all 7 comments

[–]Ian 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You'll have to explain how this is a conspiracy because I don't see it.

[–]FormosaOolong[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I'd say conspiring to use your ranch as a eugenics operation to populate the world with your uniquely skeezy genes qualifies. It's fine if you don't see it this way.

Also, the whole of Epstein's story is a giant conspiracy, have you been following his ties with Mossad, FBI, his sex and pedo rings?

[–]Ian 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

conspiring to use your ranch as a eugenics operation

It's not a conspiracy unless one consider having more than the average numbers of children to allow your genes to have a higher chance of spreading an immoral conspiracy between the parents.

The article also says that he wanted to but doesn't mention any efforts to do so, it even goes so far as saying "There is no indication that it would have been against the law.". Would have, not is. So to me it seems as serious as his efforts to bankroll funding to find the paranoia particle.

If the article argued that it DID happen AND the women were unwilling however...

uniquely skeezy genes

That's literally arguing for eugenics.

Also, the whole of Epstein's story is a giant conspiracy, have you been following his ties with Mossad, FBI, his sex and pedo rings?

Sure. And I consider his cooperation with Ghislaine a conspiracy, his alleged secret videotaping and blackmailing a possible conspiracy (assuming he involved other helpers) and so on.

But I don't consider having a shitload of kids with consenting partners a conspiracy.

[–]FormosaOolong[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That's literally arguing for eugenics.

Oh come on. Feel free to disagree, but there's no need to twist my words.

[–]Ian 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes, I've disagreed and provided several points you could have replied to, yet you only want to argue that labeling genes as "uniquely skeezy" isn't eugenics.

[–]FormosaOolong[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You are welcome to report my post if you feel it is inappropriately categorized.

[–]Ian 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's the worst counter argument I've ever seen.