[ SECRET POST #5418 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5418 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________
































02. [SPOILERS for Inscryption]



__________________________________________________



03. [SPOILERS for No Time to Die]



__________________________________________________



04. [SPOILERS for Word of Honor]



__________________________________________________



05. [SPOILERS for Knives Out]
[WARNING for discussion of dub/non-con]



__________________________________________________



06. [WARNING for discussion of pedophilia]



__________________________________________________



07. [WARNING for discussion of rape]

[The Last Duel]


__________________________________________________



08. [WARNING for discussion of rape]






















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #775.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

da

i think he was found not guilty in a court of law and i have to respect that

do i think he had some very weird ideas about what was normal behaviour around children? absolutely. do i think part of that stemmed from his own fucked up childhood? hell yes. do i think he was trying to live a new youth well past the age where people should have been? obviously. do i think that actually extended to child rape? nah

[(Anonymous)]

i think he was found not guilty in a court of law and i have to respect that


I don't see why. And I think this clearly isn't something we can take as a reasonable general standard, for many reasons. In particular, one important distinction is that courts are attempting to prove people guilty of particular legal crimes under particular legal constructs of proof and guilt. Our moral reasoning doesn't have to follow the same standards of legality or responsibility.

DA

[(Anonymous)]

I don't see why.

Because as far as I'm aware, there was never clear proof that his odd behaviour with children crossed to the realm of the sexual.

It's one thing to disagree with a verdict if it's a provable fact that the accused did the thing they're accused of but got the not guilty verdict because of unjust laws, legal loopholes, or biased jurors. It's another to decide that actually you, an unrelated party who read about it in the papers/on the Internet are more qualified to decide if something happened or not than the people who have access to all the existing evidence.

It's like the people who are being horrible to Madeleine Mccann's parents because they've decided they know what really happened better than the people actually investigating the case. The court of public

[(Anonymous)]

(hit post too early)

...opinion is not a real court, and real people are harmed when the public decides someone must be guilty based on their gut feeling.

I don't know if MJ was a pedophile, but since he was never proven to have done sexual thing to children, I choose not to act like he was.

[(Anonymous)]

The dude literally owned pictures of naked underage boys. But I guess that's just because he didn't have a real childhood, right?

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT is beyond reasoning. They basically just said that it’s ridiculous for anyone to judge the situation based only on the available evidence or information if they weren’t an involved party, while also saying that the available evidence or information is proof enough for them that he’s not guilty.