness. Its a question of the priorities one sets one where to practice them. Cultural trends will influence how many sheep decide to not practice mental discipline where it really counts.
I tend to believe that those who are not sheep will be able to break cultural trends and set their own agendas. If enough leaders show the will, they might even help change the cultural trend back in favor of a functional justice system.

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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by berberry, posted 02-06-2005 5:28 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by berberry, posted 02-06-2005 1:44 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 65 of 137 (183466)
02-06-2005 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by berberry
02-06-2005 5:46 AM


But if MJ wants to clear his name to the general public he's going to have to prove his innocence. That'll be true regardless of what my opinion is and whether or not I've expressed it.
I can almost agree with this. Clearly for some section of the general public he'll have to prove his innocence (which is pretty doubtful since they are inclined to believe he is bad no matter what), and another section won't believe he is guilty even if the prosecution produces taped evidence.
When did I express that opinion?
You have repeatedly stated that for those under 13 or 12 it is always rape and there is harm done. You have not taken that back as far as I know.
the potential for harm is so great that the only possible solution is to make any sex between adult and child, at least below a certain age, illegal.
Despite the fact that I support certain laws regarding sex as related to age, I feel pretty confident in stating the evidence for the above ("potential harm") is as lacking as it is for definite harm.
Again, there is a thread waiting for anyone to produce evidence that children (outside of overt violent or coerced sexual acts) inherently (which means outside of social defined effects) suffer harm. That would include potential for harm as well. It is as conspicuously as absent of proponents advancing their position as any of the ID threads I have started.
The one person to address the issue appears to have come to an agreement with me on the state of evidence.
It is a moral issue, not an issue driven by actual necessary demands related to safety.
That does not mean they shouldn't be there in some form, but the legitimate reasons are very very very different.
Just to head off a potential future question... although I probably do not agree with the specific laws MJ would be convicted on (based on their construction), from what I have heard of the charges, the laws I think ought to be in place would still hold MJ accountable. This is to say if you are trying to drive at the idea that I'd like to see MJ get off because I don't seem to dislike pedophilia like everyone else, then you would be wrong. I think there are reasonable laws on that subject and he would fall under them just the same.
My only question is whether he did do what he is being charged with.
This message has been edited by holmes, 02-06-2005 08:59 AM

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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by berberry, posted 02-06-2005 5:46 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by berberry, posted 02-06-2005 1:54 PM Silent H has replied

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5162 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 66 of 137 (183477)
02-06-2005 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by berberry
02-05-2005 7:21 PM


if someone asks me I'll say I thought he was guilty. Same as I do with OJ.
So you will say you thought him to be guilty:
Is that with the inference that now you believe him not to be guilty and the claim against him was wholly erroneous?
or
the inference that you have to say he is not guilty, ‘cause that’s what the court decided, but he is as guilty as hell and through money and power twisted the system to avoid the deserved justice that fitted the crimes he is so blatantly guilty of committing?
How does his mental state affect your acceptance of the outcome? If he is mentally deficient then the courts decision is safe and true, but if not then the courts decision is open to question, and distortion due to his money and fame?
In short is seems you will not accept the courts decision unless it convicts him or brands him mentally deficient?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by berberry, posted 02-05-2005 7:21 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by berberry, posted 02-06-2005 1:58 PM ohnhai has not replied

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5162 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 67 of 137 (183482)
02-06-2005 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by berberry
02-03-2005 1:11 PM


Let me ask you a question: would you feel that I was pre-judging if I said I thought MJ was innocent?
If you assert that innocence with a statement of belief then yes, that’s pre-judging.
Just as if you assert a deep belief in his undoubted guilt that is also pre-judging.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by berberry, posted 02-03-2005 1:11 PM berberry has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 137 (183518)
02-06-2005 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Silent H
02-06-2005 8:38 AM


quote:
Once again I will point out that you did not start by saying your opinion was flawed...
And once again, so what? Did anyone really think my opinion was perfect? I doubt it; the fact that my opinion was/is flawed should be patently obvious even to the meanest intelligence.
quote:
Otherwise what's the problem with FoxNEWS (particularly individuals like O'Reilly, Colmes, and Coulter)?
I don't have a problem with them offering opinions, but sometimes I take issue with the opinions themselves. Once again that's not what you're doing; you're taking issue with the mere fact that I offered an opinion.
quote:
The analogy was appropriate.
No it isn't. No matter how you try to dress it up, being opposed to someone giving an opinion is not the same thing as taking issue with the opinion itself.
quote:
You have completely insufficient information to state that MJ is guilty...
Yes, and in spite of that I offered an opinion.
It's rather like people offering the opinion that GWB lied to the American people about WMD in Iraq. W insists that he didn't lie, that he was only relying on the intelligence available at the time. His case is plausible, but millions of people still don't believe him. The case against W has not been tried and thus no one could possibly have all the facts to justify the conclusion that he lied.
If someone says to me that W lied about WMD, I take it as a given that they don't have all of the facts but are merely offering an opinion. Is there anything wrong with that?
Silencing people like me is not going to help MJ one bit. However, it might be helpful to him if you could silence the FoxNews people or the Village Voice people; they're making money from their opinions and no doubt influencing far more people. I don't think I've influenced anyone at all.
quote:
Discipline is as much part of human nature as is laziness.
Then how do you propose to set about creating this idealized society where no one ever offers an opinion on a court case before all the facts are in?

