I would like to start by saying this: abusing children in any way — emotionally, physically, or sexually — has to be one of the most evil and abhorrent actions in this world. Even convicted criminals will beat and kill child predators in prison. I think that practically every person has a little voice inside him that intensely — sometimes gently — speaks to him about what is right and what is wrong.
It’s no secret that Michael Jackson was accused of inappropriate sexual behavior with young children. But, what if Michael was innocent? What if all of Michael's friends are right — that he just really loved children in a completely innocent way?
Michael Jackson undoubtedly lived a life outside of the norm. Jackson was a victim of abuse himself. He was forced to live out his childhood under the adoring lights of the stage and the probing lights of a relentless press. As he grew, Michael began to long for a childhood that had been snatched from him. He spent most of his adult life trying to relive that childhood in a way that he was never afforded, and some would say that he built the lavish Neverland Ranch — adorned with trains, amusements and exotic animals — for this very reason. Often, he would have hundreds of kids as guests there for special celebrations and occasions. One thing was quite obvious, Michael Jackson lived his adult life like a child.
In 1993, the Chandler family had been very close friends with Michael. They were often referred to as Michael's "adopted family." After a rift had formed between MJ and Evan Chandler, Evan had made this statement, "There was no reason why he [Jackson] had to stop calling me." Evan then began to accuse Michael of sexually abusing his son. Evan had even drugged his son with sodium Amytal (a powerful sedative said to open people to suggestion) which was when the boy allegedly made the claims of abuse. When asked if he was concerned about how a law suit would affect his son, Evan Chandler made this statement in a taped phone conversation, “That's irrelevant to me…It will be a massacre if I don't get what I want." What he wanted was money.
Some might ask, “well, why would MJ have paid that boy if he was innocent?” That’s a good question. It's conceivable that an innocent man would pay money — an amount seemingly inconsequential to him — in order to make a bad situation go away. Especially since Jackson did so under advice from family. Is it possible that Michael never meant to imply his guilt by settling that case? On the other hand, Evan Chandler demanded money before he ever brought criminal charges against Michael. If the evidence against Michael was so damning, why would any father seek money over legal action? What kind of father would want an evil man to go free and continue to terrorize more children?
So, after being accused in 1993, Michael began a downward spiral of prescription drug abuse. He had been wounded by one of the only people he trusted — a child. Think about it. Aside from some plastic surgery, which was likely a product of his fragile child-like self-image, Michael Jackson had not began to act like a “freak,” as some say, before that first accusation. Everything that followed was a product of what he had become — a prescription drug junkie.
Like I have said before, I will never really know what happened. But, just what if, by chance, Evan Chandler did sinisterly encourage his son to make accusations to extort money from Michael? The boy's mother vehemently declared that Michael had done nothing wrong. And it is quite interesting that everyone close to Michael Jackson still claims he never molested any children.
If Michael was indeed innocent, can you even begin to imagine the hell that he lived in for so many years — the unrelenting pedophile jokes, death threats, hateful letters and despising looks. I'm not trying to defend Michael Jackson, but at what point do we draw the line between protecting our children and needlessly destroying a man’s life? Was Michael Jackson truly a predator, or was he actually the prey of greedy liars? Only God and few people really know.
I understand what and why you state these claims…….
what I do not see is the demonstration of the dissenters.
It just seems as if they base their judgment upon a set of predetermined values……regardless of truths known.
Truth, only known to God alone as we all keep secrets and ghosts in our closets. Most refuse to admit that is true. But, we “normal” folk are just not worth a Billion or whatever he is worth. If we were, go hide or face said judgements if you are not guilty……doesn’t matter…..they will come to accuse and take your cash. You will decide if it’s “cheaper” to fight said claims or pay them off to shut their false mouths up. Is it worth it to go bankrupt fighting a false claim ?
Think that’s crazy thinking ? Go win a lottery and find out what they tell you……how to change your life to avoid all the scammers.
Thanks, Dave. Some people get it and some don’t.
How stupid would I be to say that I know the truth? I don’t. I’m just pointing out the fact that many people base their “opinions” on the opinions of others, or the fact that MJ was weird. Heck, maybe he did it all…but…maybe he didn’t. That’s all I’m saying.
Dave, long time no see!! Are you on the warpath again?
