Pizzagate

[Flavus Aquila]

A bunch of crazy stretches of the imagination. No proof, just a bunch of weird allegation. It reads like a Dan Brown novel. You do realize the Da Vinci Code was fiction don't you?
People can use real things and creativity to invent stories that are far from the truth.

Here's a video for you:

You are right that famous and powerful men have gotten away with sex crimes, Trump is one of them:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...n-party-us-presidential-florida-a7360636.html

Even if there's nothing pedophile-sinister whatsoever in Washington (a naive view imo, given that there is probably a 5% prevalence in the population), this heightened vigilance is not a bad thing.

When looking at this speculation, I think it helps to keep in mind what the consequences are. (Not that consequentialism is the best exclusive guide for ethics).

This speculation might end with public-platform persons being speculated about unfavourably; but that will usually happen anyway. It is also likely that people will be more vigilant about child exploitation/abuse - a good outcome.

The fewer groups that are exempt from scrutiny in regards child welfare, the better imo.

Finally, if there is actually a real pedophile ring (or multiple rings) in DC, these kinds of speculations may uncover them.

I question the motives of anyone who ridicules and tries to suppress any scrutiny of child welfare. Wouldn't it make more sense to welcome investigations, to promote transparency, and to build a positive public profile?

When someone lashes out against scrutiny, it begs the question: What are they trying to hide?

The condemnation of fake news is a Washington/msm criticism of scrutiny... which is kind of worrying from the outset.

 

[dang]

@dang how much coverage did you expect Hastart to get, I read articles in the MSM and heard radio reports at length.What I did not see was a creepy conspiracy blossom on line. It appears that only non conservatives get that kind of treatment. It seems like such an obvious if not sick ploy, paint your political opponents as pedophiles and murderers. Why not when so many people are willing to believe it?
Attacking David Brock makes perfect sense. His site is widely quoted and for the most part seems factual. What better way to get folks to turn away then to make hard to verify claims about deviancy.

The point is that this is not a partisan issue. It is very possible that senators from both parties are involved in this type of activity. That is why the New York Times and Fox News would both automatically dismiss Pizzagate. Nobody in the establishment benefits from any further scrutiny.

 

[dang]

A bunch of crazy stretches of the imagination. No proof, just a bunch of weird allegation. It reads like a Dan Brown novel. You do realize the Da Vinci Code was fiction don't you?
People can use real things and creativity to invent stories that are far from the truth.

Here's a video for you:

You are right that famous and powerful men have gotten away with sex crimes, Trump is one of them:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...n-party-us-presidential-florida-a7360636.html

I would not be surprised if Donald has committed rape in the past. Bill Clinton probably has as well. I have never read a Dan Brown book or seen a movie based on one. You seem to be making assumptions about me. I do not care for republicans or democrats. I also never claimed that Pizzagate is true. Only that it warrants further investigation. There is no need to try to paint me as some type of crazy conspiracy theorist. I am simply a seeker who is interested in truth. If you think Pizzagate is a waste of time, why bother contributing to this thread? If there were a thread about the earth being flat I would ignore it as I know the earth is not flat. I am not trying to argue, just to explore possibilities. Once someone can convince me that Pizzagate is a false conspiracy theory, I will move on. Until then, I will pay attention.

 

[dang]

Some of us see something worth investigating while others swallow the prescribed, corporately sponsored narrative.

Lets not get emotionally caught up in trying to make others see what we see. Resist the temptation to do so.

Many people are not ready to accept the reality of what is actually occurring. They have made their choice.

Personally, I am still in shock, just barely beginning to comprehend the magnitude of the situation we face.

(more to come later)

I was initially exposed to the idea that powerful people all over the world engage in taboo behavior more than 15 years ago. After Jimmy Savile and the Catholic Church, it is seeming increasingly likely that this hypothesis could in fact be accurate. I hope it is refuted, but if these types of allegations are true, something must be done. I couldn't live with myself if I were to simply turn a blind eye to these types of events. I think it is preferable to be thorough than to be lazy. I think a cost benefit analysis of a Pizzagate investigation would result in supporting my position. Everyone should ask themselves a simple question: What if I am wrong? I have asked myself that question. I am afraid most people have not even considered it.

 

[dang]

Even if there's nothing pedophile-sinister whatsoever in Washington (a naive view imo, given that there is probably a 5% prevalence in the population), this heightened vigilance is not a bad thing.

