And where Q, a human being, will always have a tendency to speak loosely to make a point. Maybe if restricted to the realm of politics, the idea becomes more real. That is a possibility. But to take it as a global truth...not even remotely close. I find the validity of Q to be found in the explanations, not the metaphysics.
I notice you did not address the hard, empirical, fact- and logic-based disproof of "there are no coincidences" and instead substituted an appeal to authority, the first of all argumentative fallacies. You have to watch your moves in the mirror to see when you are awkward.
And where Q, a human being, will always have a tendency to speak loosely to make a point. Maybe if restricted to the realm of politics, the idea becomes more real. That is a possibility. But to take it as a global truth...not even remotely close. I find the validity of Q to be found in the explanations, not the metaphysics.
I notice you did not address the hard, empirical, fact- and logic-based disproof of "there are no coincidences" and instead substituted an appeal to authority, the first of all argumentative fallacies. You have to watch your moves in the mirror to see when you are awkward.
It's not an appeal to authority to mention hard facts about the context of the conversation.
Don't kid me. It is an appeal to authority when the only thing Q can add to the discussion is an opinion on the subject.