- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Remember the Epstein victim who died by suicide 2 months ago? Virginia Giuffre.
Posted on 7/9/25 at 8:51 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 7/9/25 at 8:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
There was a civil settlement as only a civil suit was desired by his victims.
I guess Andrew was scared to leave the country for no reason?
quote:
And it makes no sense, even if the John population was "half a dozen", that not a single victim came forward when it was open season after the civil suits were filed.
It makes no sense, given all of the rumors and factual things we know about Epstein, the the ONLY VIP he procured girls for just happened to be Prince Andrew. I'm not naive enough to believe that.
You're taking this really odd stance that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. You know that people with relatively zero resources get away with crime all the time, even complex crimes like drug rings with lots of players and victims. Just because the cops only convicted one sidewalk dealer, that doesn't mean all the other evidence adds up to zero. It may just mean it's not enough for a courtroom.
But we're not in a courtroom, we're just people forming opinions with the best available info. Absent Andrew I'd be on the fence about this going any further, but he's a big data point, as is his lack of consequences.
Posted on 7/9/25 at 9:02 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
Sorry man, if a victim of sexual abuse and trafficking has to be "suicided" to protect an Israeli asset, then we need to just accept it.
Posted on 7/9/25 at 10:57 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You're grasping without evidence and, as I said earlier, using your ignorance of the evidence to fill that void with inaccuracies that you proclaim is the same thing as evidence. That's not how this works. That's CT "logic".
We both know what evidence is...
Using only that limited release as "evidence" to enhance your argument shows the flaws.
Your strawman: Since nobody was named in the documents released, there is no evidence of others.
Well, the fallacy as you know is that Prince Andrew was specifically named.
We also know there is actual evidence out there we have not been privy too. Without the ability to actually determine what evidence is actually there, the reliance on our untrustworthy government is skeptical at best.
Popular
Back to top


0




