Summations Only

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.

How?You posted one video that said essentially that 'The numbers don't exist but we know Sweden's 'rape problem' is due to immigration because foreign right-wing newspapers like the Daily Caller and the Daily Mail report rapes weekly - and even though there are tens of thousands of rapes - and only 52 weeks in a year - we know this accounts for a rise in the order of tens or hundreds of thousands of rapes'. That doesn't seem like sound reasoning to me. I live there, in a Muslim dense area. Are you suggesting what you are reading in biased American news media trumps the life I am living?

No, they aren't. They are citing their perception of absurdity as a reason for not believing something. Might I suggest you follow your own preaching? I am certain that building a specific theory of a child sex ring on the evidence presented is absurd. I am no more certain of their falsity as I am of any other grouping of people being involved in a child sex ring. The probability of any given group is low, but some groups obviously exist.To suppose an email about handkerchiefs, a pool party of colleagues, friends and family, questions about unexpected gifts of cheese is any way suggestive of a child sex ring, however, is absurd. Their is lots of weirdness in the world. I will mock the idea that this is indicative of child abuse. There is a photo of me wearing a bear costume with a child dressed as a dog barking at a stuffed sheep while someone in the background is balancing a lemon on spoon. That photo of me in my profile pic as at a wedding. Strange things, for some people I'm sure. She's sat at the table (or standing, its not definitive), not bent over it. That you are remembering her being bent over it is strange. It's a funny picture, suggestive to me of the restlessness of kids at restaurants and how it is difficult to keep them at their seat. There is a picture of my wife as a teenager being tied to a pole by her father in a 'sacrifice a virgin to the gods' joke - should I be worried? But this isn't what happened though is it? The picture didn't have the caption 'murder'. It was posted, a commenter added a comment of #killroom, jimmycomet added the comment #murder then someone else posited a Drunk Tank, another person made reference to a minimalist artist and another poster commented its were werewolves lock themselves in during a fool moon.Unless someone is priming you with spooky music and claims of nefarious goings on, its not that odd. Especially since the freezer was subsequently used to store food at a low temperature.Yes, to go from other people's public banter about the uses of an empty freezer room to 'these people are child murdering rapists' is absurd. And yet that's what some people did. And it was absurd of them to do so. As I've said, I am only ridiculing you if you think the evidence builds a prima facie case of a child sex ring. Since you claim not to think that, I can't be ridiculing you.I might mock you for exaggerating my position as a personal attack against you or that I'm going to great lengths to manipulate you or others into thinking that all the people involved are completely proven to be innocent of all alleged crimes. I think I do have the right to do that. So? No. Kathryn Tate sent an email that said this:

quote:

---

I just came from checking the Field house and I have a square cloth handkerchief (white w/ black) that was left on the kitchen island.

