I needed a diversion so I came here for an hour.

[subllibrm]

Nope!

Someone did something or they wouldn't have the email.

 

[Ekklesian]

Take the Epstein files. That’s a coverup of the worst kind. No one has been arrested. Our government is covering for a group of people.

Which group?

And who were they?

Your inability to name names is easy to misunderstand. You're imagining it.

Nice little bait and switch there, Nancy. Your question wasn't who are the individuals, it was which group is being protected. Now you assert the group is imaginary because the individuals can't be named? So a trafficking network, victims, but the johns are all imaginary.

Way to bat for Kash, there buddy.

 

[Ransom]

Now you assert the group is imaginary because the individuals can't be named?

Apart from your mom.

 

[Ekklesian]

Apart from your mom.

If you can't name my mom, she don't exist.


Here's something for your fantasies, tho'. Don't them eyes, just beckon ya?

 

[Ransom]

Imagine standing up for Duh.

 

[Ransom]

If you can't name my mom, she don't exist.

But you can name your mom. Presumably.

By Duh's logic, that makes her a government-protected pedophile. We have confirmation!

 

[Ekklesian]

Imagine standing up for Duh.

Not just him...

...but him, and her, too.

 

[Dr. Duck]

If you can't name my mom, she don't exist.


Here's something for your fantasies, tho'. Don't them eyes, just beckon ya?

View attachment 8814

FYI - being from Canada, he might not know who this is.

 

[Ransom]

FYI - being from Canada, he might not know who this is.

Explains a lot about Ekklesian's posts, actually.

 

[Bruh]

Were we talking about Jeffrey Epstein or his hypothetical anonymous hidden-by-the-gummint pedophile network that may or may not include Samuel L. Jackson?

It's hard to tell the way you keep pivoting.

Oooook! Bruh might be a moron if....

I am not worried about Samuel L. Jackson. Therefore, you’re the one changing the subject.

 

[Ransom]

I am not worried about Samuel L. Jackson.

You don't know that. You can't name names.

 

[Bruh]

Prove that it is the US government or shut your pie hole.

I will say it again, Jeffery Epstein was convicted in a court of law for having a sex trafficking network.

The definition of network is, a group or system of interconnected people or things.

It is beyond me that people on here are defending wether or not Jeffery Epstein had a sex trafficking network.

Some of you are still IFB especially @Ransom

 

[Bruh]

Someone did something or they wouldn't have the email.

Please tell me who has been arrested and or investigated?

 

[Bruh]

You don't know that. You can't name names.

All you do is call people names when you are wrong.

 

[Dr. Duck]

All you do is call people names when you are wrong.

Well, give him credit: at least he doesn’t pull the ol’ victim card after he attacks.

 

[Ransom]

I will say it again, Jeffery Epstein was convicted in a court of law for having a sex trafficking network.

Behold the motte-and-bailey fallacy in action!

A motte and bailey was a medieval castle. The motte was a fortified keep situated on a hill. It was accompanied by a bailey, a walled courtyard comprising the castle's desirable, productive land. The bailey was not easily defended. if it was attacked by an enemy, the people would retreat to the safety of the motte, where the enemy could be successfully held off until they gave up, and then the bailey could be re-occupied.

In the motte-and-bailey fallacy, the sophist puts forward a premise--the bailey--that is desirable (to him) but not easily defensible. When pressed on the point, rather than defend it, he retreats to a different, related, and easily defended premise: the motte. When his challenger refuses to take the bait, the sophist returns to the bailey, claiming the challenger has failed to refute it.

So, Bruh's original premise, the one I challenged, was:

Our government is covering for a group of people.

That is the bailey.

To which I asked:

Which group?

But, of course, the question is unanswerable: Duh himself has said he doesn't know; he just wants you to believe that which he has no evidence for.

At this, point Duh immediately pivots to the motte:

It has been legally proven that Epstein was involved in sex trafficking.

That Epstein was involved in sex tracking is not a secret. It's an accepted legal fact, practically impossible to argue against.

The problem for Duh is, it's not what he was arguing before, and it's not an answer to the question I asked. The government put Jeffrey Epstein in jail. They're not "covering for" him.

I didn't fall for the red herring, and when I pressed Duh on who he thought the government was covering for, he admitted more than once he had no idea. Which is just another way of saying there's no evidence--and as I've said before, what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

This thread is a predictable and repeatable pattern on Duh's part: when he's not being pressed to prove the bailey, thinking perhaps that I've given up and gone away, he tries to re-occupy it:

Do you believe that the Us Government is presently hiding the names of pedophiles?

Of course, I haven't gone anywhere, so Duh is forced to go back to the motte:

Do you believe that Jeffery Epstein operated a sex trafficking network?

Back and forth, back and forth.

The bottom line is, Duh has made an assertion for which he has no evidence, and he would rather make a fool of himself even further than admit such--even resorting to common, easily recognized logical fallacies.

The simplest, honorable thing to do would have been just to drop the subject and leave the thread. But Duh isn't just convinced of the virtue of his ignorance; he is doggedly convinced of the virtue of his ignorance.

