Quote from: Rick on November 02, 2019, 11:12:56 PM
Well mit looks like he's , Q, is back.

Try him here: https://qmap.pub/

Thanks Rick.

Quote from: Impeach the orange man on November 03, 2019, 01:06:54 AM
If you believe this crap you are an idiot.

You wouldn't understand, but it's the world is rejecting Marxism world wide.. Q is more than you will ever realize.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrZejBRSAO8

From Q...


Wyatt
@SayWhenLA
Veteran Mob Prosecutor John Durham was NOT appointed by AGBarr. Durham served as interim U.S. Attorney since Oct 28, 2017, after Sessions appointed him. Coincidentally the same day 'Q' began posting. PresTrump nominated Durham as U.S. Atty on Nov 1, 2017. Fuck me, it's happening.



🇺🇸 3Days3Nights 🇺🇸
@3Days3Nights
http://8kun.net live today
"93 days dark"
Since Q3570
Last time Q posted
Aug 1 @ 7:54PM through
Nov 1 @ 7:54PM until
Nov 2 @ 7:53PM stop.
Exactly 93 days dark.
[     93          dk]
#QANON

Quote from: Impeach the orange man on November 03, 2019, 01:06:54 AM
If you believe this crap you are an idiot.

Whether you believe it's a LARP  or the second coming, means little. You are still reading it, and following.

And maybe learn something.

Quote from: SueAnn on November 03, 2019, 02:21:29 AM
What do you believe is the truth?

My gold standard is science, but it can't explain everything yet.

Believing in this Q is like believing in God, you just have to believe he's right. Maybe he is maybe he isnt.

Science needs quantifyable facts drawn from observation or experiment.
It must be noted that some want to give credit to Q by having observed comments made by him that were in advance of things actually happening. From a science POV, the likelyhood that Q would be right would depend completly on how many times it could be proven that his comments predicted something in advance and how clearly those comments could be linked to events that happened. If people can prove that Q is ever so often rught, then i'm sure they can explain that in detail and it wouldn't reuire so may example's rather than simply example's where it's just very obvious and clear.

So, feel free "quantify" the % of succes by which Q predicts matters in advance and the % of clarity in which it is done. I mean if one predicts in such clear terms that "a nuke falls on moscow tomorrow" and lo and behold that exactly materialises then rest assure people would be quite impressed with such an accurate prediction and would be right to listen carefuly to hs next prediction aswell.

Considerig the clarity of the predictions, one must consider various works that have claimed to be "predictive of the future" before, some being intended as sci-fi and some intended as "prophecy". There is the work for example of Notredamus, some of his predictions seem near but science typicly reviews it as "if only you make enough vague predictions, youre bound to get near at some point". There are the worls of writers like Jules Verne and H.G wells who's vision and knowledge of the times was as such that they could often make a succesfull prediction of where things were going. So, knowing that when posting enough vague predictions can yield some "apparently nearly correct predictions", it would typicly take rather specific and clear predictions to consider someone as somehwat of a reliable oracle.

Quote from: TheFlemishDuck on November 03, 2019, 08:18:30 AM
My gold standard is science, but it can't explain everything yet.

Believing in this Q is like believing in God, you just have to believe he's right. Maybe he is maybe he isnt.

Science needs quantifyable facts drawn from observation or experiment.
It must be noted that some want to give credit to Q by having observed comments made by him that were in advance of things actually happening. From a science POV, the likelyhood that Q would be right would depend completly on how many times it could be proven that his comments predicted something in advance and how clearly those comments could be linked to events that happened. If people can prove that Q is ever so often rught, then i'm sure they can explain that in detail and it wouldn't reuire so may example's rather than simply example's where it's just very obvious and clear.

So, feel free "quantify" the % of succes by which Q predicts matters in advance and the % of clarity in which it is done. I mean if one predicts in such clear terms that "a nuke falls on moscow tomorrow" and lo and behold that exactly materialises then rest assure people would be quite impressed with such an accurate prediction and would be right to listen carefuly to hs next prediction aswell.

Considerig the clarity of the predictions, one must consider various works that have claimed to be "predictive of the future" before, some being intended as sci-fi and some intended as "prophecy". There is the work for example of Notredamus, some of his predictions seem near but science typicly reviews it as "if only you make enough vague predictions, youre bound to get near at some point". There are the worls of writers like Jules Verne and H.G wells who's vision and knowledge of the times was as such that they could often make a succesfull prediction of where things were going. So, knowing that when posting enough vague predictions can yield some "apparently nearly correct predictions", it would typicly take rather specific and clear predictions to consider someone as somehwat of a reliable oracle.