---

Note, while describing the handkerchief she doesn't mention any distinguishing characteristics such as a map drawn on it, or semen being encrusted on it.The person Ms. Tate sent that to forwarded it to John Podesta to ask if it was his. She seems party some information not contained in the email chain that a map is involved - perhaps that's why she thinks it might Podesta's since he is in fact organizing a pizza party at the time. It doesn't say the the map is drawn on the hanky, that is one possibility.. The handkerchief may have a map drawn, or printed inside it, underneath it or in some other way. The email is ambiguous on this point (simply using the verb form 'has'), presumably because the sender didn't think strangers would be reading it and the intended recipient would understand in what way it 'has' a map Indeed, it's strange that you felt the need to get on a high horse about how it might be true. It can't be proven to be false. But then, of course it can't. That's the nature of these kinds of allegations - I can't prove anybody isn't abusing children unless I had a film detailing every minute of their life.To give these allegations more weight than any other similarly evidenced allegations is epistemologically problematic (is that a term that is sufficiently neutral for you?). Well, yeah it does. And the comparison I was drawing wasn't regarding the magical nature of the humans. You can't prove that dinosaurs didn't co-exist with humans, for a start. You can't prove that dinosaurs are presently extinct, to continue. You can't prove Jesus wasn't magical. You can't prove that Ghandi didn't suck Hitler's cock. You can't prove that you aren't a motherfucker. You can't prove Mr Rogers wasn't a child rapist. You can't prove the moon landings aren't an elaborate hoax. All you can do is say 'do you have any evidence that dinosaurs exist, that Ghandi sucked Hitler's cock that the Catholic church is working with the Jews and Muslims to infiltrate American Universities and install socialism so as to issue in the New World Order' and either point out any proferred evidence is insufficient to draw the conclusions or, if the evidence is woefully lacking and the claims overly insistent or specific - mock those that hold them in the hopes of deflating their potency or dissuading the individual from spreading what basically amounts to lies, deceptions, propaganda and libel.You know, before someone charges into a family restaurant with a firearm demanding to see the rape tunnels. So what a code that random members of the public couldn't know. It would work better. And also, they weren't in public. These are private emails. Fantastic. Same here. I see no evidence it is an actual common code. I've seen some of those common codes, and this resembles none of them except the common feature of 'cp'. Further - given how famous the claim is, and that I have seen no credible source back it up, that strongly reinforces that it is bullshit. You want me to prove that liars are more common that child abusers with maths? Erm OK, I'll do my best: To a reasonable approximation all child abusers are liars. And there are lots of liars who haven't abused children. Really? You haven't for instance, been reading what I've been saying? I don't think it is a paedo code. The people that do, all seem to ultiumately point to the same source - an anonymous unsourced claim of a 4chan poster. While many people may be poor assessors of evidence, I don't think you can find much in the way of credible named researchers, social workers, ISP professionals, or Law Enforcement agencies that will back it up as a code that existed at the time of the emails. It's as if the code was created by said 4chan user, but feel free to correct me rather than wasting time chastising me, rather than discussing whether this is as fake as 'Lord Lucan on the moon', 'Giant crab attacks portsmouth', 'Aliens impregnated my daughter', 'Obama is a Kenyan Muslim with a gay Muslim lover who is going to steal your guns and import millions of Muslims, ignore the term limits and establish an American Caliphate'. Apparently you missed the point entirely. Let me try again. By mocking the position I am either deflating its potency - or putting myself at risk of being embarassingly wrong. I am giving you, or anyone else, a big target. I am taking a rhetorical risk. Either I am embarrassed, or the believer is.Is it insulting to be called gullible? Is it insulting to be exposed as a credulous dupe? Perhaps. But it is more so if you (2nd person plural, before you (1st person singular) get upset) stubbornly stick to your story without justifying your belief.In the war against Fake News sometimes we have the luxury of being able to dispute the facts. With an unfalsifiable claim such as this one, all we can do is mock people for extrapolating from tenuous facts to extreme conclusions and show the reasoning is flawed and challenge those people to do better or to give up their inane theory.If you have a better strategy, I'm all ears. All you have done is take offence at me mocking a baseless conspiracy theory. I can only go off your actions and words here. On the one hand you back away from belief, but on the other hand you accuse me of taking shots at you when I am mocking the conspiracy theory and those that believe it. The point I was making in the case you are replying to is that some people don't find the 'denials' (note the quote marks) of the alleged child abusers 'plausible'. At best you think they are 'strange' or 'weird' and their strangeness gives credibility to the coded nefariousness theory. So as a code that is intended to give plausible deniability, even for someone open minded like you, or credulous like Faith, or utterly hopelessly foolish like Edgar Maddison Welch it has evidently failed. As it would be expected to if it was the kind of code some random troll on 4chan could crack and expose. A situation that could have been avoided by taking perfectly sensible precautions like using a code only known to the people involved - as everybody else in the universe does unless they are trying to communicate with strangers they haven't had the opportunity to agree a more secret code with in a public space such as the street or in internet chatrooms where these codes actually are used for the reasons I gave.As such, it makes the story less credible that they are using this kind of code in this kind of fashion. It is not the behaviour of an elite sex ring. Nor is copying in journalists. Nor is using emails that are being stored on a business email server. These things make the story more and more incredible. Saying 'well it seems to work because there exists an 'army of people like you willing to ridicule anyone who doesn't immediately dismiss the claims' is needlessly personally confrontational, generating more heat than light and misses the point that apparently the plausibility of the denials is not in fact preserved as the intended purpose (which I don't argue is a successful strategy, we're talking about low level wierdos in chatrooms, not elite sex rings - the kind that think 'are you a cop' has to be answered honestly, using 'codes' makes them feel a little safer in the crimes, even though - if they are so common 'everybody', as you say, thinks they're a paedo code on whatever basis you think they have for that - that would mean judges and prosecutors and juries won't be fooled either, so it won't really work - and I think an elite sex ring would know this)However, you have at least explicitly stated you don't believe the claims, so that's something. And I hope now, after another round of explaining it that I am not attempting to 'humiliate them into accepting {my} conclusion' (as you repeatedly claim despite my saying otherwise) but rather attempting to use the humiliation of mockery to motivate people to either produce evidence to prove me wrong, or to reassess the strength of their convictions and to reconsider their epistemological model of believing what some 'guy on the internet said'. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Technically they are claiming that the questions they were asked, were different from the questions the documentary suggests they were being asked. It's a classic propaganda technique. Take something like this:

quote:

---

Q: 'What do you think about transgender folk?'
A: 'I think there are demons involved that creates some kind of psychological pressure. I think they are engaging in an abomination'

​

Q: 'What do you think about Catholics?'
A: 'They completely misunderstand the Bible and are in collusion with socialists to undermine education and engage in revisionist history'

