re: Tim Pool asked a Common Sense Question

It's a difficult choice, and it's probably too much to ask people to not be a POS through life.

What we have now is an unsustainable moral conundrum - the longer it lasts the worse the consequences will be when nature itself declares 'time for a reset'

It is better to do it as soon as the situation is recognized - the options only get worse.

Rip off the scab and let the healing begin.

BUT - I cannot believe the consequences would be that dire - certainly nothing that could upset the whole world order.

Lots of egg on faces - a number of criminal processes - huge resets of prestige - clean out of many bureaucracies and boards of directors - possibly some man-to-man discussions with critical allies = nothing world upsetting there.

Make the stand NOW - the USA will not tolerate this level of crime and exploitation. Anyone who engages in it WILL be punished here on earth in addition to everlasting hell.

quote:

---

What's a widget?" ----Thorton Melon

---

quote:

---

Keep it as is it and not tank the world economy

---

I don’t know if you know who runs that organization, but it’s not the Boy Scouts.” —- Thornton Mellon

I thought Eric Weinstein had a good way of looking at it.

We, as a society, ran into something and we named it Jeffrey Epstein.

It’s a pre-Internet plot that cannot survive the light of day of the internet.

The most basic questions around Epstein can’t be answered. His plot line doesn’t make sense. And no one with the authority or power to get those basic questions answered has any interest in finding answers.

quote:

---

What if say Bill Gates (Founder of Microsoft) gets exposed and people completely start boycotting Microsoft (even though Bill Gates is no longer involved with Microsoft) - How would this be fair to the new owners of MS who were never involved with Epstein?

Remember that dude from Subway who got caught with his pants down with underage kids? That absolutely destroyed Subway for a while and no Subway franchises were involved with that. How was that fair to the franchise owners?

---

This stance starts out in the Slippery Slope fallacy (by putting forth the scenario that exposing the Epstein data will inevitably lead to a chain of negative economic events without sufficient evidence) that these outcomes are likely or directly caused. It then extends into the Appeal to Consequences fallacy by implying that taking a stand against an action based solely on its perceived negative consequences, regardless of the action’s truth, merit, or ethical necessity is a legitimate and worthwhile argument.

It's not. It prioritizes the legitimizing of outcomes based on "Chicken Little" evidence-gathering over principles. In doing so, it avoids engaging with the ethical or factual basis of Epstein and his clients' child trafficking and assumes a highly questionable consequence (an economic crash) outweighs all else without providing actual proof it could happen.

It also prioritizes the continued employment of others over the legal, physical, emotional and ethical issues of knowingly and purposefully ignoring child trafficking perpetuators.

quote:

---

ordinary people discovering how depraved our elites are.

---

and /\ THIS /\ is an absolutely necessary revelation for any healthy social contract.

we should be able to tolerate a modicum of 'sin' in others - the old 'mote in the eye' syndrome - BUT we should have SOME defined limit as to what society will allow.

We have moved on from witches - now it is time to get rid of this awful plague of making our children sexual prey for the well-to-do.

Burn down everything it takes to rid ourselves of that massive degeneration - nothing is worth the loss of innocence for our children. Nor can we give a wink and a nod towards the few who do.

If you wanted to boycott every company or product you don't agree with you would literally have to live in a mud hut in the woods eating berries and insects. I don't need a 'list' to tell me that people like Bill Gates, Prince Andrew, and Bill Clinton are sexual degenerates and bad people and nobody on here with an IQ above 75 should need to a list for that either.

Option 1, of course. That would not "crash" the world economy.

quote:

---

destroy brands all around around

---

Opening the door for competitor non-child molesting brands and savy new entreprenuers.