What do you feel like saying, right now?

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

Legally, what you’re saying about Trump being a pedophile is an opinionated claim, CG, not a proven composite fact. It works rhetorically, but a lawyer would flag it as hyperbole. And who did he kill? I’m not defending him because I hate the dude as much as you do. I’m just talking about what you’re saying from a legal standpoint.

What? You’re kidding me, right? I’m not using a legal verdict. I’m using the pattern of behavior and documented evidence to say, stop playing dumb, we all know what this is. Justice in America doesn’t protect victims, it protects systems and elites. Trump’s history of bragging about walking into dressing rooms at pageants, comments about underage girls, and his documented friendship with Epstein, you don’t even have to exaggerate to see the pattern. And then Epstein’s “suicide” during Trump’s administration looked like the most convenient loose end cutting in modern history. And if lawyers want to get technical, that’s fine, they can bill someone for it. I’ll stick to common sense, logic, and receipts.

It’s kind of like when you teased me about my college boyfriend that I didn’t have proof he was cheating, but I still dropped off his gifts he got me in a garbage bag in front of his fraternity house. I don’t litigate like an attorney, Phrozen. I do what I’ve always done. I connect dots. I’ve always acted based on evidence and behavior, not on a signed confession. I didn’t catch him in the act, but the signs were there (voicemails, inconsistencies, gut sense). That’s enough to make a call. I do not need courtroom evidence to recognize patterns of deceit. And these are the same dots our system and media pretend aren’t connected.

The whole structure is compromised by the very people who are supposed to uphold it. I swear it’s like an infested organism pretending to be healthy. It’s actually the same way I’d explain a diagnosis at work. The symptoms are there, the history is there and the outcome is predictable. It’s the same logic I apply to parasites. The system is infested, and everyone’s acting surprised there are worms, lol.

Stop hiding behind technicalities, Phrozen. Evidence is evidence, and pretending not to see the pattern doesn’t make the worms disappear. That’s why predators live in penthouses and whistleblowers end up dead or unemployed. You’re talking like a lawyer, not a thinker. Lawyers defend systems. Thinkers question them. Pick one.

[Phrozen Sands]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

What? You’re kidding me, right? I’m not using a legal verdict. I’m using the pattern of behavior and documented evidence to say, stop playing dumb, we all know what this is. Justice in America doesn’t protect victims, it protects systems and elites. Trump’s history of bragging about walking into dressing rooms at pageants, comments about underage girls, and his documented friendship with Epstein, you don’t even have to exaggerate to see the pattern. And then Epstein’s “suicide” during Trump’s administration looked like the most convenient loose end cutting in modern history. And if lawyers want to get technical, that’s fine, they can bill someone for it. I’ll stick to common sense, logic, and receipts.

It’s kind of like when you teased me about my college boyfriend that I didn’t have proof he was cheating, but I still dropped off his gifts he got me in a garbage bag in front of his fraternity house. I don’t litigate like an attorney, Phrozen. I do what I’ve always done. I connect dots. I’ve always acted based on evidence and behavior, not on a signed confession. I didn’t catch him in the act, but the signs were there (voicemails, inconsistencies, gut sense). That’s enough to make a call. I do not need courtroom evidence to recognize patterns of deceit. And these are the same dots our system and media pretend aren’t connected.

The whole structure is compromised by the very people who are supposed to uphold it. I swear it’s like an infested organism pretending to be healthy. It’s actually the same way I’d explain a diagnosis at work. The symptoms are there, the history is there and the outcome is predictable. It’s the same logic I apply to parasites. The system is infested, and everyone’s acting surprised there are worms, lol.

Stop hiding behind technicalities, Phrozen. Evidence is evidence, and pretending not to see the pattern doesn’t make the worms disappear. That’s why predators live in penthouses and whistleblowers end up dead or unemployed. You’re talking like a lawyer, not a thinker. Lawyers defend systems. Thinkers question them. Pick one.

I read your post but didn’t respond because I was trying to think of the best way I could turn the tables on you. Have you ever seen the movie The Next Three Days? If you haven’t, you need to watch it. And also, what would you do if a corrupt cop pulled you over and planted drugs in your car? Looking from the outside in would you say “connect the dots” on yourself?

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

I read your post but didn’t respond because I was trying to think of the best way I could turn the tables on you. Have you ever seen the movie The Next Three Days? If you haven’t, you need to watch it. And also, what would you do if a corrupt cop pulled you over and planted drugs in your car? Looking from the outside in would you say “connect the dots” on yourself?

Well, there’s a difference between patterns supported by evidence and assumptions pulled out of thin air. I don’t “connect dots” based on gossip or anything like that, I connect them based on consistent, observable behavior that repeats over years or long periods of time. There’s a reason we call that a pattern, not paranoia.

So like, if someone “connected dots” on me, they’d have to show a documented chain of behavior pointing to the same conclusion. That’s the difference between discernment and delusion. You can’t invent smoke and then claim there’s fire. But if there’s been like smoke, sparks, and burn marks for years, then yeah, you probably shouldn’t stand near the matches.

I don’t call that unfair. I call that paying attention, Phrozen.

[Phrozen Sands]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Well, there’s a difference between patterns supported by evidence and assumptions pulled out of thin air. I don’t “connect dots” based on gossip or anything like that, I connect them based on consistent, observable behavior that repeats over years or long periods of time. There’s a reason we call that a pattern, not paranoia.

So like, if someone “connected dots” on me, they’d have to show a documented chain of behavior pointing to the same conclusion. That’s the difference between discernment and delusion. You can’t invent smoke and then claim there’s fire. But if there’s been like smoke, sparks, and burn marks for years, then yeah, you probably shouldn’t stand near the matches.

I don’t call that unfair. I call that paying attention, Phrozen.

Then how would you explain folks being wrongly convicted and thrown in prison? Most of the wrongly accused got convicted based on your dot connecting way.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

Then how would you explain folks being wrongly convicted and thrown in prison? Most of the wrongly accused got convicted based on your dot connecting way.

Nope, not really. What you’re missing is that wrongful convictions happen because of bad “dot connecting.” A lot of innocent people are convicted because someone “connected dots” that weren’t really there. But the reason those dots were connected is bias and agenda, not neutral reasoning. Know what I mean?
So like, let’s say a detective assumes guilt first, then cherry picks data to fit the theory, while ignoring contradictions. That’s confirmation bias. So yeah, “dot connecting” can lead to injustice when it’s lazy, biased, or like ego driven.

So, my point is that I connect the dots forward, not backward, meaning I observe like a repeating pattern and I let it lead me to a conclusion, rather than deciding the conclusion first and then finding reasons to justify it.

I’m just applying inductive reasoning, not bias, Phrozen.

When I said it’s like diagnosing parasites, that’s key. Like, when I’m at work, I don’t assume a pet has worms and then hunt for evidence, I observe symptoms over multiple visits, lab tests and consistent outcomes. That’s connecting dots responsibly. So I don’t just assume the outcome and then force everything to fit. That’s how science works. I look at data, find patterns, then reach a conclusion. And that’s also what good detectives and judges are supposed to do, but they don’t always. I mean, it wasn’t done with Donald Trump.

Wrongful convictions happen when people assume worms first and ignore test results. See what I’m saying?

What you’re doing is you’re exposing the thin line between discernment and bias. My version works only when it’s grounded in facts, not feelings. Those cases you’re talking about don’t happen because people connect too many dots. they happen because people ignore real ones and create false ones.

So it’s like good dot connecting is based on logic. Bad dot connecting is based prejudice and projection. It’s biased. See the difference? Hope that clears things up.