re: Trying to stop child trafficking is now "Qanon-adjacent" and "paranoid"

I specifically responded to one post to correct it.

The biggest problem with discussing this issue is how words are used, b/c they're often used dishonestly (and then a doubling down of shame-based responses to try to stop people from weeding out the truth).

That's why I responded specifically to that link, b/c it while the report is talking about giving minor's the legal authority to consent to sex, it's never stated that this was for partners of the age of majority and, further, it's heavily implied this is about minor:minor sex.

But, since it says those words, dishonest actors run with a narrative that fits in with a worldview and voila.

quote:

---

Why not just say yes this is going on, everybody knows it is, and we've got to stop it.

---

Because dishonest arguments are used to inflate the impact of this activity, especially domestically. To tie it into the OP, is anyone disputing that the Q stuff did not rely heavily on allegations of powerful people trafficking minors for sex?

quote:

---

Why dismiss it as Q-Anon paranoia

---

Why did Q-Anon paranoia dishonestly amplify this issue and lie about it? That goes both ways.

quote:

---

Why did Q-Anon paranoia dishonestly amplify this issue and lie about it? That goes both ways.

---

Was Q-Anon mentioned in the movie? If it wasn't then it's irrelevant and this author is just slapping labels on it like the media always does

quote:

---

5400 pages of rambling fiction from Bama posters....damn I miss the Q thread

---

This is why you are groomers.

quote:

---

Because dishonest arguments are used to inflate the impact of this activity, especially domestically. To tie it into the OP, is anyone disputing that the Q stuff did not rely heavily on allegations of powerful people trafficking minors for sex?

---

Because a rich dude died in prison having been arrested for sex trafficking and now his confidant is in jail.

And the entire anti trump crowd uses Epstein's ties to Trump as Tump bad.

So… it’s not just a Q thing.

It would be nice if movie reviews would focus on telling us if a movie is good or not

But the “Q was right! We’re so smart!” / “Hollywood deep state pedos gonna kill Mel Gibson and Jim Caviezel cuz of this movie!” threads around here kinda frick up the whole “why are they going there?” argument

Looks to me like a Zero Dark 30 type flick, but centered around a mission to save a sex trafficked kid. The retards here made me think it was just another 3000 Mules-type bullshite propaganda movie

quote:

---

This isn't the Movie/TV board, guy.

---

Those threads weren’t on the MTV board, buddy

So you’re here to play hall monitor and deflect for pedophiles? Can’t say that I’m surprised, all of you groomers are the same

Paranoid huh

its so paranoid they reported in it 5 years ago




What changed besides pedo in chief?

quote:

---

That's why I responded specifically to that link, b/c it while the report is talking about giving minor's the legal authority to consent to sex, it's never stated that this was for partners of the age of majority and, further, it's heavily implied this is about minor:minor sex. [

But, since it says those words, dishonest actors run with a narrative that fits in with a worldview and voila.

---

It is not “dishonest” to note that the ICJ report also made no distinction between prepubescent children and sexually mature teenagers. An 18 year old “seducing” a 10 year old is a predatory sex act. Yet as usual, you are once again exhibiting the very behavior you criticize in others.