 

[Dr. Duck]

Behold the motte-and-bailey fallacy in action!

A motte and bailey was a medieval castle. The motte was a fortified keep situated on a hill. It was accompanied by a bailey, a walled courtyard comprising the castle's desirable, productive land. The bailey was not easily defended. if it was attacked by an enemy, the people would retreat to the safety of the motte, where the enemy could be successfully held off until they gave up, and then the bailey could be re-occupied.

In the motte-and-bailey fallacy, the sophist puts forward a premise--the bailey--that is desirable (to him) but not easily defensible. When pressed on the point, rather than defend it, he retreats to a different, related, and easily defended premise: the motte. When his challenger refuses to take the bait, the sophist returns to the bailey, claiming the challenger has failed to refute it.

So, Bruh's original premise, the one I challenged, was:



That is the bailey.

To which I asked:



But, of course, the question is unanswerable: Duh himself has said he doesn't know; he just wants you to believe that which he has no evidence for.

At this, point Duh immediately pivots to the motte:



That Epstein was involved in sex tracking is not a secret. It's an accepted legal fact, practically impossible to argue against.

The problem for Duh is, it's not what he was arguing before, and it's not an answer to the question I asked. The government put Jeffrey Epstein in jail. They're not "covering for" him.

I didn't fall for the red herring, and when I pressed Duh on who he thought the government was covering for, he admitted more than once he had no idea. Which is just another way of saying there's no evidence--and as I've said before, what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

This thread is a predictable and repeatable pattern on Duh's part: when he's not being pressed to prove the bailey, thinking perhaps that I've given up and gone away, he tries to re-occupy it:



Of course, I haven't gone anywhere, so Duh is forced to go back to the motte:



Back and forth, back and forth.

The bottom line is, Duh has made an assertion for which he has no evidence, and he would rather make a fool of himself even further than admit such--even resorting to common, easily recognized logical fallacies.

The simplest, honorable thing to do would have been just to drop the subject and leave the thread. But Duh isn't just convinced of the virtue of his ignorance; he is doggedly convinced of the virtue of his ignorance.

Interesting indeed. I feel like I’m back in that logic philosophy class from so long ago. Perhaps Bruh would have been best served by stating that he thinks there’s a government coverup rather than stating there is a government coverup.

 

[Ransom]

Interesting indeed. I feel like I’m back in that logic philosophy class from so long ago.

I know. And this particular fallacy didn't exist as such until 2005, almost a decade after I started taking logic and philosophy classes.

But once you know what it is, you see it everywhere.

 

[subllibrm]

Please tell me who has been arrested and or investigated?

If you're investigated and there is not enough evidence to bring charges your name is not released. So it's entirely possible that the prosecutors chose to not file charges. Doing so doesn't mean they weren't investigated. In fact it means they were and the investigation didn't reveal enough evidence to warrant a trial that the prosecution couldn't win.

 

[Bruh]

Behold the motte-and-bailey fallacy in action!

A motte and bailey was a medieval castle. The motte was a fortified keep situated on a hill. It was accompanied by a bailey, a walled courtyard comprising the castle's desirable, productive land. The bailey was not easily defended. if it was attacked by an enemy, the people would retreat to the safety of the motte, where the enemy could be successfully held off until they gave up, and then the bailey could be re-occupied.

In the motte-and-bailey fallacy, the sophist puts forward a premise--the bailey--that is desirable (to him) but not easily defensible. When pressed on the point, rather than defend it, he retreats to a different, related, and easily defended premise: the motte. When his challenger refuses to take the bait, the sophist returns to the bailey, claiming the challenger has failed to refute it.

So, Bruh's original premise, the one I challenged, was:



That is the bailey.

To which I asked:



But, of course, the question is unanswerable: Duh himself has said he doesn't know; he just wants you to believe that which he has no evidence for.

At this, point Duh immediately pivots to the motte:



That Epstein was involved in sex tracking is not a secret. It's an accepted legal fact, practically impossible to argue against.

The problem for Duh is, it's not what he was arguing before, and it's not an answer to the question I asked. The government put Jeffrey Epstein in jail. They're not "covering for" him.

I didn't fall for the red herring, and when I pressed Duh on who he thought the government was covering for, he admitted more than once he had no idea. Which is just another way of saying there's no evidence--and as I've said before, what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

This thread is a predictable and repeatable pattern on Duh's part: when he's not being pressed to prove the bailey, thinking perhaps that I've given up and gone away, he tries to re-occupy it:



Of course, I haven't gone anywhere, so Duh is forced to go back to the motte:



Back and forth, back and forth.

The bottom line is, Duh has made an assertion for which he has no evidence, and he would rather make a fool of himself even further than admit such--even resorting to common, easily recognized logical fallacies.

The simplest, honorable thing to do would have been just to drop the subject and leave the thread. But Duh isn't just convinced of the virtue of his ignorance; he is doggedly convinced of the virtue of his ignorance.

Network implies other people. Therefore, if no other person has been investigated if I understand you correctly, although he was convicted in a court of law of having a sex trafficking network he was wrongly convicted of this crime?