Anonymous #1 3w

I said pro pedo behavior Keep up

1

Anonymous OP 3w

I have. You’re just a moron.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

Quick, is it good or bad that Trumps DOJ moved a child sex trafficker to a better living facility using our money?

1

Anonymous OP 3w

If she were the broker, then it was objectively good. She's the only one with names, thus the only one with leverage, and she knows it.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

I didn’t ask for you to qualify my question. Try again, this time answer what I asked.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

But I did 🤷‍♂️

1

Anonymous #1 3w

did I mention the work broker?

1

Anonymous OP 3w

No, you’re using a strawman tactic to try to corner me. I know whose your referencing I qualified and refused your straw trap 🤷‍♂️

1

Anonymous #1 3w

Show me the strawman

1

Anonymous OP 3w

The strawman is obvious. You asked me to label Trump’s DOJ action as good or bad, stripping away context and reframing it as endorsement of trafficking policy. That’s not my position, and you know it. You replaced my standard, evidence vs. conjecture, with your binary trap. That’s the strawman.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

Is it good or bad? That’s not a strawman to ask. The moral response logically should be easy to answer.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

That is the strawman; you’ve reduced a DOJ decision with multiple moving parts into a yes/no morality test. That’s not argument, it’s a binary trap. If you think it’s that simple, then show me the conviction for pedophilia you’re relying on. Otherwise you’re collapsing categories to force a false binary.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

Asking you a moral question is a strawman now?

1

Anonymous OP 3w

No, asking a moral question isn’t a strawman. Forcing a binary where complexity exists is. You collapsed trafficking, brokering, and pedophilia into one label and then demanded a yes/no. That’s misrepresentation, not morality.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

She was charged with sex trafficking. Specifically in reference to children. My question was if you think it was good or not that the DOJ made her life more comfortable using our money.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

You keep reducing this to a Hollywood script with good guys, bad guys, simple verdicts. Maxwell was convicted of sex trafficking, not pedophilia, and DOJ custody isn’t a morality play. It’s law, leverage, and procedure. If you want clarity, stop collapsing categories into movie-logic binaries.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

Hollywood script? when did I say good or bad GUYS

1

Anonymous OP 3w

You literally asked me if it was “good or bad.” That’s the Hollywood script, forcing a binary verdict on a complex DOJ decision. You can swap “guys” for “decisions,” regardless the movie-logic remains.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

So I didn’t apply morality to the entities, just the decisions?

1

Anonymous OP 3w

Now you’re reframing. You demanded a binary “good or bad,”and once pressed you shifted to say it was only about decisions, not entities. That’s a violation of your own binary logic, you can’t keep redrawing the frame when it breaks.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

That’s also not an answer.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

How is anyone supposed to play your binary game if you keep reframing the terms every time it breaks? It isn’t an answer because your framing isn’t a valid question, you’ve collapsed charges, shifted categories, and demanded a yes/no. Until you hold your frame steady, there’s nothing to answer.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

You arbitrarily deciding it’s not worth answering doesn’t make the question go away. Last question, go ahead. Answer it.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

Nothing about this is arbitrary. I explained exactly why your question isn’t valid, you collapsed charges, reframed categories, and forced a binary trap. That’s not a question worth answering until you can hold a steady frame.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

You claiming it’s invalid doesn’t make that claim true

1

Anonymous OP 3w

But it's not me arbitrarily invalidating; you're invalidating yourself by making consistently levying category error. You collapsed pedophilia, trafficking, and DOJ housing policy into one demand for a yes/no. There's no coherence to your question.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

Sure it is. The last question I asked. Point the logical flaw out of the question itself.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

You’re pretending you only applied morality to decisions, when you opened by applying it to entities. That’s the reframe I flagged. You can’t retroactively narrow your scope after your binary breaks.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

I 100% only applied it to the decisions lol.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

No, you opened with “pro-pedo behavior,” which applied morality to the entity. Only once pressed did you reframe it as just DOJ decisions. Claiming it was always limited to decisions is a rewrite, not consistency.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

Behavior is in reference to the choices

1

Anonymous OP 3w

There is is again, that’s a rewrite. You said “pro-pedo behavior,” which by plain meaning applies to actors, not DOJ housing policy. Only after being pressed did you redefine ”behavior” as "choices." That’s moving the goalposts.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

Redefining "behavior" mid-debate as "choices" is a goalpost shift, proof your original frame broke.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

No, it was always this. I just assumed you understood: which is my fault.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

So we agree it wasn’t as simple as your binary demanded. That’s why complexity matters.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

No we agree that I confused you lol now answer

1

Anonymous OP 3w

You can’t admit your framing was unclear, then spin it as me being confused. That’s just another reframe. Until you hold your categories steady, there’s nothing to answer.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

Ask a coherent question.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

You were confused. You can avoid answering. It doesn’t make the questions go away or invalidate them at all.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

I already have.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

No you haven't, ask your question in a way that is objectively not convoluted. Because if you think collapsing charges, reframing terms, and demanding a binary is clarity, then you’ve just proved my poinI.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

Do you deny that maxwell is a child sex trafficker?

