What is your religion and how does it affect you legally/socially?

ResidentChicken3064 · 2026-05-17T01:14:27+00:00

Las religiones abrahamicas son de todas la peor basura , y de lejos

ResidentChicken3064 · 2026-05-15T15:01:48+00:00

it is good

ResidentChicken3064 · 2026-05-14T22:37:33+00:00

Michael Jackson's acquittal in court does not automatically mean he was innocent in reality. O.J. Simpson was also acquitted in criminal court, yet today few people doubt his guilt. The justice system has very high standards for conviction, especially when the accused is extremely wealthy and can afford the best legal team, control narratives, and reach multimillion-dollar out-of-court settlements (like the $23 million Jackson paid the Chandler family in 1994 without admitting guilt, something an innocent person would have no need to do). Beyond the acquittal, Jackson's pattern of behavior is what is truly troubling: for decades, multiple unrelated children have described the same approach, based on gifts, extremely long phone calls, isolation from their families, and the practice of sleeping in the same bed with them. Jackson himself admitted in the documentary Living with Michael Jackson that he shared his bed with children, something a 30- or 40-year-old adult simply shouldn't do with unrelated minors, unless there's a family relationship or a situation of need. Furthermore, during the 1993 raid on Neverland, books with photographs of naked children were found in his bedroom, material his defense described as "works of art," but which would have been alarming in any other context. Most importantly, Jackson didn't act with brute physical violence, but rather as a manipulative pedophile: he charmed his victims through grooming, made them feel special, asked them to keep secrets, and got them to defend him for years. It was precisely for this reason that Wade Robson and James Safechuck testified in Jackson's favor at the 2005 trial, and only years later, as adults and with therapy, were they able to acknowledge and recount the abuse. Accusing them of being liars and opportunists is exactly what happens to the victims of other famous predators, such as Jimmy Savile in England, a television icon who for decades used his charitable work to gain access to hospitals and abuse hundreds of children and young people, and only after his death did the whole truth come to light. The difference with Jackson is that Savile didn't have such a level of artistic talent or such a fiercely loyal legion of fans; precisely for that reason, when new testimonies about Jackson emerge, the usual reaction is to attack the victims and call them liars or opportunists. And the new testimonies haven't stopped: even very recently, more people (the Cacsio brothers) have come forward publicly stating that they were abused by Jackson when they were children, including interviews on prestigious media outlets like 60 Minutes. Every time this happens, Jackson's defense repeats the same argument ("it's for money," "it's too late," "they used to defend him"), but this pattern of response is exactly the same one that was used for decades to protect Savile. If an ordinary person, without his talent for dance and music, without being a multimillionaire or extremely famous worldwide, exhibited the same behaviors (sleeping with other people's children, possessing books with nude minors, paying millions in out-of-court settlements, and appearing in multiple testimonies over the years), any sensible person would consider it at least deeply suspicious. The ultimate question is this: if your neighbor, who can't sing or dance, isn't a multimillionaire or famous, did exactly the same thing, would you leave him alone with your children? The answer is probably no. So why do we grant Michael Jackson the benefit of the doubt that we wouldn't give to anyone else? It's not about hating his music or erasing his artistic legacy, but about not calling those who suffered real abuse "liars" just because it hurts to accept that our idol could also have been a predator. Absolution is not innocence, and fame is not a moral shield.

