Morality and duty have no value to anyone who ridicules pizzagate, without sourced explanation.
Morality and duty have no value to anyone who indignantly defends James #49 Alefantis, without explaining why this powerful businessman would have the time, or interest, to participate in making base-adolescent sexual jokes, or posting pics of other people's babies, on his public (now private) Instagram account.
How does your "morality and duty" framing actually help us determine what is true? How does it help us evaluate the evidence? You seem to putting a lot of weight on Alefantis being #49 as if that is somehow sinister or indicative of guilt. It's not. It has no relation. You do understand that yes, James Alefantis was listed as Washington's 49th most powerful person in a magazine article in 2012, but no, he was not actually Washington's 49th most powerful person. Right? Because that article was never meant to be taken literally. Think of it as a who's hot/who's not article and you'll understand it better.
Most folks understand this. It was simply a magazine article, not an actual listing of who holds power in Washington, DC. It was a fluffy list of profile pieces.
Because if you don't understand that, it begs the question, how much power do you think he held. Because this silly list had him above all 9 Supreme Court Justices, about 95 Senators, the mayor, the police chief, the heads of most departments and their seconds in charge and other genuinely powerful people. He was not the only "fluffy" choice on the list. Another restaurant owner appeared as did three party planners. A blogger was at #34. #38 was the Washington Post's weather team. #47 was a baseball player. It was never intended as an actual, literal list of people's power. Also his power was social power, he was listed as a restaurateur and a bon vivant, this doesn't give you more power than the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.
There's absolutely nothing about being a powerful businessman running two restaurants that would prevent him from having the time or interest from messing around on Instagram. This is just an illogical argument. It's like saying why would a powerful businessman have the time or interest to watch every game played by his favorite food ball team? Also social media like instagram is an easy way to keep in touch with friends, when you don't really have time to get together.
Morality and Duty doesn't seem to me to make one a good investigator. It doesn't seem to me to help you understand what evidence is important and and what is not. Here's an example, if Alefantis being 49th on that list means he is likely to have committed this crimes, what about those weather bloggers? They are 38th on the list, are they more likely to traffick children because they are more powerful?
Skipping right past your plethora of silly (and insulting) assumptions... I'll just congratulate you for contributing the most indignant (and verbose) defense for James Alefantis' Instagram behavior I've seen yet.
view the rest of the comments →
rooting4redpillers ago
Morality and duty have no value to anyone who ridicules pizzagate, without sourced explanation.
Morality and duty have no value to anyone who indignantly defends James #49 Alefantis, without explaining why this powerful businessman would have the time, or interest, to participate in making base-adolescent sexual jokes, or posting pics of other people's babies, on his public (now private) Instagram account.
Are_we_sure ago
How does your "morality and duty" framing actually help us determine what is true? How does it help us evaluate the evidence? You seem to putting a lot of weight on Alefantis being #49 as if that is somehow sinister or indicative of guilt. It's not. It has no relation. You do understand that yes, James Alefantis was listed as Washington's 49th most powerful person in a magazine article in 2012, but no, he was not actually Washington's 49th most powerful person. Right? Because that article was never meant to be taken literally. Think of it as a who's hot/who's not article and you'll understand it better.
Most folks understand this. It was simply a magazine article, not an actual listing of who holds power in Washington, DC. It was a fluffy list of profile pieces.
Because if you don't understand that, it begs the question, how much power do you think he held. Because this silly list had him above all 9 Supreme Court Justices, about 95 Senators, the mayor, the police chief, the heads of most departments and their seconds in charge and other genuinely powerful people. He was not the only "fluffy" choice on the list. Another restaurant owner appeared as did three party planners. A blogger was at #34. #38 was the Washington Post's weather team. #47 was a baseball player. It was never intended as an actual, literal list of people's power. Also his power was social power, he was listed as a restaurateur and a bon vivant, this doesn't give you more power than the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.
There's absolutely nothing about being a powerful businessman running two restaurants that would prevent him from having the time or interest from messing around on Instagram. This is just an illogical argument. It's like saying why would a powerful businessman have the time or interest to watch every game played by his favorite food ball team? Also social media like instagram is an easy way to keep in touch with friends, when you don't really have time to get together.
Morality and Duty doesn't seem to me to make one a good investigator. It doesn't seem to me to help you understand what evidence is important and and what is not. Here's an example, if Alefantis being 49th on that list means he is likely to have committed this crimes, what about those weather bloggers? They are 38th on the list, are they more likely to traffick children because they are more powerful?
Here's that 2012 list. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-top-10-of-gqs-50-most-powerful-in-washington/2012/01/18/gIQAE7sn7P_gallery.html?utm_term=.210072119044
rooting4redpillers ago
Skipping right past your plethora of silly (and insulting) assumptions... I'll just congratulate you for contributing the most indignant (and verbose) defense for James Alefantis' Instagram behavior I've seen yet.