OneVoice wrote:I believe Michael Jackson is not the kind of person to harm children. Look at all the charitable work he has done over the years helping kids with cancer and aids among other things. He has donated millions of his own money into more organisations than any other person. The only other person I can think of who comes even close to the contributions of Michael Jackson was the late Princess Diana.
Antony wrote:That's not called opinion.keith wrote:i say he should be in jail, no matter what yal say. thats my opinion, ...
In public forums/fora, you'd better include any supporting arguments to back what you said.
A claim, such as the one keith made, can be either a fact (something that can be proven true or false, such as a statistic), an opinion (some idea that is reflective of one's bias), or an argument (if you provide supporting facts toward your opinion, it becomes an argument). keith gave his opinion.
I'm just curious. Why are we taking sides in this? We don't know if he's guilty or innocent. There is an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence that points to Mr. Jackson's guilt. His character traits are arguably evidence that he would not commit such acts. Have some faith in the American legal system to uncover the truth.
As for charitable contributions to children, I do not see how that is evidence of how he wouldn't harm a child. One could argue that it is evidence of the fact that he's obsessed with children. Jacko is also not the most charitable celebrity out there, and Diana does not come close; she surpasses him by leaps and bounds. But she can't dance like Jacko.