Coming up with a unified theory as to why I believe Q is wrong is as difficult as coming up with a unified theory as to why I don’t believe the sun is actually a telepathic alien fetus turning us all gay.
I could spend time compiling all the reasons why I don’t believe something is true, but you’re asking me to disprove literally everything you take as evidence, because if I miss anything, then it means (from your perspective) that I don’t know what I’m talking about.
That is an exhausting way to exist. So I typically prefer just watching the evidence come through here, evaluating it, and decide whether there’s a more parsimonious explanation. To date, there always has been, as far as I can tell.
Fact is, when I have tried to have that “pin you into a corner” debunking debate with Q believers, it’s result in me being told that Q is a time traveler or a computer than can see the future and that any prophecy can apply to multiple events in multiple timelines.
And I just don’t really have a way to work with that. It’s non-falsifiable.
I am happy to provide thoughts on stuff I know about and offer a skeptical look at stuff, but when the evidence of Q is “millions of little things that seem like nothing alone but add up to the Truth”, that is an extremely tall bar for me to surpass in order to “prove” Q wrong.
Like I said, time is doing the heavy lifting here. There is no chance I can disprove Q before Q disproves himself over time.
Like I said, time is doing the heavy lifting here. There is no chance I can disprove Q before Q disproves himself over time.
I think most are playing the waiting game here. With >4000 posts and dozens possible angles there are going to be very few with the time and ability to formulate, let alone verify, various hypotheses.
it’s result in me being told that Q is a time traveler or a computer than can see the future and that any prophecy can apply to multiple events in multiple timelines.
Those are hypotheses I consider almost 100% certain entertaining larps. Sure, there's a nonzero off-chance that reality is just complete incoherent nonsense. Given how close we are to VR and the fact that experiments have shown that memories can be planted, erased and activated/deactivated externally it's likely not impossible that aNyThInG goEs. But that's just not something that anyone can work with, so there's little point in considering it seriously until we find repeating patterns or usable mechanisms.
Fact is, when I have tried to have that “pin you into a corner” debunking debate with Q believers,
I'm not interested in a pin-to-the-wall de/bunking, because
And I just don’t really have a way to work with that. It’s non-falsifiable.
Actual proof, one way or another, is fundamentally impossible without Q himself anyways. Even if something, or nothing, happens one can always make up new nonsense without being able to validate.
But at the very least on the surface you seem sensible enough in your approach, which makes me curious as to what you've seen, done and considered.
What would you say are the most compelling pieces of evidence and arguments that you have seen so far?
I didn’t want to say it directly because it sounds rude, but if I found compelling evidence for Q, I’d be a Q believer. So I haven’t seen anything compelling. If I saw something compelling, then I’d be compelled to believe in Q.
I’ve seen stuff I can’t immediately disprove, but that’s not really the same thing, because of falsifiability.
Fact is that the purpose of science and logic is to predict the future. I learn about ballistic physics because I want my particle to go where I want it, or at least to predict where it will go.
If I learn psychology, it’s because I want to predict the behavior of people. If I learn medicine, it’s to predict the course of disease.
Q offers a lot of predictions, but nothing that has been useful for me to predict the real world.
You can hope that Q’s prediction that Patriots are in control is true, but those predictions have not been useful to anyone yet. You can predict that something will happen somewhere on the 70% of the planet that is water at some time in the future, but again, it hasn’t helped me predict anything about reality.
Q is hoping that reality will eventually reflect what Q says will happen without any of it apparently happening. “Future proves Past.”
Well, until Present proves Future, Q has not been useful scientifically or logically. I haven’t been able to predict anything about the world using Q’s posts. A lot to squinting a lot of maybes and a lot of encoded implications, but nothing that a scientist considers scientifically indisputable proof, which is what I need to reinvent my life in Q’s worldview.
It took us thousands of years to develop mechanics, let alone quantum mechanics.
If scientists went with your approach then we wouldn't have either, because any musing about "imaginary" particles (pun intended) were completely incapable of producing any predictions for the longest time.