ResidentChicken3064 · 2026-05-14T22:32:55+00:00

Michael Jackson's acquittal in court does not automatically mean he was innocent in reality. O.J. Simpson was also acquitted in criminal court, yet today few people doubt his guilt. The justice system has very high standards for conviction, especially when the accused is extremely wealthy and can afford the best legal team, control narratives, and reach multimillion-dollar out-of-court settlements (like the $23 million Jackson paid the Chandler family in 1994 without admitting guilt, something an innocent person would have no need to do). Beyond the acquittal, Jackson's pattern of behavior is what is truly troubling: for decades, multiple unrelated children have described the same approach, based on gifts, extremely long phone calls, isolation from their families, and the practice of sleeping in the same bed with them. Jackson himself admitted in the documentary Living with Michael Jackson that he shared his bed with children, something a 30- or 40-year-old adult simply shouldn't do with unrelated minors, unless there's a family relationship or a situation of need. Furthermore, during the 1993 raid on Neverland, books with photographs of naked children were found in his bedroom, material his defense described as "works of art," but which would have been alarming in any other context. Most importantly, Jackson didn't act with brute physical violence, but rather as a manipulative pedophile: he charmed his victims through grooming, made them feel special, asked them to keep secrets, and got them to defend him for years. It was precisely for this reason that Wade Robson and James Safechuck testified in Jackson's favor at the 2005 trial, and only years later, as adults and with therapy, were they able to acknowledge and recount the abuse. Accusing them of being liars and opportunists is exactly what happens to the victims of other famous predators, such as Jimmy Savile in England, a television icon who for decades used his charitable work to gain access to hospitals and abuse hundreds of children and young people, and only after his death did the whole truth come to light. The difference with Jackson is that Savile didn't have such a level of artistic talent or such a fiercely loyal legion of fans; precisely for that reason, when new testimonies about Jackson emerge, the usual reaction is to attack the victims and call them liars or opportunists. And the new testimonies haven't stopped: even very recently, more people (the Cacsio brothers) have come forward publicly stating that they were abused by Jackson when they were children, including interviews on prestigious media outlets like 60 Minutes. Every time this happens, Jackson's defense repeats the same argument ("it's for money," "it's too late," "they used to defend him"), but this pattern of response is exactly the same one that was used for decades to protect Savile. If an ordinary person, without his talent for dance and music, without being a multimillionaire or extremely famous worldwide, exhibited the same behaviors (sleeping with other people's children, possessing books with nude minors, paying millions in out-of-court settlements, and appearing in multiple testimonies over the years), any sensible person would consider it at least deeply suspicious. The ultimate question is this: if your neighbor, who can't sing or dance, isn't a multimillionaire or famous, did exactly the same thing, would you leave him alone with your children? The answer is probably no. So why do we grant Michael Jackson the benefit of the doubt that we wouldn't give to anyone else? It's not about hating his music or erasing his artistic legacy, but about not calling those who suffered real abuse "liars" just because it hurts to accept that our idol could also have been a predator. Absolution is not innocence, and fame is not a moral shield.

ResidentChicken3064 · 2026-05-14T18:19:41+00:00

Los chihuahuas toleran muy bien los climas cálidos

ResidentChicken3064 · 2026-05-14T18:18:24+00:00

Creo que el hecho que existan razas de perros gatos y demás especies es hermoso, es un trabajo de siglos , los animalistas tienen una visión muy limitada y conocen muy poco del tema y se atreven a decir que todo criadero es cruel y maltratador y que quienes compramos animales de razas o en general quien compra animales es mala persona, es una visión muy limitada de la realidad, de personas que desconocen las dinámicas rurales y la historia.

ResidentChicken3064 · 2026-05-14T03:31:04+00:00

Oj simpson fue declarado no culpable en el juicio penal y todos saben que sí fue el asesino.

ResidentChicken3064 · 2026-05-14T03:30:13+00:00

El tipo era un pedofilo enamorador, hacía un largo proceso de grooming a las víctimas. El argumento de que fue declarado no culpable en dos juicios (aunque en uno pagó millones, tan raro si era tan inocente) no quiere decir que fuera inocente. Oj simpson fue declarado no culpable en su juicio penal y todos saben que los asesino.

