So legit question what proves that QAnon is actually real? I've not seen anything that Q has said come to pass. The month of the December will likely be no different. Or will it? Explain.
EDIT: Also, why are some of you saying there's no proof needed while others are trying your hardest to provide just that? Which is it?
The issue with Q is not about proof or disproof. Q posted things that already were plucking ideas that people had and asked people to think for themselves about them. Some of these led to very fruitful investigations. Others leave a lot of people scratching their heads. And sometimes we find that the stuff we were scratching our heads about suddenly makes a whole lot of sense like "these people are sick" and COVID-19.
The people who followed up on these things found facts that resonated with the things that were being said. The people who assumed Q was some kind of "divine revelation" found out that there was one point of data that they couldn't square and soon decided to ignore it entirely and mock the people who were still following up on the ideas.
This is the issue here. The Deep State glowies know full well that "plausible deniability" prevents anything of this kind from being released that is empirically provable. National Security and legal proceedings prevent any "provable" disclosures from ever being released to the public at this point under penalty of criminal or military prosecution.
So, let's look at something we, Joe Q Public, can really see. Like the election. People who are watching see a whole lot of statistical anomalies and allegations of inconsistency. All these convenient associations with Dominion. But here's the cigar butt... All of this is stuff that needs to be proven in a court. And SOMEONE somewhere is going to find some kind of "plausible deniability" for all of it. The existence of a counterpoint doesn't imply falsehood or truth. It simply implies that the interpretation of the facts are able to be contested.
But what is really being drawn out is the motive. Why contest the people trying to ensure the election is fair? We can only assume corruption. But could we ever PROVE it? That's the entire point of this exercise.
The criminals love the shill mantra of "PROVEITPROVEITPROVEIT" because it's a cover for people even LOOKING at the problem. Oh, it's all just "debunked" and "discredited" you're a loony conspiiiiiracy theorist. Oh excuse me. Who is the one blindly wearing a mask, ignoring known treatments like HCQ, and letting socialists take their freedoms in the name of "health safety"?
The issues that Q brings up are issues that bring us to look at the facts and hope that we might even solve the entire crime. Most of the public is too lazy or too brainwashed to care. They believe the stupid television over their own eyes and ears. Q's entire point was to FOLLOW THE FACTS along with a few hints to look at along the way.
It's always valid to ask for proof, there's never a situation when it's not valid, even if that's being asked in bad faith (which you assume). The court cases have netted nothing, proving that the claims of Dominion stealing the vote are meaningless.
Q is making exceptional claims. The burden of proof is wholly on Q and his followers. You can't say no to proof or say just follow the facts (especially when Q is selling facts that aren't really facts at all).
I think it's important to not marry Q with conservatism. You can still be anti-socialist, anti-communist, anti-progressive, etc. and not be a Q follower. Also, HCQ is definitely not a known treatment (Trump did not take it when he was at Walter Reed, I wonder why that is?). Maybe people wear masks because they know that, even though they won't die, they might spread the disease to someone vulnerable who could die?
Incorrect. A legal case where good faith has demonstrated a problem even though the burden of proof is not feasible shifts the burden of proof to the defense. Probatio diabolica.
A pattern of irregularities this vast is enough to warrant investigation of Biden’s ability to prove he got this fairly.
But shills ignore this point. Don’t they?
As far as HCQ, my friend is a former biomedical research scientist. He’s cross referencing the journals and the studying that are not being paid for by contrary interests conclude HCQ is safe and valid. Science is not immune to the problem of human nature: bribes and false ideologies cover up undesirable facts with misrepresentation and false datasets. Pressed for time so I’ll cut off there but you’re not off the hook.
Did I ask about burden of proof in legal cases? Most of the time that's not even a probatio diabolica because Q literally claims things that turn out to be false, so that's just outright false. And bringing up probatio diabolica doesn't help your case at all because you're trying to explain why you believe in Q, remember? Not why he could be right or could be wrong.