Furthermore, Q is not a scientific experiment, nor are we studying a force of nature. If the purpose is mentioned as communications with plausible deniability, then that necessarily implies absence of an easily decryptable blueprint to predict future events. As such, inability to predict future events, especially with insufficient effort exerted, implies little to nothing. Certainly doesn't prove or disprove anything.
I know for fact that you can disprove Q as little as I can prove it and I don't expect or intend for anything to come out of this other than satisfying my curiosity.
As such, my question remains: What is the most compelling piece of evidence or argument that you have seen? I understand that nothing has convinced you, and in fact it seems like you believe to know that Q is a larp.
Even with that in mind, there is a hierarchy to the quality of different pieces of evidence.
I am asking for a a handful of pieces of highest quality that you have come across.
It’s not that I believe Q is a LARP so much as that I can’t disprove it as a LARP, and I generally avoid believing things until I have proof that I should. It’s the only way to avoid fake news.
So I’m not sure that you understand the difficulty of the question you’re asking.
There is no smoking gun proof, or anything really claiming to be smoking gun proof. Q is not allegedly proven by big, discrete pieces of proof.
Rather, the argument is that Q is proven by a web of associations by small, almost imperceptible truths which you believe can paint no other picture when seen at a distance than to prove Q.
So what it seems like you’re asking for is either the most compelling piece of microscopic proof which on its own would mean nothing anyway, or you’re asking for which constellation of microscopic proofs that, when taken together, paint a compelling picture of Q if you accept all the individual pieces as true, which I’ve established hasn’t happened to me yet.
So it’s a tough question to answer. Because you guys synthesize theories from a bunch of tiny pieces and pointing to any one of them as unconvincing isn’t really useful to answer you.
I will think on it today and see if there’s a worthwhile answer I can provide. But the nature of Q proofs makes it far more challenging to do so than any traditional proofing.
EDIT: Okay, we can probably talk about the Georgia “ballots from suitcases” video if you’d like, but even though I have a bad habit of getting sucked into longer conversations than I intend, I do have some other stuff to do today. If you don’t hear from me on this soon, remind me.
Coming up with a unified theory as to why I believe Q is wrong is as difficult as coming up with a unified theory as to why I don’t believe the sun is actually a telepathic alien fetus turning us all gay.
I could spend time compiling all the reasons why I don’t believe something is true, but you’re asking me to disprove literally everything you take as evidence, because if I miss anything, then it means (from your perspective) that I don’t know what I’m talking about.
That is an exhausting way to exist. So I typically prefer just watching the evidence come through here, evaluating it, and decide whether there’s a more parsimonious explanation. To date, there always has been, as far as I can tell.
Fact is, when I have tried to have that “pin you into a corner” debunking debate with Q believers, it’s result in me being told that Q is a time traveler or a computer than can see the future and that any prophecy can apply to multiple events in multiple timelines.
And I just don’t really have a way to work with that. It’s non-falsifiable.
I am happy to provide thoughts on stuff I know about and offer a skeptical look at stuff, but when the evidence of Q is “millions of little things that seem like nothing alone but add up to the Truth”, that is an extremely tall bar for me to surpass in order to “prove” Q wrong.
Like I said, time is doing the heavy lifting here. There is no chance I can disprove Q before Q disproves himself over time.
I think most are playing the waiting game here. With >4000 posts and dozens possible angles there are going to be very few with the time and ability to formulate, let alone verify, various hypotheses.
Those are hypotheses I consider almost 100% certain entertaining larps. Sure, there's a nonzero off-chance that reality is just complete incoherent nonsense. Given how close we are to VR and the fact that experiments have shown that memories can be planted, erased and activated/deactivated externally it's likely not impossible that aNyThInG goEs. But that's just not something that anyone can work with, so there's little point in considering it seriously until we find repeating patterns or usable mechanisms.
