Michael Jackson Impersonator Facing Child Sex Charges

[Final-Fan]

PhoenixKing said:

Final-Fan said:

PhoenixKing said:

Final-Fan said:
In your fanatical defense of Michael Jackson (whose guilt or innocence I here take no stance on) you are completely overlooking, obliviously, my key point. 

What I responded to was you objecting to a GENERAL STATEMENT that child molesters should be severely punished.  numonex has made it clear that he thinks the guy is guilty -- but that's not the phrase that was highlighted by Nirvana_Nut85, which your response therefore addressed.  

I was, and remain, simply pointing out that your words implied that you were objecting to the punishment of child molesters, instead of what I hope you meant to say:  objecting to treating the accused as guilty until proven innocent.  You may think that my criticism is silly, but that's exactly the sort of sloppiness that can lead to people completely misunderstanding and talking past each other uselessly and angrily.  Speaking of which...

Meanwhile, you seem to think that I agree 100% with everything numonex has said, despite my strongly disagreeing with a lot of what he said.  Your myopia is blinding you to what people are actually saying and that is never a good thing in any kind of discussion.  Wise up. 

Typically, when people wish death upon others, guilt or innocence no longer factors into the equation. All are guilty in the eyes of those barbaric witch hunters who actively seek out to make rather morally questionable statements under the guise that the accused deserves it even when their guilt is never proven.

Numonex proved it himself by asserting the idea that just because you're rich means you're guilty.

Next time, try to keep your points in context to what I'm specifying instead of fallaciously arguing something else that has no context to my point.

Speaking of being in context, show me the "wishing death upon others".  Nowhere in the quote-nest (including removed portions) does numonex or anyone else say that Jackson should have been executed or that this other guy should be executed, or that they wish he would die.  Nor was it said at any other point that I can see looking down at the posts the Rich Text Reply shows me. 

All numonex said is that when he (or they) DO die, he expects them to go to hell. 

Next time, try to argue about what people are actually saying instead of fallaciously putting words in their mouths.  And any innuendo in that last sentence is entirely unintentional. 

Wrong. Learn to read:

"The perpertrators of these abhorrent crimes need to burn in hell."

Hell is a place people are believed to go to after death. As such, death is a pre-requisite. To add to the gall of this statement, they, numenox and those who agree with his extremist beliefs, put the word "need" meaning they think with absolute certainty that it has to happen.

Your argument at this point, from what I can see, is that of semantics and trying to repeat words back at me because of my scornful tone.

You don't appear to have a clear point anymore, you've strayed from one argument to another now, and you ignored everything that I said about how numenox himself believes guilt is decided by the wealth that one has worked hard for.

You're free to continue with this pointless argument. I'm dropping out because I find it stupid and a waste of time at this point because we've strayed so far from the original topic. You're free to think you "won", I honestly don't care.

Check again.  His statement is the same as "he must not be allowed into heaven (or any afterlife but hell)."  That doesn't mean we need to kill him immediately.  In fact he refers elsewhere to him being put into prison for a 'very, very long time' which directly contradicts your (mis)interpretation of his meaning. 

Speaking of misinterpretations, CAN YOU NOT COMPREHEND WHAT I HAVE TOLD YOU ABOUT ME NOT BEING IN AGREEMENT WITH NUMONEX ON EVERYTHING?  I already agreed that he was wrong on many points.  I admit I didn't specify what exactly I disagreed with him on ("plenty") but I certainly do disagree that everyone who is rich and charged with a crime is guilty -- although I'd also argue that very rich people are less likely to have incorrect charges against them get all the way to trial, due to greater access to very good legal defense. 

I'd appreciate if you'd at least acknowledge the bolded.  Otherwise I agree that further debate is likely to be fruitless, though I doubt you'd agree with my opinion that it's due to your own misinterpretation of others' positions and absolute faith in your own position.