As a non-rich person I can tell you that I would not pay up in the instance of blackmail. Likewise, I would plead NOT guilty if I were innocent.
Easy when you don’t have the problem, you say? Fair argument.
There is no contention that lottery winners – as all those who have the privilege of riches – have it bittersweet, never knowing their true friends and constantly wondering the motives of those who surround them.
So, when I strike rich, may I call on you for advice?
Let’s be clear that there is a distinct difference between a civil and criminal indictment. Jackson was never charged criminally. Also, his civil suit was settled “out of court,” so he never “pleaded” guilty to anything.
Gosh, if only Charles Manson had a special talent or skill- then we could overlook things he was accused off.
Say, maybe Bernie Madoff should have developed his magic act- he is a pro at making things disappear- then he could be forgiven too.
Buy elephant man bones, keep a monkey named bubbles, mutilate your face to look like Dionne Warwick, sleep with children… surely those things are not indicative that something is wrong with you… Oh wait, he’s got singing skills. We’ll just throw out the common sense that would otherwise make us say- yep, he’s a child molester…
How many times have you seen some weird looking guy with a handlebar moustache, or some other eccentricity and thought “He looks like a molester”? Why, that’s talent discrimination! If he could moonwalk and sing, you’d never think such a thing.
My point is, stop letting MJ’s talent blind you to what is clearly indicators that yes, he was a freak. I mean, you don’t think Hitler was okay do you? He was a painter, you know…
By the way… why are so many going on and on about MJ, the freak, when they could be going on about Farrah the freak, or Billy Mays- the hard working family man? It’s molester discrimination I tell you!
Com’on Trog, is that all you got? Sigmund Freud snorted coke and talked about boinkin’ your mother. Did we dismiss him as a freak? No.
Just because someone acts different than you doesn’t make him evil.
How about Ed McMahon? He was a Marine. So, are you against the military?
Ron, parsing words ain’t gonna change the obvious comportament, which is at the root of the lawsuit, the controversy, everything.
You are accurate that it was a civil trial and due to MJ’s settling out of court, the jury never had a chance to cast a verdict. Ergo, I amend previous remarks made about jurors in your other thread, “Michael Jackson: An American Icon.”
However, if the trial had gone through all the phases, what do you think the odds would have been of jurors handing a guilty verdict?
Very slim, imo, because those who idolized him could not fathom he was capable of any wrongdoing. Rational thinking was all but lost.
I feel I am playing devil’s advocate…and I didn’t even dislike the guy.
Jordan, have you ever had a feeling in your gut? You know, one that you just knew for certain was “the real deal”? But, at some point, you found out that your perception was inaccurate?
You can’t say that you haven’t. That’s all I’m saying.
Trog, apparently you (now me) are out of touch.
How many of those who think MJ’s behavior was alright, would have sent their children on a sleepover?
Apparently, some parents did for a quid-pro-quo. Does that justify it?
Ben-Gay and Poly-Grip can take its toll…
Ron, I am usually wrong 20 percent of the time. Leaving the other 70 percent to be on target.
Moreover, understanding someone had a difficult childhood is not akin to shut one’s eyes to deep problematic matters.
I fully get the urge to “protect” someone close to you and not wanting them to suffer additional dishonor. Those people are called enablers, who despite their best intentions compound and deepen the mess.
I do not expect his family members to be truthful about his struggles, because they contributed in exploiting and hurting a young, impressionable boy. Or maybe, they have not come to terms themselves.
Hope that answers your question.
Ron quipped to….???? Ben-Gay and Poly-Grip can take its toll…
Getting mentally fatigued? I can recommend powerful brain nutrients to be taken orally, qhr.
Well Jordan, I’m glad you can finally admit that you may be wrong. That’s all I wanted.
Ron, do you enjoy setting up straw men and knocking them down?
All together now….
Jordan is wrong 1/5 of the time -
Ron is wrong more than he’d like to admit –
Dave is wrong when his wife tell him [forgive me Dave]-
Everybody is wrong…..[take your pick]!
SO???? That didn’t prove your contention, nor disprove anything I said.
Jordache,
My contention is only that we all must consider that we are not always right. So, using your logic, I am right. Because, if you were to argue that I am wrong, you would have to prove that you (or anyone other than Christ) is ALWAYS right.
Been crucified lately?