When looking at this speculation, I think it helps to keep in mind what the consequences are. (Not that consequentialism is the best exclusive guide for ethics).

This speculation might end with public-platform persons being speculated about unfavourably; but that will usually happen anyway. It is also likely that people will be more vigilant about child exploitation/abuse - a good outcome.

The fewer groups that are exempt from scrutiny in regards child welfare, the better imo.

Finally, if there is actually a real pedophile ring (or multiple rings) in DC, these kinds of speculations may uncover them.

I question the motives of anyone who ridicules and tries to suppress any scrutiny of child welfare. Wouldn't it make more sense to welcome investigations, to promote transparency, and to build a positive public profile?

When someone lashes out against scrutiny, it begs the question: What are they trying to hide?

The condemnation of fake news is a Washington/msm criticism of scrutiny... which is kind of worrying from the outset.

Fake news could easily become an excuse for censorship.

 

[myself]

Ongoing investigation @ https://voat.co/v/pizzagate

 

[La Sagna]

Even if there's nothing pedophile-sinister whatsoever in Washington (a naive view imo, given that there is probably a 5% prevalence in the population), this heightened vigilance is not a bad thing.

When looking at this speculation, I think it helps to keep in mind what the consequences are. (Not that consequentialism is the best exclusive guide for ethics).

This speculation might end with public-platform persons being speculated about unfavourably; but that will usually happen anyway. It is also likely that people will be more vigilant about child exploitation/abuse - a good outcome.

The fewer groups that are exempt from scrutiny in regards child welfare, the better imo.

Finally, if there is actually a real pedophile ring (or multiple rings) in DC, these kinds of speculations may uncover them.

I question the motives of anyone who ridicules and tries to suppress any scrutiny of child welfare. Wouldn't it make more sense to welcome investigations, to promote transparency, and to build a positive public profile?

When someone lashes out against scrutiny, it begs the question: What are they trying to hide?

The condemnation of fake news is a Washington/msm criticism of scrutiny... which is kind of worrying from the outset.

Your whole last half of this post is an ad hominem. Questioning someone's motives by alleging they are not promoting child welfare is a distraction from the real issues. You are promoting accusing people of paedophilia on very flimsy evidence. I assume then that you would be ok with a man losing his kids, his job and having his name tarnished on the internet automatically without due process and having allegations against him scrutinised and verified? I believe in protecting children and anyone who has been abused and investigating thoroughly any accusations of abuse, but I also believe in due process and full investigations.
What if the business people who have been affected by this, like the owner of the pizza shop, are completely innocent and having their lives threatened? Is that ok? For the sake of accepting every titillating 'news' as possible truth? It is completely irresponsible to do so. Speculations can be made out of no substance whatsoever or using a little bit of truth and pilling on a bunch of sh*t to create something more interesting than truth.

There are whole departments of police forces dedicated to finding child abusers and rescuing victims. The people who do this are heroes because I can't imagine how soul crushing it is to have to see what they do in the name of saving kids. How about we let those people do their work instead of promoting internet bloggers to the level of law enforcement?

Isn't it funny how the people who tell us not to believe mainstream news are now upset at their fake news being questioned. WTF you can't have it both ways; don't believe 'all the mainstream media' but believe the stuff that's been proven false because it is 'worrying' to condemn fake news? Is it not also worrying to condemn 'real' news?

 

[Stu]

You have to ask yourself, why would anyone go through the trouble of concocting intricate stories like this? The Da Vinci Code analogy is germane because the novel demonstrates how a creative mind can take pieces of reality and create a convincing non reality. So why do it? Because a considerable portion of the electorate is open to believing it. By sowing doubt and suspicion in the leaders or ideology of a chosen opposition, elections can be swayed. Why do you think Gen Flynn was pushing this stuff? Could it be that as an intelligence officer who has studied the nefarious arts of political assassination that the FSB regularly employs he saw it as the way to get his guy elected?
Take a look at this spread sheet I laboriously created from the Public Policy Poling website, look at how many voters are inclined to believe in conspiracies. Why do you think Trump made so many allusions to crank internet theories?