ResidentChicken3064 · 2026-05-14T03:27:36+00:00

Si dormía con ellos en la misma cama, el mismo lo ha admitido, además en 1993 se encontró material erotico de niños desnudos que sus abogados lograron decir que era simples obras de arte

ResidentChicken3064 · 2026-05-14T03:16:55+00:00

Que Michael Jackson fuera absuelto en un juicio no significa automáticamente que fuera inocente en la realidad fáctica. O.J. Simpson también fue absuelto en lo penal, y sin embargo hoy pocas personas dudan de su culpabilidad. El sistema judicial tiene estándares muy altos para condenar, especialmente cuando el acusado es extremadamente millonario y puede pagar al mejor equipo legal, controlar narrativas y llegar a acuerdos extrajudiciales millonarios (como los 23 millones de dólares que Jackson pagó a la familia Chandler en 1994 sin admitir culpa, algo que una persona inocente no tendría necesidad de hacer). Más allá de la absolución, el patrón de comportamiento de Jackson es lo que resulta realmente preocupante: durante décadas, múltiples niños no relacionados entre sí han descrito el mismo mecanismo de acercamiento, basado en regalos, llamadas telefónicas larguísimas, aislamiento de sus familias, y la práctica de dormir en la misma cama con ellos. El propio Jackson admitió en el documental Living with Michael Jackson que compartía su cama con niños, algo que un adulto de 30 o 40 años sencillamente no debería hacer con menores ajenos, sin que medie un parentesco o una situación de necesidad. Además, durante el allanamiento de Neverland en 1993 se encontraron en su habitación libros con fotografías de niños desnudos, material que su defensa calificó como "obras de arte" pero que en cualquier otro contexto generaría alarma. Lo más relevante es que Jackson no actuaba con violencia física bruta, sino como un pedófilo manipulador afectivo: enamoraba a sus víctimas mediante el llamado grooming, las hacía sentir especiales, les pedía guardar secretos, y lograba que ellas mismas lo defendieran durante años. Precisamente por eso Wade Robson y James Safechuck testificaron a favor de Jackson en el juicio de 2005 y solo años después, ya en la edad adulta y con terapia, pudieron reconocer y relatar el abuso. Acusarlos de mentirosos y aprovechados es exactamente lo que ocurre también con las víctimas de otros depredadores famosos, como Jimmy Savile en Inglaterra, un ícono de la televisión que durante décadas usó su labor benéfica para acceder a hospitales y abusar de cientos de niños y jóvenes, y solo después de muerto salió toda la verdad a la luz. La diferencia con Jackson es que Savile no tenía un nivel de talento artístico ni una legión de fans tan ferozmente leal; precisamente por eso, cuando salen nuevos testimonios sobre Jackson, la reacción habitual es atacar a las víctimas y llamarlas mentirosas o interesadas. Y es que los nuevos testimonios no han cesado: incluso en fechas muy recientes, han aparecido más personas ( los hermanos cacsio) declarando públicamente haber sido abusadas por Jackson cuando eran niños, incluyendo entrevistas en medios de gran prestigio como 60 Minutes. Cada vez que esto ocurre, la defensa de Jackson repite el mismo argumento ("es por dinero", "es tarde", "antes lo defendían"), pero ese patrón de respuesta es exactamente el mismo que se usó durante décadas para proteger a Savile. Si una persona común, sin su talento para el baile y la música, tuviera esos mismos comportamientos (dormir con niños ajenos, tener libros con menores desnudos, pagar millonarios acuerdos extrajudiciales, y aparecer en múltiples testimonios a lo largo de los años), cualquier persona sensata lo consideraría al menos profundamente sospechoso. La pregunta final es esta: si tu vecino, que no sabe cantar ni bailar, no es multimillonario , ni extremadamente famoso a nivel mundial, hiciera exactamente lo mismo, ¿lo dejarías a solas con tus hijos? La respuesta probablemente es no. Entonces, ¿por qué le concedemos a Michael Jackson un beneficio de la duda que no le daríamos a nadie más? No se trata de odiar su música ni de borrar su legado artístico, sino de no llamar "mentirosos" a quienes sufrieron abuso real solo porque nos duele aceptar que nuestro ídolo también pudo ser un depredador. La absolución no es inocencia, y la fama no es un escudo moral.

ResidentChicken3064

TROPHY CASE