---

Redub the interview and you can get:

quote:

---

Q: 'What do you think about Conservatives?'
A: 'I think there are demons involved that creates some kind of psychological pressure. I think they are engaging in an abomination'

​

Q: 'What do you think about Protestants?'
A: 'They completely misunderstand the Bible and are in collusion with socialists to undermine education and engage in revisionist history'

---

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Oh good. At last. I call it 'absurd' and get an earful. Glad to see we actually agree. Makes me wonder why this exchange happened in the first place. Here is what started it:

quote:

---

Clearly a reference to a secret map to a child abuse den. Or maybe the person was organising a pizza party and drew a map on a handkerchief. Or maybe the map was a separate item entirely, that the handkerchief was wrapped around or placed upon. Nah, probably child abuse code, right?

---

That was me, saying it was silly to go from maps and handkerchiefs to child abuse dens and secret codes. You went all confrontational in response:

quote:

---

You aren't normally an arrogant, condescending prick Mod. What gives?

​

All you seem to be saying is that if you can imagine some innocent way of interpreting the emails they must be innocent.

---

My response?

quote:

---

I don't see any reason to suppose they are evidence of a child sex ring - and will mock those that do.

---

Apparently, you agree that there is no reason to suppose they are evidence of a child sex ring. All this has been a pointless chastisement of me because you don't like a little tongue in cheek sarcasm. You don't provide evidence for this latest uncivil attack, I notice. Yes, we agree on the relative probability of Jesus on dinosaurs issue; but I didn't dismiss the distinction - just pointed out it missed the point. The point was about unfalsifiable claims built off stupendously absurd reasoning (abe: and how and why I will use mockery - see Message 181) , not a point about the equality of absurdity of those claims. That's the third time I've said this now.abe:

quote:

---

quote:

---

It makes you feel superior, does it? Or is it just about trying to humiliate the person into accepting your opinions on the matter?

---

​

Close. It's the same reason I mock people who believe in time cubed, that aliens shot Kennedy, that the earth is 6,000 years old and Jesus rode a dinosaur.Reason clearly doesn't work, and sometimes embarrassing people does make them work a little harder than they had previously been doing to justify their beliefs.

---

Great. Given the child sex rings exist, the proposition that in on such child sex ring, one of their members was John David Podesta (born January 8, 1949), a columnist and former chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign is still a specifically unevidenced assertion.I'm not suggesting you hold anything more than the same tentativity you have over every other human in the world and the accusation they are involved in any activity, including criminal ones. I am merely suggesting that abandoning this tentativity is credulousness and the epistemological leaps required to reach the conclusions reached is absurd.Apparently you agree with me, but not before hurling a few insults and innuendo in my direction. Not sure what that achieved. I adopt a number of strategies, mockery is amongst them. I also deploy reason - such as the numerous reasons to doubt I have given to you. I don't think I stated it would 'prevent' anything. I did suggest that dissuading people from errant libellous nonsense is probably something one should do, and pointed to a specific consequence of people not being persuaded away from the crazy. The position 'I can't dismiss it as false' it not particularly persuasive to that end, regardless of how true it is. I'm not sure if anyone explained to Edgar Maddison Welch that they couldn't dismiss his theory on the face of it and that it was more plausible than Jesus walking on water prior to his offences; nevertheless you should be able to see that your intentions could really backfire. Perhaps embarrassing some gullible believers will dissuade others from joining in and prove to be a safer strategy.Hey - how about we use mockery, humour, wit and reason in combination to encourage a diversity of people who respond in different ways, to reconsider foolish notions?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

