let's see how many times Jetz insulted and defamed everyone who agrees with Pizzagate along with the evidence supporting it instead of being reasonable like Perry by giving his thoughts on the subject and having a conversation with provided evidence.
I love it when people like you come around, because instead of actually discussing the content in question and conversing reasonably with all the so called "idiots", you compare everything to some mundane task that has absolutely no depth/relation to the actual subject.
how you expect anyone to take you seriously when all you're doing is insulting everyone for their opinions and completely ignoring the evidence gathered which heavily relates to child trafficking, child enthusiasm, and satanism/occultism, and instead transferring this huge in-depth complicated subject into a very simple and unrelated mundane task to display how "stupid" and "idiotic" it is beyond me.
Rest assured that I'm not ridiculing you because I'm unwilling to debate something properly, it's because I find your position absurd and impossible to respect. I've argued with conspiracy theorists in the past. They always end up dragging me through a bunch of articles or videos that are either only tangentially relevant to the severe claims they make, or are produced by other conspiracy theorists citing sources that fall into the former category. There is always more of it, and my answer is often a variation on "the relevance of this to your central claim is pure conjecture, based on very loose connections." So why shouldn't I cut out the middleman, and look at why I'm getting all this bullstuff that elicits the same response so consistently?
Most of the evidence for these conspiracies is gathered in the demented mindset that everything is connected, using the theory as a starting point and then gathering anything and everything that might fit into the equation, hoping someone smarter will sort it all out once all the pieces are found. Sometimes one of them tries, and it ends up being an absurdly long chain of weak affiliations - "X was once a partner of Y whose company employed W who once shared an elevator ride with Z whose Wikipedia page is only 6 links away from Adolf Riddler." I like that you used the phrase "heavily relates to" because that's exactly the point I'm making: the people investigating this are not creating any coherent idea. They're just making a huge pile of things that "heavily relate to" one, and then use those to sell the idea as solid.
The funny thing is, you could be totally right. The random-ass pizza shop could be the headquarters for a child enthusiast ring operated by government officials using mentally conditioned lab grown people to stage false flag attacks. I don't see any reason to write any theory off as definitely false until comprehensively disproven, but that doesn't mean I need to pay any attention to it when it's presented in such a stuffty way, and when Occam's Razor is usually pretty effective when dealing with the ramblings of insane people. The absolute disregard for attention to detail by the mob of people investigating it have sabotaged any chance of it being taken seriously by non-crazy people.
So unless your claim is that child enthusiasm exists in the world and anyone regardless of their career path can choose to partake in it (which admittedly I can't disprove), you'll need to do something more straightforward than handing me jumbles of links and expecting me to read through them all in hopes that I suffer the same mental glitch that you did.
