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?
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....
If Q is the source who lies occasionally, is that really a source then? It seems to me that if he admits upfront that he lies occasionally then that could potentially be something set up to cover him when he gets something wrong. I know people can't be right all the time, but that's pretty sketchy that he can just say "that was just disinformation" and people keep believing. You're saying balance the medias lies with Q's lies but that's not really happening because people who believe Q almost always say the media is lying (especially because the two conflict each other a lot). That's not really a balance.
I also don't know where to throw this but I find it particularly interesting that Q is a "government insider" who makes predictions about when John McCain is going to die (for example).
I know that Q could technically be truthful (even if that's an unlikelihood), but I'm taking the neutral position here. It's incorrect to assume I'm trying to disprove a claim that can't really be disproven. Q's information only makes sense when you remove most of what he says which is false, so that's not helpful at all.
I have no ulterior motive in pointing out Trump's legal failures over the election, but I equally have no appetite to indulge in a false reality. Based on what Trump's legal team has shown us thus far (and how the courts have reacted), he will not prevail in his election challenges.
I'm not saying that HCQ doesn't work, I'm saying it hasn't been proven to work. The Trump point was kind of just saying that if he advocated it so strongly why did he not take it. The debunking of HCQ was not of the drug itself but rather of the claims that it fights COVID, and I only ever remember reading stuff that said the claim was unproven but not false. It's in the interest of the government and researchers to debunk this claim because it could have unintended side effects. I don't think there's a media vendetta against it however- were that the case, why would they let Remdesivir and Regeneron be released?