As I suspected, the differences between our look at this post was predictable.
You and I both identified holes in Q's post that he offered no answer.
You decided to fill in what you believed those answers to be. You chose events that fit the conclusion you believe to be true. Therefore, you have determined on your own that Q intended you to identify those events, and fill in his questions with those EXACT answers.
And now that you've provided your own evidence to support the conclusion you already believe was true, you've now esablished, in your own brain, that Q's evidence supports you, because you've MADE it support you by explaining what pieces of evidence Q DEFINITELY wanted us to use here.
I do not make such assumptions.
And because I don't make such assumptions, I can't assume anything about what Q supposedly wanted me to conclude here.
Because Q claimed to be a Socratic thinker, and if that's the case, then he wasn't trying to prove a point, he was trying to teach you how to question.
And I don't think you learned that lesson.
"Reject everything in the MSM as a lie!" is not questioning everything. In fact, that's not questioning anything. It's a fallacy to think that rejecting what other people accept is the same thing as questioning what other people accept.
You don't question. You insist that you know the truth, and everything else is a lie.
That's not research. That's zealotry. And goodness to gracious, if there is ANYTHING you take from you conversations with me, it's in understanding that intelligent people NEVER reject ANY source of information just because of the source.
I think Q is not a good source of credible and predictable information.
But I haven't rejected anything Q has said simply because he's said it. I've debated it. I've researched it. I've tried to fit it against observations.
Because real researchers never reject anything except a bad argument, and only when they've demonstrated empirically and falsifiable why the argument itself (not the source) should be rejected.
I do this for Q. I do not get the same respect from you.
Then you provide nothing of value to the board. You provide no new opinions only regurgitated beliefs of your cult. We invite unique thought not worship of greek gods (3 letter agencies).
Good heavens, please, please, please do not suggest that evaluating Q's posts without assumptions is harmful to this board. Please don't do that, because that's exactly the sort of thing I think infiltrators to this movement would be saying and the whole reason I worry I've been talking with a shill from my own goddamn Reddit board.
Please do not suggest that me approaching Q without assumptions of his credibility means that I am somehow against the values of this board.
Neutral, objective evaluation of the truth is the ONLY objective of this board. This board may believe Q can offer a means to achieving that, but nobody, not even Q, is protected from the techniques he taught to people. Even Q "himself" deserves scrutiny, because if he doesn't, then you're adding evidence that this is a cult, rather than a research group. Don't poison the board with that nonsense that having assumptions of Q's credibility is a strength.
Assume NOTHING. Verify, THEN trust.
Q is just asking questions in a staircase manner.
If you're seriously suggesting that Q was "asking questions in a staircase manner", then you're suggesting that Q wasn't actually teaching anyone to question anything.
You'd be suggesting that he was simply telling you what was true by asking questions and rejecting every answer until you got the one he wanted you to believe.
That's how you make someone feel smart for accepting exactly what you tell them is true.
Again, I would NOT be in the habit of suggesting that this was Q's mechanism for teaching you anything if I were you, because that's how brainwashing works, not freeing minds. Don't throw that kind of evidence to the normies, it'll just make things harder.
You attempted a single Q post.
I've been dissecting Q posts since Q was still making them.
Please provide unique and new opinions.
Again, this is a common attack line with you, but every time you've been challenged to prove where my specific arguments are coming from, you have never found anything.
I understand it's bad for the narrative if smart people have logical and reasonable disagreements with the Q movement, because that means it's far less likely that the evidence that has convinced YOU is as obvious and overpowering as you think it is.
But continually repeating this same line of attack against me over and over again is earning you nothing. Not only have you never been able to cite whatever source you think I'm stealing my analysis from, but it has also given you an easy way to dismiss the source without addressing the argument.
"Everything in the MSM is a lie. Your arguments agree with the MSM. Therefore, it must come from the MSM. Therefore, it must be a lie. Therefore, I don't even have to bother addressing your argument."
There are at least three logical fallacies in that line above, perhaps more. Can you find them?
And please note that despite me not thinking Q is a legitimate source of his information, despite thinking it's "a lie", I still respond to arguments from any source, including Q.
So I end up addressing almost every argument here, even the ones I think are based on lies and misunderstandings, while you dismiss almost every argument on assumptions of where they must have come from and whether those arguments are even worth addressing.
You have a poor case in accusing me being the one participating here in bad faith.
LOL - y’all seem to dislike each other, but in my opinion, every thread on this site should look just like this. You both bring valuable insights to the discussion. Thanks to both of you for your contribution. It’s been a loooong time since I’ve seen something so productive on this site (including my own contributions).
