I don’t know if I can ask this without people getting mad, but let me try.
Have any of you research anons who dig into the microscopic details of every situation investigated this one for tomfoolery?
A liberal Q movement might suggest this worked out all too perfectly. Right after a major school shooting with an AR-15, we see another attempted shooting that was unceremoniously stopped by a “good guy with a gun?”
It doesn’t seem like an awfully convenient narrative?
A dude who owns an AR-15 is apparently so bad at shooting it that he can fire into a crowd and not hit anyone? Then be killed by a convenient passerby?
And he was so easy to set off that asking him to slow down for children in the street was enough to make him homicidal?
You’re going to accept the news narrative that easily?
What if the shooter was MKUltra’d by conservative bad guys and made to do this so he could be taken down and set the narrative that AR-15’s aren’t scary and every civilian should be packing heat? What if he was planted there and the woman was expecting him?
Because this was just a movie being played out?
Why isn’t every detail of this case being analyzed by Q people for theater trickery? Why don’t I see the same level of analysis here by Q people making sure that your side isn’t also (or the only ones) pulling dirty tricks and false flags?
You ask why this isn’t in the news. Fair question. Equally fair: why will this thread likely be forgotten by the end of the day here on the boards when there is such a wealth of information here about a potential conservative murder conspiracy behind this story?
If you’re talking about Christian views on things like evolution, it’s not that the Christian views aren’t tolerated. It’s that they can’t be tested or verified. It’s not falsifiable.
Doesn’t mean it’s wrong. But if it’s right, we can’t prove it one way or the other.
And, to be clear, there are plenty of Christians who work in science, psychology, academia, and so forth. Christian therapists are popular in more conservative states and are free to include religious principles in their work.
I don’t know if I can ask this without people getting mad, but let me try.
Have any of you research anons who dig into the microscopic details of every situation investigated this one for tomfoolery?
A liberal Q movement might suggest this worked out all too perfectly. Right after a major school shooting with an AR-15, we see another attempted shooting that was unceremoniously stopped by a “good guy with a gun?”
It doesn’t seem like an awfully convenient narrative?
A dude who owns an AR-15 is apparently so bad at shooting it that he can fire into a crowd and not hit anyone? Then be killed by a convenient passerby?
And he was so easy to set off that asking him to slow down for children in the street was enough to make him homicidal?
You’re going to accept the news narrative that easily?
What if the shooter was MKUltra’d by conservative bad guys and made to do this so he could be taken down and set the narrative that AR-15’s aren’t scary and every civilian should be packing heat? What if he was planted there and the woman was expecting him?
Because this was just a movie being played out?
Why isn’t every detail of this case being analyzed by Q people for theater trickery? Why don’t I see the same level of analysis here by Q people making sure that your side isn’t also (or the only ones) pulling dirty tricks and false flags?
You ask why this isn’t in the news. Fair question. Equally fair: why will this thread likely be forgotten by the end of the day here on the boards when there is such a wealth of information here about a potential conservative murder conspiracy behind this story?
An equally fair question:
Why do you continue to agitate and bring your (occasionally subtle) anti-Q bullshit to a Q-positive board, instead of fucking right off?
Because good research can’t be done exclusively by a community of people who already accept the same conclusion.
It’s the same reason I don’t see much use in talking to people I agree with. Not much to learn from such conversation.
Really? How do you explain Christian researchers? Are they not like minded?
I’m not sure what you’re asking.
If you’re talking about Christian views on things like evolution, it’s not that the Christian views aren’t tolerated. It’s that they can’t be tested or verified. It’s not falsifiable.
Doesn’t mean it’s wrong. But if it’s right, we can’t prove it one way or the other.
And, to be clear, there are plenty of Christians who work in science, psychology, academia, and so forth. Christian therapists are popular in more conservative states and are free to include religious principles in their work.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nathaniel-Wade/publication/236988696_Effectiveness_of_religiously_tailored_interventions_in_Christian_therapy/links/00b4951acb9acce4fe000000/Effectiveness-of-religiously-tailored-interventions-in-Christian-therapy.pdf
Did I misinterpret your question?