I predicted you would attack Dr Drew and attempt to discredit him. Typical of someone as logically impaired as you. You are so delusional you fail to realize the Dr. Drew is a perfectly acceptable expert in these fields. He has dealt with abused teens for over 18 years and has a long list of medical accomplishments. The point is, he far outweighs your NON-existent expertise. You ridicule him, but at the same time, make yourself look like a complete moron, because your qualifications are 1/100th or more, of his. You also have NO idea if Mark Geragos would use Dr Drew as an expert witness. The fact that he is probably capable of finding someone who more perfectly "fits" as an expert does not discredit Dr Drews expertise in any way. Your silly argument is an obvious POISONING THE WELL FALLACY and character assisination of Dr. Drew. What else can you rely on, other than fallacious reasoning? NADA. Dr. Drews opinion carries far more weight than your pop-psychology any way you cut it. peace axeman
Jackson 'gay pedophile,' says ex-estate manager Former employer 'one of the nicest persons you will ever meet' but has serious 'illness' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: November 28, 2003 6:00 p.m. Eastern © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com A former worker for Michael Jackson claims the pop superstar is a "gay pedophile." In an interview broadcast nationally in the Philippines, Mariano Quindoy, once an estate manager at Jackson's Neverland Ranch, said the entertainer often lured children into his room to engage them in "gay sex," the Philippines Inquirer newspaper reported. Quindoy, a native of Davao, Philippines, said most of the children were boys aged 7 to 12 years old and some even were "infants." "Whatever a gay man does to his partner during sex, Michael does to a child," said Quindoy, who said he was willing to testify in the case brought by 13-year-old cancer victim Gavin Arvizo. Jackson turned himself in to Santa Barbara County law-enforcement authorities Nov. 20 following an extensive police search of his Neverland ranch. The arrest warrant detailed a violation of the California Penal Code prohibiting lewd or lascivious acts with a child under age 14. Quindoy was lined up by prosecutors in the 1993 molestation case against Jackson, which was settled for $25 million to $40 million with the 12 year-old accuser. The former employee, who worked for Jackson from 1987 to 1992, said he was not surprised by the current case. "Normally, having worked for him for a time, I should have been shocked," he said, according to the Manila paper. "But when I heard the news on TV, I told my wife, Michael is doing it again. I expected that this will happen again because this person is incorrigible." Qindoy continued: "He will do it again and again. If this case ends and he would not land in jail, he will do it again." He said he had extensive access to the ranch and was an "eye witness" to Jackson's acts, the paper said. He regards the arrest as "vindication" for all the past accusations and revelations that have been ignored. Quindoy quit in 1992 after Jackson failed to pay him overtime wages. The pop icon "would be one of the nicest persons you will ever meet" but has an "illness," he said.
I am comfortable with my observations, and will stick with my claims. The "expert" testimony of "Dr. Love Line" didn't change any of the facts at hand. Jacko may not be the "typical" sex offender, but he is hardly the "typical" anything for that matter. While nearly every shrink and normal person will agree that Jacko is wacko, this step into conclusion that his sleeping with little boys, dangling his own kid over a railing, previous claims of sexual abuse by children, etc. is not sufficient to hold a conclusion that he is probably guilty for some. It is sufficient for me to conclude that he is probably guilty, but a final conclusion will be reached when all the facts of the case are out. Just like the Kobe case, the Peterson trial, etc., people form opinions, but reasonable people wait until all the data is in to reach a conclusion. My initial conclusion based on what I know, and what I have read is that he is like guilty, but my mind is very open to the evidence and a different conclusion. Just like Kobe's case, my focus will be on the evidence, more than the he said, she said, blame it on whitey shit we will endure. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to make its case, and what really matters is the evidence they have, and the credibility of testimony will likely influence the jury. If your only defense of Jacko is Dr. Drew's opinion, I believe you have a very shaky case. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I will make one change in previous statement. I think it is possible, if not likely Gekko was sexually abused as a child, if not a pedophile himself.....I have no certainty or ability to make an either or statement, just observation of personality and other clues. Just as if you claim people who believe in God are delusional, you lack fact to support that opinion and belief. And, as many times as I have brought up that fact that the leading experts in the science of psychology, neuro-psychology, etc. don't see belief in God as a case of delusion or lack of adult development, you among others still continue to hold to your unsupported opinions that Theists are delusional or lacking in maturation. Such is the nature of opinions and beliefs. Oh, one other factor, since atheists have no religious or moral compass beyond their own conclusions, many could easily conclude that consensual sex with children is not wrong nor harmful. Without an ultimate moral authority, it is very easy for human beings to rationalize nearly any behavior. I venture to guess the folks at NAMBLA no doubt have more than their fair share of atheist members.