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Silent H, posted 02-06-2005 8:38 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Silent H, posted 02-06-2005 2:23 PM berberry has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 137 (183519)
02-06-2005 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Silent H
02-06-2005 8:58 AM


holmes writes me:
quote:
You have repeatedly stated that for those under 13 or 12 it is always rape and there is harm done. You have not taken that back as far as I know.
But when pressed by you I conceded that there might be the odd case (I think I even cited the La Tourneau case) where there may be no harm or at least only minor harm. I granted you that point because your argument was sound, which should have proved that I don't regard my own opinions as perfect. But as yet no one has come up with a reasonable modification to the law allowing for that fact while still holding accountable those who do cause harm to kids by having sex with them. The only resolution I can see is that if the kid is below a certain age and an adult engages in sex with that kid, harm is assumed. That resolution may be flawed, but what is the alternative?
quote:
This is to say if you are trying to drive at the idea that I'd like to see MJ get off because I don't seem to dislike pedophilia like everyone else, then you would be wrong.
I know. I think I already stated that I understand your view on this, and that I pretty much concur.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Silent H, posted 02-06-2005 8:58 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Silent H, posted 02-06-2005 2:42 PM berberry has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 137 (183522)
02-06-2005 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by ohnhai
02-06-2005 9:45 AM


ohnhai writes me:
quote:
In short is seems you will not accept the courts decision unless it convicts him or brands him mentally deficient?
If things go the way they did in the OJ trial then yes, I will probably disagree with the verdict. I'll accept it, but I'll disagree with it.
Again, as I've said to holmes repeatedly, I didn't say that my opinion was not perfect because I didn't think anyone would believe otherwise.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ohnhai, posted 02-06-2005 9:45 AM ohnhai has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 71 of 137 (183528)
02-06-2005 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by berberry
02-06-2005 1:44 PM


You clipped my post and thus quote mined me... not cool.
I was criticizing the way you expressed your opinion, not purely the expression of your opinion. Though I do believe it is better to withhold opinions based on very scant evidence, I am not so much troubled by the mere expression of them than how they were expressed.
And no, counting on people to not simply believe what you say is not good enough.
So let's get this straight, I was criticizing the nature of how your expressed your opinion as well as whether the opinion itself was valid... not merely that you expressed an opinion.
GWB and WMDs are different in that the evidence is in. Unless you are discussing whether he overtly lied vs just being an idiot and ignoring reason to trust in mere opinion?
I don't really think it matters and underscores why elevating false opinion to high levels without clear caveats is pretty dangerous.
I don't think I've influenced anyone at all.
You may have, and you may in your daily life outside of EvC. You do contribute to the society around you, or the tenor of that society.
Then how do you propose to set about creating this idealized society where no one ever offers an opinion on a court case before all the facts are in?
No, where no one offers strong opinion before all the evidence is in... that is not getting all jazzed up talking in hyperbolic terms which can only come from a made up mind facing a highly emotional topic.
I propose to do this by trying to set a good example and trying to convince other reasonable people to set the same example. If it starts catching on as a way to approach such things eventually society will change.
I don't have some dream mind-changing laser scheme, nor the illusion that it will be an easy trend to start.
In the beginning to middle of the witch hunts, what would you suggest the reasonable people do to return reason over opinion. Indeed what are you doing here against anyone using mere opinion in the massive homophobia culture war the republicans have going? You stick up for reason and hope people will choose reason over opinion.

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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by berberry, posted 02-06-2005 1:44 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by berberry, posted 02-06-2005 2:51 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 72 of 137 (183533)
02-06-2005 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by berberry
02-06-2005 1:54 PM


I conceded that there might be the odd case (I think I even cited the La Tourneau case) where there may be no harm or at least only minor harm.
That didn't quite sound like a concession and that you say "the odd case" and "at least only minor harm" keeps suggesting a belief that there is some evidence out there which supports such a position.
But I'll take your word for it that you are conceding the argument.
But as yet no one has come up with a reasonable modification to the law allowing for that fact while still holding accountable those who do cause harm to kids by having sex with them. The only resolution I can see is that if the kid is below a certain age and an adult engages in sex with that kid, harm is assumed. That resolution may be flawed, but what is the alternative?
I would like to point out the obvious, if harm is caused then you have a law against causing harm (regardless if the adult can prove it was consensual). That would be all that is necessary. Making an assumption of harm, (just to be sure?) seems sort of superfluous and counterproductive.
But that's assuming that harm is the only reason to have such laws in the first place. Again, if that was the only reason then there is little evidence that we would need any greater laws than what we already have for rape (as opposed to statuatory rape or lewd conduct). Changing attitudes, as is being done toward homosexuality, would be better off.
The fact is there are other reasons for laws prohibiting sex with minors. Only one person so far has ever mentioned it at EvC that I've seen. Heheheh... I'm keeping quiet until we have a thread on legal reasons for prohibiting sexual acts, especially with regard to kids.
I should also probably note that not all nations have the same types of sex laws, and I have already said that up until a few years back (maybe still, but they keep changing laws lately) the Netherlands had one of the best (reasonable) laws on the books. Even Justice Ginsberg pointed to them as a more appropriate model that balanced rights and risks.
The US model is completely out of whack, it is the same old "fear/hate/kill" kneejerk legislation positing only two conditions "morally right" and "morally wrong"... interestingly varying state by state.
I think I already stated that I understand your view on this
Sorry, I thought that was what you were trying to get at when you asked if I would be as edgy if you had stated the opinion he was innocent.