You guys kill me- you think MJ is innocent because you apply your values to him. No parent would send their child over? Wrong. I’ve seen cases where parents do in fact send kids over- despite prior convictions by molesters (the excuse being, “He would never do that to his own family).
People once thought the world was flat, and based decisions on that prejudged idea. You do that with MJ. Instead of thinking he can’t do this or that, look at what HE HAS DONE and then make a decision. (Bubbles, Elephant man, neverland, sleeping with kids, accusations…)
Trog, my friend, you once again have painted yourself into a corner. I will just use your logic to deflate your argument. Here goes:
1. “you think MJ is innocent”
Never said it, buddy. I said, “Like I have said before, I will never really know what happened.”
2. “People once thought the world was flat, and based decisions on that prejudged idea. You do that with MJ. Instead of thinking he can’t do this or that, look at what HE HAS DONE and then make a decision.”
So, you are concluding that Michael is guilty, and you are using the same logic you discount.
Here is your statement, only replacing certain related words:
“People once thought the [MJ] was [a pedophile], and [they] based [conclusions] on [those] prejudged idea[s].”
Thank you for supporting my point.
More for Trog:
“Instead of thinking he [did] this or that, look at what [charitable things] HE HAS DONE and then make a decision.”
You are using premises that are ambiguous to support a conclusion that is, well, fallacious.
I think you’re all full of crap (except for David). Change the channel already.
You can argue until doomsday. Was he guilty or not? We will probably never know. The fact is, MJ did touch (no pun intended) a lot of ppl in a positive way. He also was accused of being a pedophile and given what we do know, that charge is within the pale of probability. But to what end are we arguing when the conclusion cannot with certitude be known? What does it accomplish? I mean, does it really matter now that the man is dead? Anyway, perhaps it’s just in poor taste to go on like this. I have to wonder when the media, along with MJ’s fans, only seem interested in deifying him, instead of looking at the whole man. Then again, I suppose it’s only natural to look at a person’s strengths as opposed to their faults, sicknesses, neurosis’, etc., after they’ve “moved on.” I know I wouldn’t want people scrutinizing my every sin after I’ve passed on…not for my own sake, but for the sake of my family.
So, let’s do the right thing, here…and just give it a rest.
Chad, how can you call me full of crap, and then turn around and repeat the same point I’ve been trying to make all along?
By default, you then are full of crap, too
It seemed like a good idea at the time.
u sound like a true bush neocon. U R so like dum-n-stuff u try to sound all smart and like filosockical and junk but U R just dum and yer not too bright either I yam more smarterer than U ’cause I like read the paper N stuff smart people reads duh paper. Only dummys like U sit around on yer big fat arses and watch fox news cause you are dum…oh an yer dum too
dummee
RonB., are you fond of circular logic?
Just because I am at times wrong, doesn’t imply I am never right. And, I have no problem stating that you are dead wrong in your “deductive” process.
Incidentally, I wrongly quantified my percentages in previous ccmmentary. It should be 80% [not 70%] right.
Actually, no. I hate circular reasoning, which is why I never beg the question. If you have a hard time following my logic, it’s not because it is faulty. I’ll walk you through it.
Here’s a recap of my argument:
“My contention is only that we all must consider that we are not always right. So, using your logic, I am right. Because, if you were to argue that I am wrong, you would have to prove that you (or anyone other than Christ) is ALWAYS right.
“Been crucified lately?”
Like I said, I am contending that people are not always right. If you would like to debate this, then challenge me and we will. However, you already admitted that you are wrong 20% of the time — thereby agreeing that this premise is true.
Since you agree that you are not always right, then I therefore am right (people are not always right) you follow? My argument is not begging the question at all. We both agreed on the basic premise that people can’t always be right. So, you are agreeing that I am right in this situation.
Since I am right (worked out above) the only way you could call me wrong is to then deny the premise that “people aren’t always right.” So, doing so, you would be wrong. I on the other hand admit that I am not always right, but I am in this case, because, like I’ve already shown you, “people aren’t always right” (you already agreed on that).
In summary, it is your own logic that leads me to be right, and therefore by you saying, “you are dead wrong in your ‘deductive’ process,” you can ONLY be wrong. Because, my conclusion has to be right, because NO ONE is always right. Get it?
