Your memes are funny, but I don't understand your argument.
"Quoting Snopes is content"? As in, that's something worth talking about in it's own right as content outside of the discussed topic? "This person quoted Snopes. Heh." Sure, you can call that content but its irrelevant to the argument being made. See genetic fallacy again. Are you arguing the genetic fallacy isn't a valid concept?
If an argument stands on its own based on the evidence presented, can you help me understand how the source matters and is "content" worthy of being included in the argument?
Either way, I linked to Gizmodo and Rational Wiki, not Snopes. Was there something about the content of their argument as to why much of this pizzagate thing is silly which is irrational or fallacious?
Or do you just like sharing memes and LOLing...? If so, I won't waste time responding further.
I remember getting into a similar sort of disagreement with you about global warming.
You are clearly intelligent, well educated and a very fast typist.
But you are a believer and I'm a skeptic to put it in broad terms.
I'm also a slow typist and like to post pictures - a picture is often worth a thousand words as they say.
This is a direct quote from your Gizmono article - it is so clueless as to destroy all credibility of the site for evermore:
"Pizzagate has been debunked by Snopes and the New York Times, and one of its biggest communities—r/pizzagate—was booted off Reddit for the repeated release of personally identifiable information, as Gizmodo reported last week"
Snopes is of interest because it is a propagnda site funded by George Soros that is widely quoted by the corporate media. Quoting snopes is beyond clueless.
Pizzagate is not some outrageous claim, it's the tip of huge iceberg that has been discussed widely since the late 90's. I first heard of the NWO pedophile stuff in 1991...
sift666, 100 thumbs up.