Quote:
Originally Posted by Toy Soldier
Yes but the consistency of the opinions is relevant; the same people were saying the same things in the Saville case as they are in the Jackson case with just as much conviction, with the same arguments ("it's just because he's weird", "it's just because they want money") and they were of course completely wrong in those assumptions, as it turns out. I'd say that's fairly relevant, at least in showing that people should be a bit more hesitant in dismissing claims in that manner?
I'm not saying that people should think "Well Saville was guilty so Jackson must be guilty too!", that would be a false logic, too... I just find it odd that people aren't open to the thought though "Oh hmmmm I said all of this about Saville and I was wrong, so maybe I should keep a more open mind about this one".
I find it strange that people can be "so sure", wrong, and then "so sure" again.
|
That is very much what you're saying.
Bad TS
