re: 'Sound of Freedom' scores 92% Rotten Tomatoes rating ahead of July 4 premiere

Which question? You keep asking things that have already been answered or making completely false accusations you create out of thin air. You’re a proven liar so it’s hard to keep up with.

Asked an answered days ago. Repeating the question over and over isn’t an argument.

quote:

---

Q, not alt-right.

---

They're not interchangeable?

quote:

---

They're not interchangeable?

---

Naw, although I'm sure there is some population overlap (especially if your brand of "globalist really means "Jewish person").

Is this how you talk to children before you molest them?

What a great example of a loaded question! I was explaining that very concept to Patriots yesterday.

Saw this movie at 4 today and the theater was packed. It was pretty damn good. Pretty telling that the powers that be tried to prevent this movie from ever being released.

quote:

---

ITT SFP crusades to get people not to care about kids being kidnapped.

---

That's an outright lie.

quote:

---

That's an outright lie.

---

Why does it bother you that people are perhaps overly vigilant about the type of thing that Q purported to be exposing?

I am certainly not accusing you of being some sort of perv yourself or wanting to defend that behavior, I just don’t see the point of what you’re doing.

If it’s all a rerun of 80s satanic fear, so what? Why don’t you want other people to be alarmed about the possibility?

It’s not like you can prove the negative. Nobody is asking you to.

quote:

---

The problem is when people dishonestly are trying to discuss one subset but rely on examples/data from the other. Where this gets real bad is when the Satanic Panic archetypes (now relied on by the Q crowd) try to use this dishonesty. As I just posted on the poli board sister thread:

---

quote:

---

I will be 100 SFP dollars that total human trafficking is surpassing the illegal arms trade, but not sex trafficking or the even more rare child sex trafficking. That's why I was asking for the data. If I'm right, it shows exactly the bait and switch argument I was referencing above.

---

In very general terms, you claim people are using estimated statistics for the category “total human trafficking” (a huge, almost incalculable number it appears) to disingenuously or dishonestly represent the subset “child sex trafficking”, a number, you contend, is minuscule in comparison, to misrepresent reality for numerous and possibly nefarious reasons. I think you suggested one possible reason being to pump up the jam on Sound Of Freedom.

If I have misrepresented your position, I apologize. But in general this is what I’ve been reading.

I provided you some reasonable support for an extremely conservative estimate of Asian child sex trafficking over 30 years of about 10,000,000 children, averaging around 320,000 children per year, and concluded that, globally, extrapolating from those numbers, it was fairly easy to believe, each year, nearly 2,000,000 children are trafficked for sex. (the number, I believe used by the promoters and advocates of Sound Of Freedom.) I believe 2,000,000 is low, by half at a minimum, and should probably be doubled.

2,000,000 children yearly should be enough to warrant genuine concern, however small this number may be in comparison to total global human trafficking numbers, don’t you agree?

I also admitted I didn’t know how to place a monetary value comparing illegal arms or illegal drug profits with profits generated by child sex trafficking. Borrowing from the film, a dime bag is sold once; a child can be sold 5-10 times a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, for maybe 10 to 15 years. That’s gruesome beyond all comprehension.

It’s not just Asia. It’s Africa, Eastern and Western Europe, Africa, Canada, The United States, and Central and South America. That’s to say it’s a global problem.

If this movie awakens a partisan groundswell of awareness and active opposition to this global atrocity and does nothing else it will have done a praiseworthy thing.

You seem determined to deflect attention from this global problem, perhaps even minimize its scope, particularly domestically, and, if not demean the film, at least deflect positive attention from it.

A number of your critics think this is intentional obfuscation or an intransigent, almost bellicose insistence that you are right and everyone else is wrong.