Ghislaine Maxwell

smartcooky said:
I have not "twisted your words" at all. They are your words... you said them. If you meant sometihng else, you shouldn't have said them. Be more careful - use the preview button to re-read what you have typed before you commit it to a post



You are now rephrasing what you originally wrote. This is something you should have done before you posted.



Still wrong after all those posts.



Where was it again that you claimed you have never minimized the actions of a child sex trafficker?



[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/wc33kwi0xks7z4o/Pigs_will_fly.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]
Click to expand...



Perhaps you can explain how you know Maxwell is guilty? The best you can come out with are childish comments about 'kiddie fiddlers' and anyone who disagrees with you must be a supporter of same.

You cannot know even if you think you do. I on the other hand have:

  • studied how PR, advertising, persuading and influencing works
  • Visited an exhibition at British Library about Propaganda: it included posters circulated by the German Third Reich depicting people as vermin, rats, baby killers and cockroaches (this explains in part how the German people came to loathe some of their own citizens)
  • noticed how the tabloid press and mass media try to influence people in how to vote (the masses generally go along with it because they don't realise - or do not care - that they are being manipulated.
  • had my Psychology degree handed to me by Stanley Milgram, the psychologist who wanted to understand how the Holocaust happened, and thus, designed an experiment showing that people obey authority figures mindlessly , with one in ten happy to apply a lethal electric shock to others when told to.

Thus, I consider myself to be Teflon proofed against the type of PR campaigns put out about Maxwell. Half of it is pure salaciousness and prurience, and the other half is an attempt to play to the court of public opinion, instead of doing it properly through the courts. Maxwell might well be the hateful pervert she is painted as but you don't know whether some of the accusers now coming forward have been primed to emphasise how they were groomed by her and you take it for granted that if a woman is underage when she becomes a sex worker, or solely for the gratification of Epstein, that there must have been a woman in the background who must her groomed her, when it is likely Epstein was perfectly capable of seducing people himself. He was said to be a charming fellow when he wanted to be. You don't know if they are substituting Maxwell for Epstein's crimes, since they weren't able to get him. If the claimants win their case there will be huge compensation for each of them, thus, it may be likely that this encourages them to 'lay it on thick' to ensure they win.

In the end, we can't know until we hear Maxwell's defence in court.
 
Last edited:
If they are underage they do not legally qualify to do sex work. They are minors, not women. Anybody laying a sexual finger on them will be guilty of a crime.
 
Vixen said:
Perhaps you can explain how you know Maxwell is guilty?
Click to expand...

There's this thing called evidence, and er....

In the end, we can't know until we hear Maxwell's defence in court.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the evidence we have now cannot be used to reach a conclusion until it's presented in court? That makes no sense. Yes, we should use reason to reach said conclusion but we are quite able to make that judgment ourselves.
 
Belz... said:
There's this thing called evidence, and er....

Are you saying that the evidence we have now cannot be used to reach a conclusion until it's presented in court? That makes no sense. Yes, we should use reason to reach said conclusion but we are quite able to make that judgment ourselves.
Click to expand...

Vixen does not understand the difference between "I know X is guilty" and "I know X did what they have been accused of"

The latter only requires that I have seen the evidence available, and have formed an opinion as to whether or not the defendant is culpable. The former requires time travel.

And just to head off the response that I expect Vixen will give.. no, it is not a distinction withut a difference. Only the 12 Jurors will get to decide if she is guilty or not-guilty.

Vixen said:
I on the other hand have:

  • studied how PR, advertising, persuading and influencing works
  • Visited an exhibition at British Library about Propaganda: it included posters circulated by the German Third Reich depicting people as vermin, rats, baby killers and cockroaches (this explains in part how the German people came to loathe some of their own citizens)
  • noticed how the tabloid press and mass media try to influence people in how to vote (the masses generally go along with it because they don't realise - or do not care - that they are being manipulated.
  • had my Psychology degree handed to me by Stanley Milgram, the psychologist who wanted to understand how the Holocaust happened, and thus, designed an experiment showing that people obey authority figures mindlessly , with one in ten happy to apply a lethal electric shock to others when told to.

Thus, I consider myself to be Teflon proofed against the type of PR campaigns put out about Maxwell
Click to expand...

Edited by Agatha: 
Removed breach of rule 12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
smartcooky said:
Vixen does not understand the difference between "I know X is guilty" and "I know X did what they have been accused of"

The latter only requires that I have seen the evidence available, and have formed an opinion as to whether or not the defendant is culpable. The former requires time travel.
Click to expand...

But even so, you can say the former and be reasonably understood to mean that you are convinced she is guilty without having absolute certainty, or predicting her conviction.
 
Belz... said:
There's this thing called evidence, and er....



Are you saying that the evidence we have now cannot be used to reach a conclusion until it's presented in court? That makes no sense. Yes, we should use reason to reach said conclusion but we are quite able to make that judgment ourselves.
Click to expand...

PR bombardment and 'influencing' is not evidence.
 
Belz... said:
But even so, you can say the former and be reasonably understood to mean that you are convinced she is guilty without having absolute certainty, or predicting her conviction.
Click to expand...

It might be a worthwhile exercise to reflect on how you have been convinced.

There was a story in the tabloids t'other day about how Maxwell liked to make risqué conversation.


Must be guilty then!


Some of the work colleagues I've had must therefore also be guilty of rampant paedophilia as they talked about their sex lives incessantly.
 
Vixen said:
PR bombardment and 'influencing' is not evidence.
Click to expand...

What does that even mean?

It might be a worthwhile exercise to reflect on how you have been convinced.
Click to expand...

I told you this already.

There was a story in the tabloids t'other day about how Maxwell liked to make risqué conversation.

Must be guilty then!
Click to expand...

So you read tabloids, a terrible source of information, and you think I do too?
 
Vixen said:
It might be a worthwhile exercise to reflect on how you have been convinced.

There was a story in the tabloids t'other day about how Maxwell liked to make risqué conversation.


Must be guilty then!


Some of the work colleagues I've had must therefore also be guilty of rampant paedophilia as they talked about their sex lives incessantly.
Click to expand...

Minimise

Minimise

Minimise
 
Vixen said:
The only people writing about her are the 'tabloids'.
Click to expand...


The Washington Post is not a tabloid.

The New York Times is not a tabloid.

Forbes is not a tabloid.

The Los Angeles Times is not a tabloid

The Boston Globe is not a tabloid.

The Wall Street Journal is not a tabloid.

The Chicago Tribune is not a tabloid.

The San Francisco Chronicle is not a tabloid.

USA Today is not a tabloid.

The Denver Post is not a tabloid.

The Miami Herald is not a tabloid.

I could repeat this another 50 times with no trouble but I can't be bothered. Suffice to say, I have once again shown that you are lying.
 
smartcooky said:
The Washington Post is not a tabloid.

The New York Times is not a tabloid.

Forbes is not a tabloid.

The Los Angeles Times is not a tabloid

The Boston Globe is not a tabloid.

The Wall Street Journal is not a tabloid.

The Chicago Tribune is not a tabloid.

The San Francisco Chronicle is not a tabloid.

USA Today is not a tabloid.

The Denver Post is not a tabloid.

The Miami Herald is not a tabloid.

I could repeat this another 50 times with no trouble but I can't be bothered. Suffice to say, I have once again shown that you are lying.
Click to expand...

I can't see any of these publishing lurid accounts of how Maxwell was a paedophile. AFAICS they stick to the legal situation of 'being charged with'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom