LogFAQs > #930251346

Firewerx posted...

Here's the thing. People are prepared to give Jackson the benefit of the doubt mainly because they enjoy and respect his work; they're allowing their opinion of him as an entertainer to colour their judgement of him as a person. The truth is, they would not extend that same benefit of the doubt to someone else they didn't know. I'm not saying it's wrong to consider how Jackson's own childhood might have damaged him and warped his perspective and behaviour as an adult; but I am saying it's wrong to make a special case of him just because he's Michael Jackson.

...he's a public figure, so people feel like they know enough one way or another. You don't have to be a renowned artist to get that kind of perception. That said, a lot of the claims exist solely BECAUSE of his celebrity status. Hell, the criminal trial -- which was the *only* non-civil case brought against him -- resulted from his documentary.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
Scientists are finally waking up to what pyramids have known all along.