R Kelly’s new album

[Fletch]

Presuming someone innocent until proven guilty in a court of law does not automatically make someone a supporter of pedophiles and predators. If, or when, R Kelly is proven guilty, he should/will be dealt with.

Don't mean to bring up other cats, but didn't Julio Iglesias (in his 60s now?) allegedly have a fetish for young women? They may have been 18 or 19, though, which is legal, isn't it?

[Wild i]

I still trying to figure out what more proof one needs than his own videotape.

[Fletch]

Originally posted by Wild i:
I still trying to figure out what more proof one needs than his own videotape.

The law/legal system still has to run its course.

[Wild i]

Originally posted by einnod23:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wild i:
I still trying to figure out what more proof one needs than his own videotape.

The law/legal system still has to run its course.</font>[/QUOTE]I understand your thinking, but I don't agree with it at all. I feel we rely too much on the gov't, church, or other outside influence to define for us what is right or wrong. The law should be involved only insofar as dispensing criminal justice. With regard to your own actions/reactions you must decide based on the evidence placed before you.

R. Kelly may not have yet been convicted of a crime, but that does not mean he has not already committed a crime against society and a crime against morality. I don't need the court to tell me that a grown man having sex with an underage girl is morally reprehensible. And since he was so obliging as to provide video taped evidence, there is no doubt in my mind as to his guilt, regardless of what the criminal justice system decides.

The man has insufficient funds in the morals bank.

[Fletch]

Originally posted by Wild i:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by einnod23:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wild i:
I still trying to figure out what more proof one needs than his own videotape.

The law/legal system still has to run its course.</font>[/QUOTE]I understand your thinking, but I don't agree with it at all. I feel we rely too much on the gov't, church, or other outside influence to define for us what is right or wrong. The law should be involved only insofar as dispensing criminal justice. With regard to your own actions/reactions you must decide based on the evidence placed before you.

R. Kelly may not have yet been convicted of a crime, but that does not mean he has not already committed a crime against society and a crime against morality. I don't need the court to tell me that a grown man having sex with an underage girl is morally reprehensible. And since he was so obliging as to provide video taped evidence, there is no doubt in my mind as to his guilt, regardless of what the criminal justice system decides.

The man has insufficient funds in the morals bank.</font>[/QUOTE]Chicago White Sox 1919
Scottsboro Boys
Central Park Jogger Teens

Three prime examples of how dangerous the Court of Public Opinion can get. This is not to provide support to R Kelly, but more of a reason to let the system run its course the correct way. Guilty until proven innocent is still dangerous. Peace.

[Wild i]

Originally posted by einnod23:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The man has insufficient funds in the morals bank.

Chicago White Sox 1919
Scottsboro Boys
Central Park Jogger Teens

Three prime examples of how dangerous the Court of Public Opinion can get. This is not to provide support to R Kelly, but more of a reason to let the system run its course the correct way. Guilty until proven innocent is still dangerous. Peace.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I'm not talking about the court of public opinion. I'm talking about your own moral compass. Waiting to see what the crowd (be it the public or the bench) decides is the first step towards mob mentality.

[ March 07, 2003, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: Wild i ]

[djmarbll]

Originally posted by Wild i:
This is not about women claiming victimhood. This is about the victimization of a CHILD. Many of you may remember I had similar comments about Michael Jackson and his behavior with young boys. There were no women in the R. Kelly video, therefore no woman could have given consent. There is a legal age for adulthood and there is a reason why that age has been pushed up over the years. Juliette was 15, but I'll be damned if I would allow my 15 year old to marry in this day and age.

Maybe I was watching another video, but out of the four sex acts I saw on the tape 3 of them were with women who looked like they were of age and only the last lady looked underage. Ironically, R. Kelly paid the women too.

The crazy twist to this story now is that R. Kelly just got through shooting a video with Michael Jackson. That doesn't look good for either of their careers. And while I feel Michael is still innocent, Stevie Wonder could be blindfolded and still see that R. Kelly is guilty. Just because MJ has problems that stem from not experiencing a normal childhood doesn't make him a child molester. R. Kelly has a problem, I don't care what anyone says. Pissing on somebody IS NOT normal sexual behavior. We are not mentally or physically wired to normally get aroused by waste removal!

[djmarbll]

Originally posted by Ashaki:
and could someone please pray for the parents whom I am sure knew that their daughter was seeing and possibly sexing this man, but did nothing to protect her. The aunt "Sparkle" that basically hand delivered her to him...and everyone that was involved...

The girl's parents were paid to keep quiet. The girl herself got a Chrysler PT Cruiser for her services. The girl was Sparkle's niece, and Sparkle was at odds with R. Kelly at the time because of personnel differences over Sparkle's next album (which never came out). Ironically the X-factor in this whole fiasco is Barry Hankerson (Aaliyah's uncle), who R. Kelly fired a few months before the tapes came. Believe me, this is not a coincidence. That's all I can say for now.

[djmarbll]

Originally posted by einnod23:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wild i:
I still trying to figure out what more proof one needs than his own videotape.

The law/legal system still has to run its course. </font>[/QUOTE]This is the only reason R. Kelly isn'y in jail now. If he wasn't rich, he wouldn't keep getting continuances. Just like O.J. would be on death row if he didn't have money, whether guilty or innocent.