You would have to prove that there's any pattern of irregularities before you go forward with the ability to investigate, which is something that Trump's legal team is yet to prove. The Carone hearing was literally a joke.
Don't give a fuck if I'm on the hook or not, you've done a poor job of proving any point. I don't care if your friend is in science or medicine or not or whether he's said HCQ works because that's not been proven in the medical community at all. Answer my question: if HCQ works, why did Trump not take it?
The point of discussing that is to set forth a comparable example to my point so that I can demonstrate your unreasonable and invalid demands in your accusation which claims that we cannot prove Q is genuine.
The fact of the matter is very simply established in acknowledging that Q himself has admitted to being a source of disinformation sometimes. Given this, we cannot treat Q as a "knight who never lies." At best, Q is sometimes truthful and sometimes false. But that's true of any person we are talking to. Therefore, it is immaterial to use as a disproof. But it is a perfectly valid statement to reinforce an understanding of trustworthiness because it admits that Q is capable of "error."
Your unreasonable demand is that you are demanding that Q always present truth to be considered "authentic." This is impossible for any being with imperfect knowledge as Q logically seems to be. Therefore, the fact that Q sometimes doesn't pan out in predictions doesn't make Q false nor does it presume Q is truthful either.
What does commend Q as a truthful example is the fact that when we correlate the data that we have sanitized from Q's statements it corresponds to a valid picture of the events going on in the world. Therefore, it is a valid counterpresentation to a narrative given to us by the known "knights who lie to us nearly all the time" that we know the Mainstream Media to have become. Using imperfect to balance imperfect to create a more comprehensive picture of the situation. Just as one uses the left eye and the right eye to create a stereoscopic picture of the surrounding area.
Your assertion demands an impossibility: Proving someone who specifically said that some of their information was false is speaking truth sometimes. The burden of proof, therefore, should be flipped. We've demonstrated by our Q "breads" that Q has tangible data that is worthwhile for us. You, however, have not demonstrated that Q has no tangible data nor have you demonstrated why we should invalidate Q's tangible data that we have found. What motive have you to invalidate these "breads?"
Your mockery of Trump's attempt to demonstrate the election is invalid seems to give a motive for your activities. You seem rather enthusiastic about the possibility that Trump won't be able to win. Is that because you are against Trump?
We weren't given this information so there's no need to speculate. His doctors chose Remdesivir and Regeneron for whatever reason their medical expertise dictated. That doesn't prove or disprove anything about HCQ other than the fact Trump did not use it for himself.
With regards to HCQ, the issue isn't about Trump anyway. Trump may have informed us about it but this is something that we have done our own independent research about. (At least I know I and my friends have) As we have actively researched the claims about HCQ we found them to be quite promising. HCQ is a Zinc ionophore that disrupts the reproduction of viruses and coupled with Zinc it is one possible mechanism of disrupting Coronavirus.
The historical use of HCQ is demonstrable and backed up by many studies. Yet, the studies that suddenly have come out "debunking HCQ" all seem to have appeared QUITE recently and are almost always tied to some financial benefit from some institution we've traced to be likely involved in misinforming the public. HCQ has been used since the 1940s and it's got one of the best safety records out there. Before Corona hit, it was used to treat Lyme Disease and MS. But suddenly it's the worst drug ever according to the Big Pharma corporate science. Coincidence? Not really. Money talks bullshit walks. The fact of the matter is that it is an option in the arsenal of people trying to help themselves fight the virus. Why should it be such a bugbear? What's so dangerous about letting people do their own research and come to their own conclusions?
At any rate, our basic problem is this: Military hides truth. Government hides truth. Media hides truth. People hide truth from themselves. If you are looking to treat Q or Trump as "knights who never lie" then you're clearly ignorant of reality. You cannot handle Q like a logic puzzle where one contradiction is the end of the analysis. If you do that you're kind of dumb because NOBODY is perfectly consistent in life. That's just fact.
You seem to want to treat the universe like it's a grand accident that somehow generated a huge Sudoku puzzle for man to solve by the use of his almighty reason. From my perspective, that's what's baloney....