[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I know this argument is coming up a lot so I think it's just worth pointing out;

It is logically false to say that potential for money to be made, or even money being the main motivation, means that the claims are false.

Pose this hypothetical scenario.

Let's say Wade Robson was genuinely sexually involved with Michael but he doesn't care, he's fine with what happened between them, it didn't bother him then and it doesn't bother him now, he thinks their relationship was one of genuine love and affection. He is now broke and is like "Hey I could make some money if I tell people about that and pretend it bothers me!", and his entire reason for doing it is the $$$$.

I'm not saying that is the truth but let's pretend it is, for hypothetical reasons.

Would that make any difference to the moral rights and wrongs of their relationship. Does the motivation for sharing the facts in any way alter the objective morality of those facts. Does it matter if they're doing it purely for money if it is also true.

Just worth some thought IMO.

Because overall my opinion is that Wade DID have sexual contact with Michael but that if Michael was still alive and Wade's career was thriving, then yes, he would probably still be friends with Michael and seeking his attention and approval. That doesn't make it in any way more acceptable for that relationship to have occurred. It's entirely irrelevant.

But... if it were as you say.... we still wouldn't know anything other than the words of Wade so the hypothetical is rather pointless and leads to the same conclusion.