I'm not interested in a pin-to-the-wall de/bunking, because
Actual proof, one way or another, is fundamentally impossible without Q himself anyways. Even if something, or nothing, happens one can always make up new nonsense without being able to validate.
But at the very least on the surface you seem sensible enough in your approach, which makes me curious as to what you've seen, done and considered.
What would you say are the most compelling pieces of evidence and arguments that you have seen so far?
I didn’t want to say it directly because it sounds rude, but if I found compelling evidence for Q, I’d be a Q believer. So I haven’t seen anything compelling. If I saw something compelling, then I’d be compelled to believe in Q.
I’ve seen stuff I can’t immediately disprove, but that’s not really the same thing, because of falsifiability.
Fact is that the purpose of science and logic is to predict the future. I learn about ballistic physics because I want my particle to go where I want it, or at least to predict where it will go.
If I learn psychology, it’s because I want to predict the behavior of people. If I learn medicine, it’s to predict the course of disease.
Q offers a lot of predictions, but nothing that has been useful for me to predict the real world.
You can hope that Q’s prediction that Patriots are in control is true, but those predictions have not been useful to anyone yet. You can predict that something will happen somewhere on the 70% of the planet that is water at some time in the future, but again, it hasn’t helped me predict anything about reality.
Q is hoping that reality will eventually reflect what Q says will happen without any of it apparently happening. “Future proves Past.”
Well, until Present proves Future, Q has not been useful scientifically or logically. I haven’t been able to predict anything about the world using Q’s posts. A lot to squinting a lot of maybes and a lot of encoded implications, but nothing that a scientist considers scientifically indisputable proof, which is what I need to reinvent my life in Q’s worldview.
It took us thousands of years to develop mechanics, let alone quantum mechanics.
If scientists went with your approach then we wouldn't have either, because any musing about "imaginary" particles (pun intended) were completely incapable of producing any predictions for the longest time.
Furthermore, Q is not a scientific experiment, nor are we studying a force of nature. If the purpose is mentioned as communications with plausible deniability, then that necessarily implies absence of an easily decryptable blueprint to predict future events. As such, inability to predict future events, especially with insufficient effort exerted, implies little to nothing. Certainly doesn't prove or disprove anything.
I know for fact that you can disprove Q as little as I can prove it and I don't expect or intend for anything to come out of this other than satisfying my curiosity.
As such, my question remains: What is the most compelling piece of evidence or argument that you have seen? I understand that nothing has convinced you, and in fact it seems like you believe to know that Q is a larp.
Even with that in mind, there is a hierarchy to the quality of different pieces of evidence.
I am asking for a a handful of pieces of highest quality that you have come across.
It’s not that I believe Q is a LARP so much as that I can’t disprove it as a LARP, and I generally avoid believing things until I have proof that I should. It’s the only way to avoid fake news.
So I’m not sure that you understand the difficulty of the question you’re asking.
There is no smoking gun proof, or anything really claiming to be smoking gun proof. Q is not allegedly proven by big, discrete pieces of proof.
Rather, the argument is that Q is proven by a web of associations by small, almost imperceptible truths which you believe can paint no other picture when seen at a distance than to prove Q.
So what it seems like you’re asking for is either the most compelling piece of microscopic proof which on its own would mean nothing anyway, or you’re asking for which constellation of microscopic proofs that, when taken together, paint a compelling picture of Q if you accept all the individual pieces as true, which I’ve established hasn’t happened to me yet.
So it’s a tough question to answer. Because you guys synthesize theories from a bunch of tiny pieces and pointing to any one of them as unconvincing isn’t really useful to answer you.
I will think on it today and see if there’s a worthwhile answer I can provide. But the nature of Q proofs makes it far more challenging to do so than any traditional proofing.
EDIT: Okay, we can probably talk about the Georgia “ballots from suitcases” video if you’d like, but even though I have a bad habit of getting sucked into longer conversations than I intend, I do have some other stuff to do today. If you don’t hear from me on this soon, remind me.