I also threw in a little JC for your entertainment. I purported that the only way you could discount my assertion is if you were to apply it to Jesus, because He is the only man ever to always be right. So, unless you have been “crucified” lately (you would have had to risen from the dead, since you are alive now), then you MUST be wrong in this case.
Just because your head is spinning doesn’t mean my reasoning is circular in any way.
Also Jordan, you and Trog are using inductive reasoning, which is based on “probability,” to indict MJ. That’s OK, but just be honest about it. I believe that Trog would admit to this.
I on the other hand am trying to find the only TRULY logically sound conclusion by using “deductive” reasoning, which is based solely on “fact.”
You cannot disagree with my reasoning, but you can only say, “I chose to abandon “deductive” reasoning and employ “inductive” reasoning to come to an educated conclusion based on “probability.”
Just say that. Calling me dead wrong is well, a conclusion based on emotion, because you think MJ was a weirdo.
You ARE NOT using deductive reasoning, Ron. You are trying to rationalize MJ’s actions, b/c you liked him. Girls do that with bad boyfriends, making excuses for them.
Ron,
you keep hammering two things that are TOTALLY wrong (just concocted some more) based on your own foregone conclusion.
1. My deduction is based on emotion – despite evidence to the contrary.
2. I think MJ was a weirdo – when I have NEVER said, implied or inferred it and you certainly can’t read my mind.
You have rushed to judgment, implied I am dishonest and a liar and you the only one searching for truth!?
Who has been judging Who based on one’s preconceived ideas?
Ron,
[just noticed now the first part of your response].
I am sure your “logic” makes sense to you, but circular, nonetheless.
I wouldn’t want you to be concerned, so let me put you at ease. Mind games are not my thing, but I can spot them a mile away.
Only a moron would say he’s never wrong [and yes some do] but asking me whether I am ever wrong or always right was a red herring. One, you are attempting to use to bolster your argument, which is,
“Because I am not always right, “logically” I must be wrong in concluding, he slept with boys.”
Forget his blatant behavior and his own words.
Wow?! How could anyone in their sane mind ever think that? They must be perverted? [not the person who engages in the act, but those who think that!?!]
What happened to, “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…it’s a duck!?”
Yeah, innocent people, sometimes get framed for things they never committed, but usually they deny any involvement. MJ admitted he slept with boys. In fact, his urge to sleep with boys was so strong that at least one parent [that we know of] got concerned. As would most people who think clearly. Something, you seem to have thrown to the wind.
Trog my friend, I feel like I am beating my head against a wall here. I know you are smarter than this.
Never once, in both of my MJ pieces have I EVER stated that I though MJ was innocent. You and Jordan keep saying that, and it is simply not true. You are putting words in my mouth, and dumb ones at that. I will do this one more time for you.
From this piece:
1). “Like I have said before, I will never really know what happened”
2). “I’m not trying to defend Michael Jackson”
3). “Only God and few people really know.”
From the comment thread:
1). “How stupid would I be to say that I know the truth? I don’t.”
2). “Heck, maybe he did it all…but…maybe he didn’t. That’s all I’m saying.”
3). “Well Jordan, I’m glad you can finally admit that you may be wrong. That’s all I wanted.”
4). “My contention is only that we all must consider that we are not always right.”
Now. Anyone that wishes to accuse me of using poor logic, or erroneously tell me that I am NOT using deductive reasoning, please show me how you come to that conclusion.
I have taken the time to lay out my arguments in a VERY logically sound fashion. So, if anyone wishes to debate with me, please reciprocate, and show me how you come to these conclusions in a logical fashion.
Simply saying that I am wrong is childish and dumb. Show me. By the way, try understanding words before you use them:
“…an argument is said to be deductive when the truth of the conclusion is purported to follow necessarily or be a logical consequence of the premises and (consequently) its corresponding conditional is a necessary truth”
Ron said: since people aren’t always right, MJ might well be innocent.
“The premises of an inductive argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it”
Trog and Jordan say: since MJ was a weirdo, he probably did it
Excuse my haste, there was a secondary assertion that was not directly stated in my piece, but was a product of Jordan’s poor use of logic. It was:
“Since Jordan agrees that people can’t always be right, then Ron is right and she is wrong to tell him that he is wrong.”
Very soundly deductive.
Doo doo heads.
