u/Upstairs-Bug-3052

With the arrival of Dune this holiday, thats the big question to ask. I will divide the pros and coins.

Pros

- The goodwill from Part 2, which was extremely well received.

- The holidays will provide excellent legs for this movie

- Pre sales have been really strong so far

Coins

- Dune Part 3 is facing Doomsday this December, which will surely limit its screens

- The source material is darker and much less casual friendly

- Possible sequel fatigue, although thats just speculation

View Poll

View Poll

View Poll

View Poll

View Poll

View Poll

Primeiramente, sim, o poliéster é mais quente e menos confortável. Para blusas de calor até faz sentido essa aversão, mas o poliéster é justamente bom para blusas de frio e jaquetas.

Você vê alguem com uma roupa bonita, mas precisaria ver a etiqueta com o tecido antes para dizer que é bonita? Você vê um homem com uma roupa extremamente feia, mas tudo bem, porque ele usa algodão e nada sintético? Não faz sentido.

O que realmente tira o sentido dessa demonização é que é extremamente difícil fugir do poliéster hoje em dia. A maioria dos tênis da Nike e Adidas têm poliéster. Mesmo blusas de algodão, em sua maioria, têm uma porcentagem significativa de algum tecido sintético.

View Poll

It is probably not getting one, but who is the most likely to receive raves and get unexpected buzz?

View Poll

A man has been accused of pedophilia by over 10 victims over his life, and he just happened to have books of children naked? And he just happened to have an old quote downplaying child marriage? And he just happened to sleep with children and publicly defend that adults can sleep with children? What are the chances?

What are the chances of Michael being innocent with an entire conspiracy of kids, parents, witnesses, prosecutors, pollice officers and detectives trying to destroy him? What are the chances of these families and kids that Michael himself directly handpicked just all coincidentally turned out to be liars and manipulators?

What other examples make Michael Jackson mathematically impossible to be innocent?

View Poll

Michael Jackson fans constantly use the argument of a "Peter Pan Syndrome" to defend his questionable actions, but even this is completely fake.

First of all, obviously, if Michael had Peter Pan Syndrome it still wouldnt mean that he is inoccent. But thats not even the case. He has never been diagnosed by any professional. And most important: Peter Pan Syndrome isnt real.

Peter Pan Syndrome is not recognized by any serious doctor or psychiatrist, no health organization considers it real. It is a popular term, not a medical one. If you say that you know someone with Peter Pan Syndrome... you dont, there is no official diagnoses for it. Somone acting like a manchild isnt the same as having an actual syndrome. As far as science goes, the justification of Michael having Peter Pan syndrome is madeup.

View Poll

In one hand, if he was not convicted in 2005, his 1993 trial might have been the same. Specially because there would be even less witness and other victims coming out than in the 2005 trial. Even with the settlement, if they were so convinced Michael would have been convicted, the investigations wouldnt have stopped.

On the other hand, the genitalia descriptions were much stronger proofs than anything in the 2005 trial. But even though we all know many officers claimed the descriptions matched, there were some allegations that the match was not fully, that there were inconistencies. So, would this have been enough to convict Michael Jackson?