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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by berberry, posted 02-06-2005 1:54 PM berberry has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 137 (183537)
02-06-2005 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Silent H
02-06-2005 2:23 PM


holmes writes me:
quote:
You clipped my post and thus quote mined me... not cool.
You must mean my first quote, which was:
Once again I will point out that you did not start by saying your opinion was flawed...
and was taken from:
Once again I will point out that you did not start by saying your opinion was flawed, and if one wants to actually take into consideration human nature you should know that people throwing around worthless opinions actually has the effect of creating false truths... Otherwise what's the problem with FoxNEWS (particularly individuals like O'Reilly, Colmes, and Coulter)?
I was taking issue with the first part of the statement, so that's all I quoted.
quote:
I was criticizing the way you expressed your opinion, not purely the expression of your opinion.
And I have responded, over and over again, that I don't care. I was offering an opinion. The opinion was worded harshly, as though I already knew everything about the case. I expected that anyone reading would still realize that I was only offering an opinion. If you think most people aren't able to discern fact from opinion, well you may have a point. Interesting, but in a case where one of the nation's richest men is on trial I'm still not worried about it
quote:
And no, counting on people to not simply believe what you say is not good enough.
I think it is. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that people will know that I don't know any more about this case than anyone else who's been paying at least some attention. I don't think it's possible that you and I are going to come to any agreement on this point. You seem to think it's unreasonable and inflammatory to offer an opinion on this case before the trial has taken place. I disagree. I don't think either of us is going to convince the other.
quote:
I propose to do this by trying to set a good example and trying to convince other reasonable people to set the same example. If it starts catching on as a way to approach such things eventually society will change.
Well, perhaps you should feel good about yourself, then. 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. Perhaps that's the real root of our disagreement.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Silent H, posted 02-06-2005 2:23 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Silent H, posted 02-06-2005 6:44 PM berberry has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 74 of 137 (183583)
02-06-2005 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by berberry
02-06-2005 2:51 PM


I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that people will know that I don't know any more about this case than anyone else who's been paying at least some attention
I don't think that you accept this when others do the same thing. That is just an observation.
You seem to think it's unreasonable and inflammatory to offer an opinion on this case before the trial has taken place.
Only in this case since the evidence has not been sufficiently revealed for anyone to say anything credible. Any other case will depend on the level of evidence provided and the logical ability to base a conclusion from evidence.
I don't think either of us is going to convince the other.
This is probably true, however I am right and you are wrong. You are simply pleading for lenience to be intellectually lazy. You have that right of course, but it does affect the tenor of society in a negative way.
Or can you honestly think of a positive which comes out of people shooting their mouths off regarding real trials where real lives are at stake? I can't.
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.
Although the point is well taken that celebrities, or anyone with money, will have an advantage in the courts, I do not see this as an argument to treat them any differently than some poor schmuck.
They somehow deserve to be treated worse? Sympathy for the poor I get, Antipathy for the affluent I do not.
In the end how many rich people have been killed or imprisoned because people gossiped until gossip was believed over reason? I believe in setting higher standards for myself.
And yes it does make me feel good, I own stock in reason.

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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by berberry, posted 02-06-2005 2:51 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by berberry, posted 02-07-2005 8:13 AM Silent H has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 137 (183657)
02-07-2005 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Silent H
02-06-2005 6:44 PM


holmes writes me:
quote:
Only in this case since the evidence has not been sufficiently revealed for anyone to say anything credible. Any other case will depend on the level of evidence provided and the logical ability to base a conclusion from evidence.
But who gets to determine when enough evidence is in? Sorry, when I myself determine there's enough, then I'll speak my mind. I'm not going to wait on you to say it's okay.
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.
quote:
This is probably true, however I am right and you are wrong.
Prove it.
quote:
You are simply pleading for lenience to be intellectually lazy.
I'm not pleading for a goddamned thing. I'm saying MJ is guilty as charged. How is that a plea for anything?
quote:
Sympathy for the poor I get, Antipathy for the affluent I do not.
I don't have any antipathy for the rich, I think MJ's guilty. You mean I can't think he's guilty without having antipathy for the rich?
Whatever!

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Silent H, posted 02-06-2005 6:44 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Silent H, posted 02-07-2005 11:20 AM berberry has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024