I’m not playing this game with people that can’t even understand the words they use.
I am starting to get frustrated. Stop using words that sound big that have nothing to do with the argument.
A red herring is exactly what you Jordan and Trog are using. You are so inept at logic that you can’t see that I have never once made the argument that MJ was innocent.
If you can’t understand after I have spelled it out 20 times using simple deductive reasoning, I have no choice but to stop beating a dead horse.
Just because you have memorized a few fancy words does not a logical thinker make you.
“Trog and Jordan say: since MJ was a weirdo, he probably did it”
Again, for the umpteenth time you assert a lie.
Can’t speak for Trog, but Trog and I are NOT one and the same.
Hence, STOP purporting the unsupported claim that I said [or think], “MJ was a weirdo…so he must have done it.”
Your hubris in proving Trog and I are wrong, has led you to mischaracterize me and probably Trog.
One more thing, how dumb would I have to be to say that your deduction is based on emotion? That simply shows that you don’t understand the word deduction.
I said your assertions were based on emotion, leading you to make an “induction,” which is based on probability and not facts. By definition, a deduction can NOT be based on emotion. GEEEEZ.
What happened to, “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…it’s a duck!?”
This is a perfectly “inductive” argument, good job.
I was simply trying to show how you guys are building an inductive argument and used the word weirdo to sum all of the stuff you said, like sleeping with boys, buying bones, etc.
Just because I was simplifying terms does not change the structure of the argument. Your premises can only lead to probability not fact.
For the last time, my conclusion was simply that WE CAN’T KNOW IF HE IS GUILTY OR NOT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE, WHICH IS ONLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL.
I’m done.
Well Ron,
maybe [not holding my breath] when you finally settle down from your emotional ranting, you’ll be able to read with a clear mind and clean conscience the string of insults you hurled at me.
I was going to be done with my last comments, but now you know without having to wonder.
Mind games are not my thing, but I can spot them a mile away.
As would most people who think clearly. Something, you seem to have thrown to the wind.
Again, for the umpteenth time you assert a lie.
Your hubris in proving Trog and I are wrong, has led you to mischaracterize me and probably Trog.
Those are your words Jordan which are nothing but blatant ad hominem attacks at me, my character and my thinking. I only attacked your misuse of logic — which I take great care to exercise correctly.
I said you were making illogical assertions, you said I was a prideful liar that was playing mind games. You also indirectly said I was perverted.
I more than once laid out my argument, you came back hurling false accusations and insults. Stop playing the victim.
Alright Ron. If you like I can compile a list too of all your insults that those above remarks referred to, NOT to mention the insults in your post, time of 6:59pm.
Context is EVERYTHING!
Also the crux of the matter is that it was you who harangued me and Trog for believing MJ was a pedophile.
At this point, I don’t care either way, but if and when you take the time to read through the whole shebang I hope you realize some things you can’t see now.
Sorry for all the BIG words I used. I didn’t know I was to keep it to simple lexicon. My apologies to all those I offended with my language.
OK. Calm now.
Jordan, I consider you to be a friend. I only made the list of your statements in order to show you how my frustration was gradually elevated over time.
Sorry for allowing my frustration to come out in my comments. I am very passionate about debating things that I have spent a lot of time thinking about. I spent hours reading and thinking about this post, so yes, I take it personal when someone accuses me of poor thinking.
I still think there is a possibility, regardless of how small, and that logically speaking, we don’t know.
That said, you’re a good guy, Jordan
Okay, Ron, step back from the keyboard. Good Lord, how are we supposed to attract any sharks when you keep slurping all the chum up out the water!?
Anyone watch SlingBlade? Good flick……..the “normal” person would look at him as being a psycho , well…….you wouldn’t trust your child with the guy !!!!!!!!!! But, then again…..
Thanks Chadro, not being full of crap, and all…….juz now I be a needinz to go get ridz uv sumz crap…..before I explode.
Sorry, can’t get in the ring with the intellectual wizards. They are so smart. Glad, Ron is smart enough to battle……
TaTa
Hey Dave, that is a very good point…not Chad saying you are “not full of crap,” because you are
I mean the SlingBlade analogy.
