Summations Only

Yeah it's certainly pretty out there. I find the very fact that people can get off on abusing children to be absurd, yet they can. I find the fact that we live at the mercy of a ponzi-scheme financial system to be absurd, yet we do. I find it absurd that people living in the 21st century still believe in Bronze Age fairy tales, but they do. I find it absurd that the US govt would plan false flag attacks on its own citizens to provide justification for war against Cuba, but they did. I find it absurd that people think bombing and invading Muslim countries is going to help solve problems that were largely created in the first place by bombing and invading Muslim countries, but they do.The only conclusion I can draw here is that a persons subjective assessment of an idea being absurd is not in itself evidence against that idea. Since the argument from absurdity demonstrably does not lead to certain conclusions, it would be irrational to take a position of certainty based on that line of reasoning alone. I guess it would depend on whether the emails made more sense with or without the code. I couldn't rationally dismiss the claim based on perceived absurdity alone. Those things are not comparable to the allegations of a VIP child abuse ring. Evidence exists contradicting the possibility of Jesus riding dinosaurs or a 6000 year old earth. Aliens are completely unevidenced entities. A VIP child abuse ring doesn't invoke magic or unevidenced entities. It claims only that humans are doing things that humans are known to do.We know that humans abuse children. We know that groups of people conspire to that end. We know that the elite suffer from a higher rate of pyscopathy than the general population. We know that the elite participate in unusual rituals - spirit cooking and whatever they do at bohemian grove.We have sworn testimony from people across the world that they were abused by VIP's in a ritualistic fashion. Most of them have been deemed not credible based solely on the fact that their stories sound absurd. Given the above, the general allegation that a VIP child abuse ring exists is not that absurd at all. First you stated that codes were used not to be unbreakable but to provide plausible deniablilty, now you're saying the code is a failure because it was cracked. Which is it?Assuming it is a code, not only have they maintained plausible deniability but they also have an army of people like you willing to ridicule anyone who doesn't immediately dismiss the claims. I'd be pretty happy with it, myself.

Sounds sensible. You should probably also conclude that someone saying something is nonsense and absurd is not intended to be evidence. Of course. One doesn't get to certainty when it comes to negatives. Sure, the moon landings may have been a hoax to cover up the disappearance of Lord Lucan. I can't prove a negative, only point out its absurdity. Might I suggest a concept called skepticism? Its one where you don't believe something unless there is evidence for it. The anonymous claims of 4chan trolls of common codes do not constitute evidence. Innuendo is not evidence. Photographs of people wearing T-shirts of their business is not evidence of child abuse. Photographs of freezers is not evidence of kill rooms. Indeed. For instance, is it more sensible for someone to email from a work email to someone in politics to ask if they want a handkerchief that has a map to an event they are publicly organising {with, on, around} it returning or does it make more sense for someone to email from said address to ask if they wanted a handkerchief returned that was covered in semen from raping children/masturbating to child porn? I know when my friends 'come over' {heh} and leave their semen stained items on the kitchen island - my first instinct is to get on email and ask them if they want it back. The existence of a VIP child abuse ring wasn't what I was calling absurd, indeed I insisted such things existed. It was the unevidenced ridiculousness of the specific claims in question that I was drawing comparisons to. Yes, for public discussions the codes are not intended to be unbreakable because you are talking with strangers. They are meant to hint to the knowing while allowing someone to back off and give the impression one can avoid legal problems should a knowing non-participant 'overhear'. They are designed to allow searches to be carried out without (the paedophile hopes) raising flags with the ISP or the search engine they are using.A private sex ring does not need to do this. They can arrange their own coding system. Well I can laugh about it because it resembles no porn/abuse code I've ever come across. Cheese Pizza is about the closest to the truth of any of it - and that is a bit of a push, but the rest is basically confabulated for titilation. Feel free to demonstrate my wrongness, but just because 'cp' is a code that is used - it doesn't mean powerful people talking about Comet Pizza, Cinnamon Poptarts, Camomile Potions, Corpuscular Photons, Classical Poetry, Canadian Police, Colourful Pens, Crepe Paper, Cream Puffs, Cecil Parkinson, Crazy People or even Complete Poppycock is evidence they are secretly talking about child porn.And apparently there are so many credulous, I mean open-minded, folk like Faith and yourself, that find any 'denial' implausible that it seems to have failed spectacularly. And all this Elite VIP Child Sex ring had to do, was use anonymous emails, invent their own coding system and avoid CCing journalists into their discussions.You know what also exists, and are vastly more common that VIP sex rings who use work email addresses or even just email addresses with their real names in them, 'commonly known' codes and cc journalists into their discussions? Liars and trolls on the internet. Unless you can provide some actual evidence here, the weight of probabilities is overwhelmingly in favour that this is a bunch of lies cooked up to spread doubts about John Podesta and through guilt by association, Hillary Clinton.

quote:

