John, you're making arguments where there really doesn't need to be any. I'm convinced your strong personal feelings on the subjects of rape, abuse, and the way they're handled are making you pursue a debate that nobody else wants to have, especially in this thread.
You're presenting very valid arguments about a topic that has nothing to do with what anybody else is talking about. Some of your arguments seem crazy and irrational because they have absolutely nothing to do with this specific case. The only reason people are arguing with you is because your arguments, though technically correct, are completely irrelevant and somewhat unwelcome.
Paul's attempt at mediation was certainly not an invitation to discuss the faults with the justice system. if you want to have that debate, start it elsewhere.
I'm pretty sure nobody ever really wants to have this debate, because nobody likes to think about this kind of thing, it is nasty and sad and it doesn't affect the majority of us. But lots of things we are comfortable talking about are similar. I held it off as long as I could, but when I felt like I had to I bring it up because of a prevailing belief in the falsehood of the claims made against Jackson. Consider that on the first page of the thread nobo said this -
how long before an alleged victim of his abuse comes out with a tell-all book?
Which is a fairly blatant, if flippant, assertion of gold-diggery. This was uncommented upon, but there was a lot of fretting over people making blatant, if flippant, assertions that MJ was an offender. There was even a separate thread created to protect this space from such statements. Because MJ was such a beloved pop star, the idea that he was framed was very welcome to a lot of people. But as I showed, the statistical chance of it being false were very low, and yet people are adamant about the statistics not applying, which might be because they feel as though MJ is a special case (I don't think he is) but I think it's really because they don't want to believe the statistics are valid in any case. When faced with the possibiity that someone you like or love is a criminal and an abuser, the statistics never apply. It's much easier to believe that accusers are confused or mistaken or, if they're dogged enough, vindictive or greedy, than to believe that the people accused of these crimes are guilty, that these crimes happen with the frequency they do.
The possibility remains that the accusers are lying. This possibility is present in all cases. But in all cases the measured chances of that being the case are fairly slim. Given that, it's only reasonable that people harbor a tentative, careful belief in the veracity of claims made, as I do. But that is not the case. More people by bounds believe in innocence, and belief in guilt is derided as vindictiveness, ignorance and slander (though the converse belief is never derided as such, because of MJ's supposed uniqueness)
There are indeed different stakes being perceived here, with other boarders taking the view that perceptions around this case apply only to it, and my view that the perceptions are applicable to sex crime in general. I believe that of you look at the dialogue around any other case that contains the basic elements of this case (powerful man accused of wrongdoing) you will hear many statements similar to the ones made here, and many that are identical.
