www.instantrimshot.com

There are plenty of crazy and unsupported things numonex is saying, but in this case you specifically took issue with the general statement that perpetrators of crimes such as child molestation should be severely punished, calling that a witch hunt mentality. 

So you were OBJECTING to punishing PERPETRATORS of child molestation. 

And BTW you are both going beyond what is substantiated IMO. 

Excuse me? The man has been convicted now in the few days since the news reported their SUSPICIONS of him being a child molestor?

I follow the belief of "innocent until proven guilty" to move away from personal bias surrounding a matter as much as possible. Somehow that makes me a supporter of pedophiles? I find that to be a rather personal insult.

Forget it, there is no point in discussing this any further with people who automatically judge the accused as guilty. That mentality is so disgraceful and one-sided that there is no point in arguing with such a witch hunt mentality.

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. 

PhoenixKing supports child molesting pedophiles. He believes they are all victims of a witch hunt. He is definitely supporting pedophiles in the thread. He believes that a pedophile is not guilty unless there is physical proof. So the court must be shown photos or sex videos showing the sex offences of the pedophile sexually abusing the child. He believes victims of sex abuse are all liars and the word of a pedophile must be taken over a child abuse victim. You might as well just say that all child sexual abuse victims are liars and all pedophiles are innocent victims of world wide witch hunt. 

OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson were guilty but got off due to having the best defense attorney money can buy. You would not pay out millions of dollars in compensation in civil court proceedings if you were innocent of the criminal acts.

OJ Simpson was caught fleeing the scene of the double murder scene and pursued by police and helicopter. C'mon you do not do that if you are innocent. The victim was his ex-wife and her lover. OJ Simpson was a jealous, possessive, controlling man who did not want his wife to be in the hands of another man. He brutally killed them out of a jealous rage.

Michael Jackson the victims could accurately describe and illustrate his genitalia which was withdrawn from criminal court because it would of convicted Jackson of child molestation.  Jackson confessed on national tv that it was perfectly normal for a 44 year old man to share the bed with children. C'mon that makes him look very dodgy. Jackson paying off other victims- to keep silent about what happened. Jackson took Jordi Chandler around the world with him on tour and spent months with Jordi and in the same bedroom as Jordi- unsupervised. Michael Jackson groomed his victim, gave them gifts and we all know what else he did with the boys.

I just entered this thread, maybe expecting some humor. But no.

Everyone in this thread is failing. Hard. I hate having to read this annoying bullshit. No, don't yell at me now. I don't want to hear it. Everyone just quit their accusations and pretentious lines. It's annoying to read. And again, don't whine at me. I don't want to see some red text at the side of my screen only to enter the thread and see more whining.

Also, I've noticed that in this argument of whether or not Michael Jackson committed the crime, neither person has quoted a single source. Just saying. Don't whine to me.