I think it’s telling, not to mention intellectually dishonest, that you characterize the people who are giving you sound logical reasons to not see Michael as a pedophile, as defending child abuse.
They’re not sound logical reasons, they’re terrible bits of hand-wringing, armchair psychiatry, and lame excuse making that make a deliberate choice to ignore both the clear damage done to his victims and the massive pile of evidence of the things he did.
Also, I didn’t call him a pedophile, I said he abused children. Which he did.
They’re not sound logical reasons, they’re terrible bits of hand-wringing, armchair psychiatry, and lame excuse making that make a deliberate choice to ignore both the clear damage done to his victims and the massive pile of evidence of the things he did.
You should have brought that info to his trial. I’m sure the people who failed to convict him on any counts would have been delighted to hear it.
I think it’s telling, not to mention intellectually dishonest, that you characterize the people who are giving you sound logical reasons to not see Michael as a pedophile, as defending child abuse.
They’re not sound logical reasons, they’re terrible bits of hand-wringing, armchair psychiatry, and lame excuse making that make a deliberate choice to ignore both the clear damage done to his victims and the massive pile of evidence of the things he did.
Also, I didn’t call him a pedophile, I said he abused children. Which he did.
You should have brought that info to his trial. I’m sure the people who failed to convict him on any counts would have been delighted to hear it.
Oh well if the jury failed to convict that must mean it didn’t happen, along with the dozens of similar accusations made by other children.