As I suspected, the differences between our look at this post was predictable.
You and I both identified holes in Q's post that he offered no answer.
You decided to fill in what you believed those answers to be. You chose events that fit the conclusion you believe to be true. Therefore, you have determined on your own that Q intended you to identify those events, and fill in his questions with those EXACT answers.
And now that you've provided your own evidence to support the conclusion you already believe was true, you've now esablished, in your own brain, that Q's evidence supports you, because you've MADE it support you by explaining what pieces of evidence Q DEFINITELY wanted us to use here.
I do not make such assumptions.
And because I don't make such assumptions, I can't assume anything about what Q supposedly wanted me to conclude here.
Because Q claimed to be a Socratic thinker, and if that's the case, then he wasn't trying to prove a point, he was trying to teach you how to question.
And I don't think you learned that lesson.
"Reject everything in the MSM as a lie!" is not questioning everything. In fact, that's not questioning anything. It's a fallacy to think that rejecting what other people accept is the same thing as questioning what other people accept.
You don't question. You insist that you know the truth, and everything else is a lie.
That's not research. That's zealotry. And goodness to gracious, if there is ANYTHING you take from you conversations with me, it's in understanding that intelligent people NEVER reject ANY source of information just because of the source.
I think Q is not a good source of credible and predictable information.
But I haven't rejected anything Q has said simply because he's said it. I've debated it. I've researched it. I've tried to fit it against observations.
Because real researchers never reject anything except a bad argument, and only when they've demonstrated empirically and falsifiable why the argument itself (not the source) should be rejected.
I do this for Q. I do not get the same respect from you.
Good heavens, please, please, please do not suggest that evaluating Q's posts without assumptions is harmful to this board. Please don't do that, because that's exactly the sort of thing I think infiltrators to this movement would be saying and the whole reason I worry I've been talking with a shill from my own goddamn Reddit board.
Please do not suggest that me approaching Q without assumptions of his credibility means that I am somehow against the values of this board.
Neutral, objective evaluation of the truth is the ONLY objective of this board. This board may believe Q can offer a means to achieving that, but nobody, not even Q, is protected from the techniques he taught to people. Even Q "himself" deserves scrutiny, because if he doesn't, then you're adding evidence that this is a cult, rather than a research group. Don't poison the board with that nonsense that having assumptions of Q's credibility is a strength.
Assume NOTHING. Verify, THEN trust.
If you're seriously suggesting that Q was "asking questions in a staircase manner", then you're suggesting that Q wasn't actually teaching anyone to question anything.
You'd be suggesting that he was simply telling you what was true by asking questions and rejecting every answer until you got the one he wanted you to believe.
That's how you make someone feel smart for accepting exactly what you tell them is true.
Again, I would NOT be in the habit of suggesting that this was Q's mechanism for teaching you anything if I were you, because that's how brainwashing works, not freeing minds. Don't throw that kind of evidence to the normies, it'll just make things harder.
I've been dissecting Q posts since Q was still making them.
Again, this is a common attack line with you, but every time you've been challenged to prove where my specific arguments are coming from, you have never found anything.
https://greatawakening.win/p/141YDzTUMb/luciferase-was-bad-but-it-gets-w/
I understand it's bad for the narrative if smart people have logical and reasonable disagreements with the Q movement, because that means it's far less likely that the evidence that has convinced YOU is as obvious and overpowering as you think it is.
But continually repeating this same line of attack against me over and over again is earning you nothing. Not only have you never been able to cite whatever source you think I'm stealing my analysis from, but it has also given you an easy way to dismiss the source without addressing the argument.
"Everything in the MSM is a lie. Your arguments agree with the MSM. Therefore, it must come from the MSM. Therefore, it must be a lie. Therefore, I don't even have to bother addressing your argument."
There are at least three logical fallacies in that line above, perhaps more. Can you find them?
And please note that despite me not thinking Q is a legitimate source of his information, despite thinking it's "a lie", I still respond to arguments from any source, including Q.
So I end up addressing almost every argument here, even the ones I think are based on lies and misunderstandings, while you dismiss almost every argument on assumptions of where they must have come from and whether those arguments are even worth addressing.
You have a poor case in accusing me being the one participating here in bad faith.
LOL - y’all seem to dislike each other, but in my opinion, every thread on this site should look just like this. You both bring valuable insights to the discussion. Thanks to both of you for your contribution. It’s been a loooong time since I’ve seen something so productive on this site (including my own contributions).