Ironic this fool talking bout logical fallacies...
Saying the claims are laughable and unbelievable, but have happened before is a god damn logical fallacy and extremely contradicting unless he thinks child trafficking is funny. Claiming that the fact it's happened to before has no relevance is laughable and legitimate logical fallacy
If I were new to all this and read that piece, I would be very suspicious:
My reply: (Hughes)
"The Silsby story is disturbing. The links to Clinton, however, are tenuous from what I have seen, and not indicative of any close relationship. Remember that if a website says “Hillary is tied to Person X” that doesn’t mean they know each other, or are friends, or have any direct associations. Do your own homework. I’ll be happy to amend if anyone can show documentation otherwise. But again — Connection to Comet Pizza? None."
Lot's of ad hom in there too. I guess he got paid by the word.
Fail. I wonder if Greg Carlwood will call him out.
There's just NO way Elpida didn't know about the pedophile symbol. The logo would have attracted unwanted customers AGES ago otherwise. I think Elpida has to be digged more.... but I don't know how.
Oh and that guy's article is pathetic. I stopped reading the moment he began speaking about "innocent until proven guilty", considering this isn't a court case. It's a citizen investigation that's building up enough circumstantial evidence to warrant an official investigation. He's basically doing a straw-man. Someone who pulls a strawman from the first paragraph doesn't deserve any more attention.
If Pizzagate is seen as an investigation, and NOT a hard accusation, all of his claims of the irrelevancy and circumstantial nature of "evidence" etc. are pointless. No one is claiming John Podesta should be thrown in jail because of art or codewords. This guy's whole argument is a strawman.
Well this misdirection is quite frequent among those who peddle the "fake news" narrative. He's conflating the importance of circumstantial evidence with direct evidence.
So what he's doing is going down the list of circumstantial evidences presented and listing objections, one by one. Essentially, he's going...
point A? That does mean anything...
point B? That does mean anything...
point C? That does mean anything....
...ad nauseum.
This is not how circumstantial evidence is to be evaluated. He's pretending that we're trying to offer direct evidence, and saying "you have no proof."
We're not trying to provide "proof." We're trying to highlight suspicious behavior in the hopes that authorities (or someone) can look for and uncover direct evidence in a more thorough investigation, taking advantage of resources unavailable to us.
Circumstantial evidence is quite often how real investigations get started, and the weight of circumstantial evidence relies on quantity, because circumstantial evidence can never - by definition - rise to "smoking gun" status. (Hence the constant reminders from the wiser people on here to refrain from using that phrase). When he tackles it one point at a time and points out that none of it is direct evidence, he's either showing he's a fool, or he is trying to use slight-of-hand to throw off his readers.
▼ Pizzainmyass
Ironic this fool talking bout logical fallacies... Saying the claims are laughable and unbelievable, but have happened before is a god damn logical fallacy and extremely contradicting unless he thinks child trafficking is funny. Claiming that the fact it's happened to before has no relevance is laughable and legitimate logical fallacy
▼ umpteenth
If I were new to all this and read that piece, I would be very suspicious:
My reply: (Hughes)
"The Silsby story is disturbing. The links to Clinton, however, are tenuous from what I have seen, and not indicative of any close relationship. Remember that if a website says “Hillary is tied to Person X” that doesn’t mean they know each other, or are friends, or have any direct associations. Do your own homework. I’ll be happy to amend if anyone can show documentation otherwise. But again — Connection to Comet Pizza? None."
Lot's of ad hom in there too. I guess he got paid by the word.
Fail. I wonder if Greg Carlwood will call him out.
▼ redberries
There's just NO way Elpida didn't know about the pedophile symbol. The logo would have attracted unwanted customers AGES ago otherwise. I think Elpida has to be digged more.... but I don't know how.
Oh and that guy's article is pathetic. I stopped reading the moment he began speaking about "innocent until proven guilty", considering this isn't a court case. It's a citizen investigation that's building up enough circumstantial evidence to warrant an official investigation. He's basically doing a straw-man. Someone who pulls a strawman from the first paragraph doesn't deserve any more attention.
▼ SlackeryTurnBull
If Pizzagate is seen as an investigation, and NOT a hard accusation, all of his claims of the irrelevancy and circumstantial nature of "evidence" etc. are pointless. No one is claiming John Podesta should be thrown in jail because of art or codewords. This guy's whole argument is a strawman.
▼ JUNOAK
Is pizzagate falsifiable? What could be shown that would exonerate the people who are insinuated as pedophiles?
▼ TheSpeaker2
Well this misdirection is quite frequent among those who peddle the "fake news" narrative. He's conflating the importance of circumstantial evidence with direct evidence.
So what he's doing is going down the list of circumstantial evidences presented and listing objections, one by one. Essentially, he's going...
point A? That does mean anything...
point B? That does mean anything...
point C? That does mean anything....
...ad nauseum.
This is not how circumstantial evidence is to be evaluated. He's pretending that we're trying to offer direct evidence, and saying "you have no proof."
We're not trying to provide "proof." We're trying to highlight suspicious behavior in the hopes that authorities (or someone) can look for and uncover direct evidence in a more thorough investigation, taking advantage of resources unavailable to us.
Circumstantial evidence is quite often how real investigations get started, and the weight of circumstantial evidence relies on quantity, because circumstantial evidence can never - by definition - rise to "smoking gun" status. (Hence the constant reminders from the wiser people on here to refrain from using that phrase). When he tackles it one point at a time and points out that none of it is direct evidence, he's either showing he's a fool, or he is trying to use slight-of-hand to throw off his readers.
▼ FoxMcCloud11
"Refutes" every piece of evidence shared on https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1467064
▼ FoxMcCloud11
Says that "we" made up the pedo logo for Eanida, when really they change it after we uncovered it + other. I'll shut commentary and suggestions.
Says artwork = completely irrelevant
▼ fartyshorts
I saw that sick logo myself, I am willing to testify. I have saved copies and screenshots.