Where did I go wrong? I thought I made sure to admit that I didn’t know the truth? I guess some people need to believe “they know,” when you and I know, “we don’t.” Are we the morally superior country in the world? “Probably.” But, what if…
I readily concede that I believe in God, but by faith, or an “inductive” conclusion — NOT using deductive reasoning. I often use logic to prove that atheists, like believers, have faith. The only logically “deductive” conclusion is to be agnostic. So, I would have no problem agreeing that “probability” is a good indicator, but it does not “always” lead us to truth, i.e. Trog’s “the earth is flat” analogy.
Truth be told, only a very few “truths” can be based on deductive reasoning. Let’s see if I can make anyone suicidal.
Ready?
This argument is based on hypotheticals and not facts:
Let’s say, MJ admitted in a court of law that he did it. Open and shut case, right? Maybe in our judicial system. But, what if MJ was mentally unstable, and after hearing all of the accusations and not being able to distinguish reality from fantasy, he “thought,” I did it…I am an awful human being…
Since he was unable to remember, with certainty, that he “did it,” I’d like to know, “did he?” I mean, it’s conceivable that if he convinced himself, NO ONE would dare doubt his guilt, right? After all, he was a weirdo. But, what if the accuser knew, and since he never testified in court, he couldn’t be charged?
Of course, this is a stretch, I know. But, many people will jump to conclusions without facts, because their conclusion seems, “likely.”
Chew on that one a bit.
Jordan,
I watched you waffle on your position four times. You went north, west, south, and then east. Therefore, from where I’m sitting, your reasoning is “squarular.”
Ron laid out a very cut and dried, straight forward case for his position. He never wavered from that position. Any third grader could’ve comprehended it. Your obtusity on this thread has gone far beyond being annoying. I am relieved that you finally relented and now this thread will be officially closed. This debate was nonexistent anyway. Why? Because you continued to attribute an assertion to Ron, which he never put forward. Poor Ron was reduced to arguing about which argument he was actually making, as opposed to entering into a thoughtful discussion on his actual argument. What a waste of time and energy. Next time bring a shovel.
Not sure how I found this site, but I did want to make a comment.
I am a prosecutor and I see child molesters all the time. That being said, I don't know the truth behind the MJ allegations, but I will tell you that pedophiles do not molest 1 or 2 children…they do it over, and over and over. It has been two months since he passed…and no one is coming out of the closet…as a matter of fact, didn't that Jordan kid recently recant?
My two cents.
Thank you Miami, we are glad you did find us here in the Midwest.
I am no law professor, but my thoughts and your assertions only need common sense to understand. Your point is yet another great example of how the court of public opinion routinely ignores real facts and often indicts innocent people. You and I may never know the full truth, but my point is that IF Mike was innocent our society tortured and ruined a man's life. If that is the case, it is very sad.
Thanks again MP. Come back and visit us!
Thank you Miami, we are glad you did find us here in the Midwest.
I am no law professor, but my thoughts and your assertions only need common sense to understand. Your point is yet another great example of how the court of public opinion routinely ignores real facts and often indicts innocent people. You and I may never know the full truth, but my point is that IF Mike was innocent, our society tortured and ruined a man's life. If that is the case, it is very sad.
Thanks again MP. Come back and visit us!
I f people really cared about ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ….this would be the "change" we need.
I refer to Ron's humble wisdom on the court of public opinion.
We massacre others, intellectually and mentally and even physically out of ignorance. People take offense of the word "ignorant", when all they need do is look up the damn definition in a dictionary.
When one can learn that meaning within his being, add humility to his being (because of ignorance), and then look at life in a new way we can all aid in "change" for this world.
This ignorance and attitude is what keeps the blood-suckers taking your soul, life and tax dollars away on a daily basis…………..even to youze peoplez who be a thinkun youze not ignorant.
We all are, but few admit it. Too many just have to "know" or "be right". No one will ever know the real truth about J.F.K. and that fateful day, yet everyone really knows about MJ. He was odd to say the least, but no proof to assert any guilt. Just continues to show in modern society people do not "need" or rely on truth to base their judgements.
I personally know a real-world situation where the guilty walk free and the innocent suffers due to majority ignorance, fear of the power pull from said party. They say it is easier to just sweep it under the rug and let it go then to make the guilty one ante up. It is easier for them (selfish and ignorant bastards) and no concern is taken for the victimized party. They even wish the victim to change allegiance to their side.
Our society is a ticking bomb, self ignited.