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Your whole last half of this post is an ad hominem. Questioning someone's motives by alleging they are not promoting child welfare is a distraction from the real issues. You are promoting accusing people of paedophilia on very flimsy evidence. I assume then that you would be ok with a man losing his kids, his job and having his name tarnished on the internet automatically without due process and having allegations against him scrutinised and verified? I believe in protecting children and anyone who has been abused and investigating thoroughly any accusations of abuse, but I also believe in due process and full investigations.
What if the business people who have been affected by this, like the owner of the pizza shop, are completely innocent and having their lives threatened? Is that ok? For the sake of accepting every titillating 'news' as possible truth? It is completely irresponsible to do so. Speculations can be made out of no substance whatsoever or using a little bit of truth and pilling on a bunch of sh*t to create something more interesting than truth.

There are whole departments of police forces dedicated to finding child abusers and rescuing victims. The people who do this are heroes because I can't imagine how soul crushing it is to have to see what they do in the name of saving kids. How about we let those people do their work instead of promoting internet bloggers to the level of law enforcement?

Isn't it funny how the people who tell us not to believe mainstream news are now upset at their fake news being questioned. WTF you can't have it both ways; don't believe 'all the mainstream media' but believe the stuff that's been proven false because it is 'worrying' to condemn fake news? Is it not also worrying to condemn 'real' news?

I think you need to look up some definitions in a dictionary.

If pedophile investigation units are doing such a good job, why is it so rare that any public political persons are ever investigated?

Finally, there is a difference between media bias, and popular concern. If someone becomes the subject of popular concern, I think they should welcome closer scrutiny... unless they have something to hide.

 

[the]

I think you need to look up some definitions in a dictionary.

If pedophile investigation units are doing such a good job, why is it so rare that any public political persons are ever investigated?

Finally, there is a difference between media bias, and popular concern. If someone becomes the subject of popular concern, I think they should welcome closer scrutiny... unless they have something to hide.

Stop being so technical. The heart knows what is right.

 

[Stu]

Stop being so technical. The heart knows what is right.

BTW, I am proud of you for voting, my very first (of frickin many) thumbs down on this forum was from your on a post in which I encouraged everyone to vote.

 

[the]

BTW, I am proud of you for voting, my very first (of frickin many) thumbs down on this forum was from your on a post in which I encouraged everyone to vote.

I was many peoples first neg rep and thumbs down. The mods have decided to make me obsolete. I'm sure the thumbs down was warranted but I've always considered you one of my favorite forum participants.

Edit: I had to look at the first page real quick, there is not a poll being taken there. I am not sure where you believe I voted at. I assure you it wasn't in this election.

 

[Stu]

Bull, you pullled the lever for DJ, man up and admit it

 

[Flavus Aquila]

You have to ask yourself, why would anyone go through the trouble of concocting intricate stories like this? The Da Vinci Code analogy is germane because the novel demonstrates how a creative mind can take pieces of reality and create a convincing non reality. So why do it? Because a considerable portion of the electorate is open to believing it. By sowing doubt and suspicion in the leaders or ideology of a chosen opposition, elections can be swayed. Why do you think Gen Flynn was pushing this stuff? Could it be that as an intelligence officer who has studied the nefarious arts of political assassination that the FSB regularly employs he saw it as the way to get his guy elected?
Take a look at this spread sheet I laboriously created from the Public Policy Poling website, look at how many voters are inclined to believe in conspiracies. Why do you think Trump made so many allusions to crank internet theories?View attachment 31148

Why are you going to the trouble of concocting a complicated story about election swaying, about tweets sent after the election?

Isn't it more likely that as an intelligence officer, he would be aware of some of the nefarious proclivities some Washington elite indulge in?

 

[La Sagna]

I think you need to look up some definitions in a dictionary.

If pedophile investigation units are doing such a good job, why is it so rare that any public political persons are ever investigated?

Finally, there is a difference between media bias, and popular concern. If someone becomes the subject of popular concern, I think they should welcome closer scrutiny... unless they have something to hide.

I think you need to look up some definitions in a dictionary.

If pedophile investigation units are doing such a good job, why is it so rare that any public political persons are ever investigated?

Finally, there is a difference between media bias, and popular concern. If someone becomes the subject of popular concern, I think they should welcome closer scrutiny... unless they have something to hide.

I know my definitions, thanks. Your use of distraction techniques to make it seem like I am not as smart as you is typical when people don't have a good argument to make.

