Replies

"But if you start with the basic premise that Q is fake, this is where you end up.

...

An open, analytical mind is required for this stuff, goodman. Give it a shot."

I think this is the fundamental error right here. When you are dealing with an unproven assertion, you should look at it critically, which first and foremost means fairly evaluating all the possible arguments and evidence that can disprove the assertion. You're advocating for basically the opposite approach, to just assume the assertion is true and try to find ways to justify it. That is not critical thinking.

I did not start with the assumption that "Q is fake". I came to that conclusion after it became obvious that it was the most reasonable conclusion to be drawn based on the evidence. I have yet to see any evidence to convince me otherwise.

I have yet to see any evidence to convince me otherwise.

Then I assert to you that you haven't looked hard enough. I assure you, the evidence is there.

I, like you, started out in a state of disbelief. Then the proposition of Q was asserted. Are you saying I automatically believed it without evidence? I guess you don't know me, so I'll let you say that, but it's most def not true.

I promise you I'm not easily buffaloed kookburger. I've never EVER been accused of being a typical nutburger. In fact, I'm the one that makes fun of the kooks. And yet here I am. A Q-tard. Think about that, though I know you don't know me.

It took me a while. But the difference between me and you (and most likely most of the HONEST doubters, is that I actually looked at the evidence with an open yet skeptical mind. As the evidence piled up, none of the pieces ONE HUNDRED PERCENT independent proof, on balance and overall, I was convinced. Once I became convinced, the evidence kept piling up.

Anyway, if I can be convinced of an "unlikely" and "out of the box, irregular thing" like Qanon, I'm surprised other regular people of reasonable intelligence can't.

Also, there is a big difference between skepticism and active antagonism, which I see a lot of here. That, to me, is puzzling.

Bagster

When you are dealing with an unproven assertion, you should look at it critically, which first and foremost means fairly evaluating all the possible arguments and evidence that can disprove the assertion.

Well, I'm no genius and many many people are way smarter than me, but lemme take a crack at this one.

I agree that when presented with an assertion, one must"fairly balancing all the arguments and evidence that can disprove the assertion."

Of course that's true. One would have to be a fool not to. But what about that man who, like I asserted originally, doesn't consider the positive evidence that would prove the assertion. And the likelihood that it would be true. Remember, the assertion itself is a form of evidence. We would call that testimony in a courtroom.

Also, think about standards of proof and what standard SHOULD be used in this case.

Philosophy is fun.

In the meantime, it would be good of FReepers stopped C-blocking The Donald's Q program.

Think of it.

Bagster