A few people saying some things is probably of less value than the collated statements from all law enforcement. The latter results in statistics. The former is prone to an individual's bias. Given the fact there is too much good reason for the videos to be faked to validate the right-wing narrative over fears of immigration, it's at best a wash. Let's take a look again then, shall we? "Sweden Before And After Mass Immigration" by Blot-Sven OdenskarlIt shows peaceful traditional practices contrasted with scenes of violence. It doesn't give any idea on how many scenes of violence there were before, nor does it comment on the peaceful traditional practices that still go on today in Sweden. It has no probative value. "The Rape of Sweden", Feminist InfrequencyCites '55' areas so bad they are on a black list. They're poor areas which are high crime rates.Calls Peter Larsson a 'police chief' when in fact, he's a beat officer.Lars Frstell, police spokesman says there is 'nothing special about right now', dismisses as unevidenced that this is related to refugees and indeed, points to gang violence in Sweden going back to 2008 - even back to the 90s.There is no such thing {as no go zones}, says Erik kerlund - an actual police chief - there are areas where the police focus their efforts due to high crime.Strangely he says most applicants are young unmarried unaccompanied males, not the women and children the 'media' would have you believe - but then shows images of refugees who are largely women and children.The name of his channel gives away his origins. The channel being created to 'counter' Anita Sarkeesian of Feminist Frequency. Why are so many of these videos associated with misogynists and gamer-gate bros? "Welcome to Sweden" - Angry Foreigner 'Angry Foreigner' is a Bosnian immigrant - he came to Sweden when his Muslim parents moved there with him as a child in the 90s. He also hates feminists. Enough said. "The Truth About Sweden" - Paul Joseph WatsonIssues a challenge to lefties to visit Sweden themselves. I haven't, but I've had one friend who has been there 3 times this year, and another who goes there every other year or. They say it's lovely.Paul Joseph Watson is the credulous gullible fool that swallowed Fake News a while back, and published it on InfoWars - without asking for any evidence or validating his source (who admits it was a prank).He also released a video called 'The Male Backlash Against Toxic Women' about a 'lifestyle optimisation program' that
1) Understanding 'game' and the true nature of women
2) Self-improvement - to be more independent to 'boost their sexual market value' making it easier to attract women
3) Weightlifting
3) {Yes there are two number 3s} - Lifestyle optimisation
3) {actually there three number 3s} Rejecting dependencyThis requires 'high levels of testosterone'. You see women don't need men because of the welfare state. Women have become like men and 'sleep around' with 'bad boys' instead of committing to a 'nice guy'. This explains why neomasculinists have to manipulate women which is why 'pick up artists' are more popular than ever before.Basically he's bitter because he's an arsehole that thinks he isn't an arsehole and women don't like him.So what about his video on Sweden? It regurgitates many of the same claims already made a dozen times. It mentions Malmo as the 'Chicago of Sweden' and how its murder rate is higher than....Paris. Oh. And its also less than 1/7th of Chicago. Hrm. Yeah, this guy is...an unreliable reporter. "What They're NOT Telling You About Sweden " - Paul Joseph WatsonSame guy so not wasting too much time on this one "Sweden's Migrant Rape Epidemic" - Gatestone InstituteGatestone Institute of course has been linked to numerous false fear-mongering about Islam. What do they say? Apparently they don't have access to the numbers, but there must be a rape epidemic caused by immigrants because the Daily Mail says so. That's it? Oh no, the Daily Caller too.Yeah, there may be truths about what is happening in Sweden, but these sources are not the kind of analysts I'll rely on to get at them, I think.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Strong suggestions are how propaganda works. I'd prefer something better, personally. As I detailed in last post, no.
Blot-Sven Odenskarl is an unknown and his video contains no information, just propaganda.
Feminist Infrequency posted deceptive information and is one of those misogynist gamer-gate bros who rails against the evils of feminists. Not particularly credible.
Angry Foreigner is a Bosnian immigrant. That is, he and his parents were once those Muslim immigrants he rails against.
Paul Joseph Watson fell for Fake News and published it on Infowars. He rails against the fact that women don't find his toxic nature attractive and turns to manipulation and weightlifting to try and fix this. He has other videos such as 'Why Are Feminists Fat & Ugly?', 'Sexodus: Why Are Young Men Giving Up On Women?'. 3-500K typically. And yes, right wing nutters can actually become popular enough to get a few hundred thousand hits. There are some pretty crazy conspiracy videos with comparable views. It isn't a big problem. It's an important issue. A reasonable light won't be shed by fake news, however. Well anti-immigration supporters feel the need, clearly. It's not clear, at all. How about you attempt to transcend the right-wing narrative and try to understand the issue outside of youtube based propaganda? If you were to have a reasonable discussion about immigration issues, you might find agreement. Posting videos that look at some issues in exclusion from other issues painting a slanted picture of reality is obviously going to get pushback.

quote:

---

Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

---

If so, then blame God - he sent it.

There is a world of difference between being asked to do something and being forced to do something. There is a world of difference between giving and renting.Homeowners forced to give up their homes! Is FAKE NEWS. Its propaganda.Homeowners asked if they would be prepared to rent out any uninhabited residential properties they own in order to help other people during a shortage. Is real news."Sweden's leader -- is he a Prime Minister? Not sure but whatever he is he actually said it would be just fine if the refugees took over Sweden, if they became Sweden." This fake news. It's propaganda. Even the video you got this quote from doesn't print his words to say that. The quote has him saying Sweden is stronger for having immigrants make it what it is. Why would you trust an atheist Muslim immigrant's version of events, Faith? Here are his actual words:And now with nuance:

What browser do you use? There are tools out there for inverting colours and making text white with dark backgrounds and things. Here are some examples:Dark Reader - Chrome Web StoreInvert Colors — Get this Extension for Firefox (en-GB)How to Enable Dark Theme on Edge Browser | Laptop Mag

Hundreds of videos.
10s of millions of Muslims.We should be concerned?