---

La calunnia un venticello,
un'auretta assai gentile
che insensibile, sottile,
leggermente, dolcemente
incomincia,
incomincia a sussurrar
Piano piano, terra terra,
sottovoce, sibilando,
va scorrendo, va scorrendo
va ronzando, va ronzando;
nell'orecchie della gente
s'introduce,
s'introduce destramente,
e le teste ed i cervelli,
e le teste ed i cervelli fa stordire,
fa stordire e fa gonfiar.
Dalla bocca fuori uscendo
lo schiamazzo va crescendo
prende forza a poco a poco,
vola gi di loco in loco;
sembra il tuono, la tempesta
che nel sen della foresta
va fischiando,
brontolando, e ti fa d'orror gelar.
Alla fin trabocca e scoppia,
si propaga, si raddoppia
e produce un'esplosione
come un colpo di cannone,
come un colpo di cannone.
Un tremuoto, un temporale,
Un tumulto generale
che fa l'aria rimbombar!
E il meschino calunniato,
avvilito, calpestato,
sotto il pubblico flagello
per gran sorte ha crepar.
E il meschino calunniato,
avvilito, calpestato,
sotto il pubblico flagello
per gran sorte ha crepa

---

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I can watch a lot of these videos, but as usual just a few minutes is all I ask of anti-Trumpers. Here's the latest report on Sweden by Paul Watson at Infowars. The theme is fake news because videos like this are necessary to get the truth across, because otherwise all we get is fake news. If you're only going to watch a few minutes, start around 4:30 or 5::00.And I might as well put up an older one by Watson on the plots against Trump:Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You mean more fake news surely. They certainly aren't countering fake news stories. Nobody made anything much of the Swedish crime figures until the claims of a crime wave started making the rounds - and those crime figures qualify as genuine news until they are shown to be false. And nobody is publishing stories claiming that there are no assassination plots against Trump (the absence of assassination plots is not news)Seriously, why should we trust these especially when they come from a source notorious for producing fake news.

I don't expect anyone to trust them who has his mind as totally made up as yours is. The hope of course is that there may be some others who have better judgment.

I could actually be convinced if you had good evidence.But falsehoods, unbalanced stories and rationalisations won't do it.There is a massive difference between prejudice and good judgement and your equation of the two does you no favours.

Yes but that's what I meant. The videos are good evidence.Of course maybe we could get up a fund and send you to Sweden to see for yourself what's going on there?

No they are not "good evidence". They are propaganda.And to remind you that your idea of "good" is often wrong I will point out that an argument with a fatal flaw is not a "good argument" - no matter how much you like it. Claimimg otherwise is foolishly wrong.

Very bad judgment as I said.''

Very bad judgment as I said.I don't think you know what propaganda is.In any case, the problem here is that the truth is being suppressed, and the videos are just some of the attempts to expose it. It's hard to expose something that is being lied about on a huge scale. And if you don't take that possibility into account you'll never figure out what's going on, in Europe, in Sweden, or in the fake news about Trump. The evidence IS there, but you have to approach it without prejudgment.

You say it is bad judgement but you only mean that it disagrees with your judgement - which has been shown to be ridiculously bad on more than one occasion.Before you can honestly claim that the truth is being suppressed you have to determine the truth. And you refuse to make the effort to honestly do that preferring your evil prejudices instead. Your real complaint is that the truths you don't like are NOT being suppressed.

Do you have any argument at all other than "look at this video"?You are not going to convince anyone this way. All you are doing is giving us insight into how your own thinking process works. You tried this same crap in the vaccine debate. In another discussion you tried to convince me that the Pope was the anti-Christ with a cartoon video.

This is as good a description of propaganda as I've read: I'm not a fan of the feminine characterisation, but the rest of it is a masterclass.

That's cool, I can use whatever definition. Right on, just don't expect me to provide wiki-defined examples of fake news to evidence Trump-defined claims of fake news. When Trump called the New York Times, CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS fake news in his tweet, I think he was talking more like I am than the wiki-definition.So you can't expect me to use the wiki-definition to provide examples of what I think Trump was talking about. If that's just off the table, then that's fine too. We're in agreement, "never" was hyperbole. Okay, I doubt I'm in agreement with what we should be talking about when we discuss "fake news".In my opinion, mainstream media publishing blatantly false stories and refusing to correct them is not a problem that we have today.On the other hand, passing off partisan opinions that spin the truth so far that it's barely recognizeable is something that we do have a problem with.For example, when I heard in the mainstream news that Trump passed an executive order to ban muslims I was shocked. So I went to the executive order, itself, and read it. It was temporary and didn't mention the word "muslim" once. "Muslim ban", pssh, what a load of bullshit. That's scary. And these people vote on politicians. I'm going from memeory here, and honeslty I'd have to look into it more before I came to a conclusion, but when I saw Trump calling CNN fake news I didn't see that being because they reported on the existence of the dossier, but instead what they said about it. I'm not sure though, I'll have to look further. I'm probably just going to bow out. I'm operating under a fairly different definition, and really to get into what I'm talking about would be pretty long winded.Like with calling that executive order a muslim ban. It's not a simple exercise of is it true or false. It's layers of details that all can be spun in different directions to build a narative closer to what you want to end up saying. Did it ban muslims? Did it ban muslims? No, it didn't. But if you look at it this way and call that this, then you can call it a muslim ban and not really be saying a blatant falsehood.Getting down to that level of detail and arguing about what words mean isn't really something that I'm interested in. Bitch I might be. Just avoid the mainstream... Court cases, and laws, and executive orders are available online outside of news sources. There isn't always a source. And those are the cases where your reading hearsay. Why cloud your judgement with such drivel?

Formal definitions seem to function to obscure the truth. I know what I'm posting is the truth, what can I possibly do to convince anyone else? I don't know, how does one prove something is going on across the world that is denied by major sources of information? There are lots of people telling the truth but you all refuse to believe it. I guess it's hopeless. Political correctness rules. Nobody here wants to believe the truth about what's going on in Europe. Deep grief. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.