The pedophile investigations do what they can but there have bigger fish to fry than politicians. Why are you so certain that politicians are rife with pedophiles? Most people aren't politicians, ergo most pedophiles aren't politicians, so concentrating your efforts on that group would likely be a massive waste of resources. And if they get some credible information they probably do investigate politicians. How do you know they haven't investigated politicians but have found no evidence? Thankfully not everything the police does is on the 'news'. Is the point of these investigations to save children? or just to appeal to the mass hysteria of false news enthusiasts?

People don't have to have something to hide to not want to have their livelihood threatened and their reputation put through the mud because of false accusations.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I know my definitions, thanks. Your use of distraction techniques to make it seem like I am not as smart as you is typical when people don't have a good argument to make.

The pedophile investigations do what they can but there have bigger fish to fry than politicians. Why are you so certain that politicians are rife with pedophiles? Most people aren't politicians, ergo most pedophiles aren't politicians, so concentrating your efforts on that group would likely be a massive waste of resources. And if they get some credible information they probably do investigate politicians. How do you know they haven't investigated politicians but have found no evidence? Thankfully not everything the police does is on the 'news'. Is the point of these investigations to save children? or just to appeal to the mass hysteria of false news enthusiasts?

People don't have to have something to hide to not want to have their livelihood threatened and their reputation put through the mud because of false accusations.

Institutions of power/influence are more effective in harbouring/covering-up criminal collusion. They require more attention, because they are more impervious to investigation.

Britain is going through this with their parliament, various churches have gone through this, Washington needs to go through this. The first two examples started as popular concern, the last has concocted a narrative of dangerous fake news to protect itself from scrutiny.

You can argue that the political subculture should be exempt from public scrutiny, and subject to official investigation only. Unfortunately, self-investigation within subcultures of power don't have a track record which inspire any confidence whatsoever.

 

[La Sagna]

Institutions of power/influence are more effective in harbouring/covering-up criminal collusion. They require more attention, because they are more impervious to investigation.

Britain is going through this with their parliament, various churches have gone through this, Washington needs to go through this. The first two examples started as popular concern, the last has concocted a narrative of dangerous fake news to protect itself from scrutiny.

You can argue that the political subculture should be exempt from public scrutiny, and subject to official investigation only. Unfortunately, self-investigation within subcultures of power don't have a track record which inspire any confidence whatsoever.

I am not at all against public scrutiny for politicians. I think it's part of the job, as it should be. However, Pizzagate takes some large stretches of the imagination and is full of lies and half-truths. That's not scrutiny, that's defamation and character assassination. Being critical of fake news is not saying that scrutiny is not allowed. If anything, false news takes away from real threats and makes us question everything, which then may let real issues slide under the radar because they aren't as exciting as the story lines created by fake news. I think this is exactly what Republicans want (not all Republicans, just douchebag ones which unfortunately there are way too many of), if they make up stories that are so horrifying then they will get away with doing bad things, which compared to a pedophile ring wont' seem so bad.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I am not at all against public scrutiny for politicians. I think it's part of the job, as it should be. However, Pizzagate takes some large stretches of the imagination and is full of lies and half-truths. That's not scrutiny, that's defamation and character assassination. Being critical of fake news is not saying that scrutiny is not allowed. If anything, false news takes away from real threats and makes us question everything, which then may let real issues slide under the radar because they aren't as exciting as the story lines created by fake news. I think this is exactly what Republicans want (not all Republicans, just douchebag ones which unfortunately there are way too many of), if they make up stories that are so horrifying then they will get away with doing bad things, which compared to a pedophile ring wont' seem so bad.

Pizzagate is almost exclusively a non-media conversation. The only coverage it gets in the msm is in connection to pro-censorship agendas for social media.

Your worries about political redirection seem pretty null.

 

[myself]

Arguing with others is not the way. We are wasting our time when we bicker.

Fighting breaks down communication. Neither side will benefit.

Lets contribute thought provoking exchanges. Lets ask genuine questions, and welcome those sharing insights.

Take extra care to be aware and exercise self control, or else one may unconsciously act as an adversarial agent, contributing strife, anger, friction, fear, and division.

Be especially cautious of any message coming from the mainstream media.
I recommend examining information from a wide variety of sources.

Be eclectic in your research, and don't let others do your thinking for you.

Time and effort is required to dig deep.

In some cases, investigation alone can get you killed.
This is serious, serious business.
While child sex trafficking is actually happening, why aren't more MSM journalists exposing this reality?

 

[the]

omg fake news guys lets bury this story!