1

Anonymous OP 3w

No. No one denies Maxwell was convicted of sex trafficking minors. What I deny is your attempt to collapse that into “pro-pedo behavior,” then reframe it as DOJ housing policy, and now retreat to a conviction question. That narrowing proves my point—you had to abandon your original frame.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

Do you deny that the prison they moved her to, is a lower security prison with better amenities?

1

Anonymous OP 3w

No

1

Anonymous #1 3w

Okay then, in your moral view is it good or bad (qualify your ANSWER as much as you’d like since I apparently have to clarify that) that the DOJ moved her using our money so she could live better?

1

Anonymous OP 3w

It’s morally abhorrent, I have no problem saying that. But you keep framing this like a fairy tale where decisions are either pure altruism or pure despotism. In reality, this is arbitration. Maxwell is abhorrent, but she’s also the only one with knowledge of the wider network. Without concessions, she has no incentive to talk. And if you just collapse the central node, you create a vacuum for another node to consolidate and expand the network. I want the network destroyed, not just swapped out.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

Great, it’s bad. that was my OG question you finally answered. Is it bad enough for you to stop your support of the Trump admin?

1

Anonymous OP 3w

No. But there it is, you’ve abandoned the entire debate about networks and leverage, and collapsed it into partisan framing. My point stands; complexity matters, binaries collapse, and your attempt to retrofit this onto Trump support is just another reframe.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

Alright, so it’s bad but not bad enough for you to stop supporting the admin. Thanks for proving what I came here to do lol

1

Anonymous OP 3w

Tell me this, how do you dissolve a pedophile network without making a concession to the broker? If you can’t answer that, then your binary moralism completely dissolves.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

They already have all of the information they got from her conviction. They approached her for an interview for new information, not the other way around. False dichotomy.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

You avoided the question. To extrapolate, if DOJ approached her again, it’s because this is part of a new or ongoing crime she was accessory to, meaning the investigation isn’t concluded. That makes leverage the only path forward, and you still haven’t answered how you dissolve a network without it.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

Yeah your question isn’t valid. It’s dependent on a false dichotomy. Ask a coherent one and I can answer that one.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

Asking how to dissolve a network without leverage is a false dichotomy?

1

Anonymous #1 3w

That’s a reframing of what you just said?

1

Anonymous OP 3w

It’s not, but call it what you want. Regardless, you still haven’t answered the question, how do you dissolve a network without leverage?

1

Anonymous #1 3w

I can’t answer if it’s dependent on flawed logic. Rephrase or ask a coherent question and I can answer.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

Where is the flawed logic in my question?

1

Anonymous OP 3w

How about this, though? I'll tell you that I am outraged by this administration's over-taking a 10% ownership stake in Intel.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

I already explained it to you. But again, not outraged enough to pull your support back for the admin in full?

1

Anonymous OP 3w

Lol what? You called my question a false dichotomy but never substantiated why. I didn’t pose a dichotomized question, I asked how you dissolve a network without leverage. That’s open-ended, and you still haven’t answered it.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

I already have substantiated why. Why are you acting like I didn’t lmao

1

Anonymous OP 3w

Then point to it. Quote where you explained how asking “how do you dissolve a network without leverage?” is a dichotomy. If you can’t, then you didn’t.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

I already have?? 6 comments from the last

1

Anonymous OP 3w

But you haven't. You’ve attempted to dichotomize a dynamic question. And I wanted to see if you would use it as a deflection. Perfect prediction.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

Do you think I didn’t do what you just asked of me?

1

Anonymous OP 3w

You still haven’t shown it. And this isn’t even bad faith, it’s just clumsy at this point. You’re trying to use my strategy against me, but in doing so you’re latently conceding complexity over your own dichotomized frame. Your contradiction speaks louder than anything you’ve said. ♟️

1

Anonymous OP 3w

But let me guess, “you already did.”

1

Anonymous OP 3w

Waiting for your big-brained response.

1