Pilots Subpoenaed in Sex Trafficking Case

Status
Not open for further replies.
You may know their names but it doesn’t seem that you understand them. Ad Hominem isn’t even necessarily a fallacy.
An ad hominem is not a logical fallacy? Wow. Just wow.
 
An ad hominem is not a logical fallacy? Wow. Just wow.
You’re not a very careful reader for someone who want to engage logically. If this was a 101 class the teacher would ask what mistake you made, and I’m pretty sure the entire class would see it.

Just let it go.
 
The entire thread is political. I didn’t start it, but I know how to skip opening it if I don’t want to have a discussion on a discussion board about powerful people’s kiddy diddler friends... juuuuust by reading the title. Adulting is hard, I know... and you’ll get there someday about caring about politicians or their cults that wear different colored ties. No worries. Spin that scroll wheel like you’re on Wheel of Fortune, you’ll be okay. This thread never had any aviation content right from the start.

“Mods! Mods! Someone said something I don’t like about someone who’s not even a viable politician anymore! Help me! I can’t help but read it!”

LOL. Kinda hard to say my post is political when the person I’m talking about is a walking zombie of a non-politician at this point.

But ANYWAY... I’m going to have discussions on discussion boards like an adult would, and scroll past anything I don’t like. Always have.

And if anybody doesn’t like it they can kill the thread, ban me, or do whatever the eff they want. Same as always.

Tell me where the Internet touched you. I charge $250 an hour for therapy. Haha. You opened a thread with THIS title and didn’t expect something that was a train wreck? Gimme a break kiddo. I’ve got single white hairs in my beard that aren’t that stupid. :)

If you want me to pick on the other cult, see the cartoons below. It’s a good one.

When a thread is talking about the pilots of a world class international kiddy diddler and his friends, a side question about his friend’s other employees who got sucked into their world, might come up. Go figure. Context.

Pilots, sysadmins, same diff. The point was if the sysadmin got off and has a nice beach condo somewhere, surely they can arrange for the pilots to have the same. Sysadmin even ignored a congressional appearance request.

The original question was about whether or not the pilots would get off. That only happens if the powerful come to their rescue and make this story disappear into the memory hole. Like the sysadmin’s story. Anyone here even able to name the sysadmin without Googling? I doubt it. Disappeared.

All I’m wondering here is if the pilots will be afforded similar to the sysadmin. It’s inprewibe when “the help” can just decide not to show up when Congress calls. Can they make the pilots magically disappear from public view. That’s the question. Closed door deals, sealed court records. Probably. They usually can. Questing really is, will they? It’s more a matter of will than ability at these dollar levels.

Maybe you missed that was the point. Not who they worked for and flew around to their sex slaves. I don’t care. The sysadmin was just the dude who came to kind because I work in that field. I try the same stuff he did, I’m spending a long ass time in Leavenworth. Guaranteed.

The power of money is truly amazing.

Of course this rich dude who owned the jet, one step removed, already tried to off himself ... so I’m guessing he knows his powerful buddies aren’t coming to his rescue with their fleets of attorneys.

Pilots are probably fooooooked too. Never know. Twice removed, maybe a high dollar attorney underling from a famous firm magically appears at their doorsteps and says their fee is all taken care of. Quietly of course. “I’ll be joining you for any depositions and we are going to start by filing every motion we can to make this so delayed nobody remembers you by the time we make a quiet deal. Shut up and let me talk.”

Have to ask though... was there a time when you thought any of these folks would ever spend one split second in jail for anything they do?

Doesn’t matter which Party/Cult they work for, that’s just playtime during the day. Don’t worry so much about the cult thing. That’s just window dressing. Their real lives are wherever the bizjets take them. That’s why the Congressional “investigation” into bizjet use died VERY quickly the last time it came up.

Moral of the story: If you’re the bus driver, close the partition and keep a good lawyer on retainer. Make sure they’re paying you enough, because retainers aren’t cheap and the flight time sure isn’t worth it. Know who you’re flying around or who’s severs you’re running... that’s all I’m sayin’ here really. Same story.

If you don’t have any assurances they’re sending their lawyers for you when the press and law enforcement eventually come calling or babe your own, probably best to work elsewhere.

One of the best Dilbert cartoons ever...

2e96e853764ffca10e949486a66016a0.gif


“Wool coated glob of fat...” has to be my favorite description of a DC politician, ever.
 
You’re not a very careful reader for someone who want to engage logically. If this was a 101 class the teacher would ask what mistake you made, and I’m pretty sure the entire class would see it.

Just let it go.
So now you want to play word games? Oh boy.

An ad hominem is always a fallacy. (Hint: it's in the definition). Here's what you clearly don't understand: the "fallacy" in "logical fallacy" doesn't refer to the personal attack itself, but rather the notion that the personal attack invalidates the argument. That's what you don't understand.

Here's an example: let's say you're having a discussion with someone with an IQ of 60. And they say to you, "It doesn't matter if someone wins the triple crown in the National League, the MVP should go to the person with the highest WAR." And you say, "You're a moron." That may be true, but the fact that the person is a moron doesn't invalidate their argument.

That's the logical fallacy.

So please don't argue with me about something you clearly don't even grasp.

P.S. Forgive me for giving you the benefit of the doubt and not thinking that purposely leaving "logical" out of your previous post was some sort of clever trick I wouldn't notice. Because boy I was giving you way too much credit if you did.
 
Last edited:
So now you want to play word games? Oh boy.

An ad hominem is always a fallacy. (Hint: it's in the definition). Here's what you clearly don't understand: the "fallacy" in "logical fallacy" doesn't refer to the personal attack itself, but rather the notion that the personal attack invalidates the argument. That's what you don't understand.

Here's an example: let's say you're having a discussion with someone with an IQ of 60. And they say to you, "It doesn't matter if someone wins the triple crown in the National League, the MVP should go to the person with the highest WAR." And you say, "You're a moron." That may be true, but the fact that the person is a moron doesn't invalidate their argument.

That's the logical fallacy.

So please don't argue with me about something you clearly don't even grasp.
What if I agree with your argument, but still call you a moron?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top