If your only defense of Jacko is Dr. Drew's opinion, I believe you have a very shaky case. Strawman fallacy. I am NOT defending MJ and claiming he is innocent. So dont imply that is my "case". Until I FORCED you to do some homework and provide at least SOME expert opinion on the matter, you were blowing smoke out your ass and I called you on it. I provided Dr. Drew as a valid expert who had commented on the MJ case and claimed he did NOT show molester behavior patterns. This does not mean that I dont think he is guilty. The "expert" testimony of "Dr. Love Line" didn't change any of the facts at hand. No shit sherlock. No expert opinion has the power to change "facts". Duh. I will make one change in previous statement. I think it is possible, if not likely Gekko was sexually abused as a child, if not a pedophile himself.....I have no certainty or ability to make an either or statement, just observation of personality and other clues. More bullshit blowing out your ass. Where is your expert testimony now??? Just as if you claim people who believe in God are delusional, you lack fact to support that opinion and belief. Nonsense. God, like Santa has never been proven to exist. Believing in fluffy white dudes in the clouds is quite silly for a full grown adult. The fact that you think you can speak to this entity via magical powers is all the evidence I need. And, as many times as I have brought up that fact that the leading experts in the science of psychology, neuro-psychology, etc. don't see belief in God as a case of delusion or lack of adult development, you among others still continue to hold to your unsupported opinions that Theists are delusional or lacking in maturation. Name them and quote them as stating this as fact. Oh, one other factor, since atheists have no religious or moral compass beyond their own conclusions, many could easily conclude that consensual sex with children is not wrong nor harmful. Now you show your ignorance of atheism. Well of course... you have already proven you dont even know the definition. Atheism is NOT mutually exclusive with a moral system. You have a mythically based moral system, and atheists have a wide variety of moral systems. To claim that atheists have NO moral system is blindingly IGNORANT and obviously false. "Without an ultimate moral authority, it is very easy for human beings to rationalize nearly any behavior." Tell that to the Crusaders and the Inquisitioners. I venture to guess the folks at NAMBLA no doubt have more than their fair share of atheist members. LOL.... more unsupported DRIVEL. What about the PRIESTs who molest children? There goes your theory that this is somehow correlated with atheism. peace axeman
777: God has not been proven to not exist either. You simply don't know, neither do I, you don't believe, I do. 777:You have no proof that the moral system of the religious is mythical or not. More opinion, lacking proof and foundation. Anyone see an issue here? 777 BELIEVES in grand miraculous fairy tale claims WHICH he freely admits have NEVER been proven. I do not. Who is acting rationally??? Duh... ME! This fits the notion of DELUSION quite nicely. Further.... 1) 777 ADMITS that god has not been proven. 2) 777 claims I have no proof that a religious moral system is mythical. LMAO. Ummmm hellooooooooooooo 777. You just described a myth. A bunch of made up bullshit that has NEVER been proven. The rest of your post is chock full of the same illogical bullshit. You claim fallacies and fail to even name them. You dont even know what a fallacy is, obviously. Welp.... i've once again wasted a bunch of my time arguing with a complete idiot. I'll reclaim my spare time now. It's been fun bashing your weak arguments to pieces once again. Ok ok... one more...this one is too funny: Show me an accepted dictionary that gives plant or dog as synonyms for the word atheist. An obvious STRAWMAN, from the master of strawman fallacies What a stupid thing to say. Let's follow his idiotic logic here: Red is a color, therefore red is a synonym for color. LMAOOOO!!! What a moron! A dog/plant is an atheist. So therefore a dog/plant must be a synonym for atheist. BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTT wrong! How do you come up with stuff THIS stupid??!?? LOL Surely you wouldnt ask me to provide a dictionary which lists a dog/plant as a synonym for atheist if you didnt believe this was some sort of requirement. This is your clear implication. Lets watch 777 backpedal out of this idiotic notion now Ok ok ... im done toying with you.... I'll let the peanut gallery decide who has been extremely inconsistent here, if it's not obvious enough. I rest my case. peace axeman
He (god) could not be proven according to your standards. You are hung up on your material logic, that is your creed and dogma, fine. LMAO! Poor 777 goes off the deep end again. You can always tell when he knows he has completely lost the argument when he has to resort to his tired old "your standards". Yeah MY standards! What a joke. The standards of science, logic and reason. Ok fine... your standards are obviously NOT based on reason, logic and science. No shit sherlock Your post is full of the same old stupid shit of how everyone elses "standards" are wrong, and yours must be right... Blah blah blah... I would just LOVE to hear you pose this to any scientific community and watch you get laughed off the face of the planet. Ah ...but yes... we know...we know.... this doesnt matter because it would be by THEIR standards and THEIR rules... Oh boo hoo..... 777 can't stand up to these standards THAT EVERY OTHER RATIONAL PERSON ON EARTH has to stand up to. What an idiot. He's lost it...AGAIN... folks His magic god talk powers over rule all of our stupid logic/reason/science standards once again. Whatever! LMAO peace axeman
I watched part of that interview and must admit that im really disappointed in 60 minutes....Whatever happened to tough investigative journalism that they are famous for???? they were softball questions , not following up and allowing him to make statements to get his story only across...for instance, why not ask him like this: eb: So you think its ok for a 46 year old man to sleep with young boys? MJ: Its sweet an lovely, not sexual EB: WHy not sleep with your own kids? You do have three,why not sleep with them ? and how do your children feel knowing that their dad is sleeping in another room with other children, even if it is 'sweet and lovely as you say??? MJ: uhmm..its not like that EB: Getting back to your children Michael, Im a African American like you and I know before this skin disease you were as dark as me....what I can't figure out is How in the world you had three white children, with white skin, strait blond hair and anglo features....is this why you keep them hidden? did you really have sex with that woman debbie rowe? or did you pretend and secretly adopt these children because you know that California would never approve of you adopting children? MJ: I gotta go EB: One more thing, you paid close to 20 million to avoid the cost of litigation in 1993, why are you now saying you intend to vigorously defend your self now? is it because this is criminal and you cannot just buy your way out?...wait come bACK!! i HAVE A FEW MORE!!! ....did you ever get dressed or undressed in front of any of those kids? ....How come whenever these child stars and house guests turn about 16 you no longer hang out wiht them??? do you have an age limit of 14 set? where is webster, macaully caulkin and corey feldmen these days?