Q never predicted anything, merely gave people the crumbs in which to follow that would lead them to certain conclusions they could make on their own.
Well, he did predict the end of the Deepstate and Marxism, but TBH, with Trump at the helm, it's a given the end of the Dim party as we all know it, is dead.

Quote from: TheFlemishDuck on November 03, 2019, 08:18:30 AM
My gold standard is science,

No it isn't. You believe in man made global warming.

https://www.neonrevolt.com/2019/11/03/rig-for-red-qanon-resurfaces-at-8kun-plus-instructions-on-how-to-access-qresearch-again-greatawakening-newq-neonrevolt/

Quote from: taxed on November 03, 2019, 09:42:31 AM
https://www.neonrevolt.com/2019/11/03/rig-for-red-qanon-resurfaces-at-8kun-plus-instructions-on-how-to-access-qresearch-again-greatawakening-newq-neonrevolt/

8kun.net/ is still down, but I have no doubt it will be up soon.

Quote from: taxed on November 03, 2019, 09:41:47 AM
No it isn't. You believe in man made global warming.

I "believe" in nothing. I think it's rational to argue that science aproaches the truth with more reliabillety but even science can and will often be scrutinised and improved upon.

I "put more value" in what is more extensive, thural and well documented research. The consequence of aproaching it like that means that "everything can still be proven differently" and i wish to keep an open mind on that. However, i must admit that the quality of many study's that claim the existance of climate chance seems higher, ive been shown a study on another thread that claimed that CO2 could not have an impact on climate change and it was easy enough to debunk with a relativly entry level of knowledge in thermodynamics.

The problem with the science i reviewed that argued against the existance of climate change is that it seemed more driven by certain economic interrests rather than a honest persuit of truth. It's besides rational to assume from a antropological (or even Veblenist) pov that since large monetary interrests are involved, those monetary interrests will try to maximise their interrest in relation to enviromental regulations thus giving incentive to fund scientific study's arguing against the need for such regulations. This adds a layer of scepticism towards studies that deny climate change especially since a overwhelming part of the scientific community values the work that argues differently far more.

At the end of the day however you make no argument whatsoever. If you really want to be the climate denier and act that this is so bloody obvious, then why don't you prove it with science rather than make a gratious and unprovoked personal attack towards another poster. Just because you can stigmatise someone who isn't convinced by faulty science makes him wrong? You can claim youre right all you want, that means nothing.

Quote from: TheFlemishDuck on November 03, 2019, 10:17:00 AM
I "believe" in nothing. I think it's rational to argue that science aproaches the truth with more reliabillety but even science can and will often be scrutinised and improved upon.

I "put more value" in what is more extensive, thural and well documented research. The consequence of aproaching it like that means that "everything can still be proven differently" and i wish to keep an open mind on that. However, i must admit that the quality of many study's that claim the existance of climate chance seems higher, ive been shown a study on another thread that claimed that CO2 could not have an impact on climate change and it was easy enough to debunk with a relativly entry level of knowledge in thermodynamics.

The problem with the science i reviewed that argued against the existance of climate change is that it seemed more driven by certain economic interrests rather than a honest persuit of truth. It's besides rational to assume from a antropological (or even Veblenist) pov that since large monetary interrests are involved, those monetary interrests will try to maximise their interrest in relation to enviromental regulations thus giving incentive to fund scientific study's arguing against the need for such regulations. This adds a layer of scepticism towards studies that deny climate change especially since a overwhelming part of the scientific community values the work that argues differently far more.

At the end of the day however you make no argument whatsoever. If you really want to be the climate denier and act that this is so bloody obvious, then why don't you prove it with science rather than make a gratious and unprovoked personal attack towards another poster. Just because you can stigmatise someone who isn't convinced by faulty science makes him wrong? You can claim youre right all you want, that means nothing.

Bumped a thread for this topic:
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/only-stupid-people-believe-in-the-global-warming-hoax/msg387097/#new

Quote from: Impeach the orange man on November 03, 2019, 01:06:54 AM
If you believe this crap you are an idiot.

Believing in research makes you an idiot?

Quote from: TheFlemishDuck on November 03, 2019, 08:18:30 AM
My gold standard is science, but it can't explain everything yet.

Believing in this Q is like believing in God, you just have to believe he's right.

Wrong. Science has never proven that the universe is millions or billions of years old yet you act like it has. Macroevolution has never been observed and cannot be repeated or teated. The bible is the most sourced book of the ancient world. Science(ie archeology, literature, history) strongly support the bible. And there are hundreds of PhD scientists who support  the christian worldview. It takes more faith (in the modern academic community which votes over 90% democrat) to be an athiest than it does to be a christian.

Yet leftists believe in the myth of man made climate change, in 72 genders, and that a fetus isnt a human. The left only buys into pop science and junk science because they are so gullible.

Quote from: taxed on November 10, 2019, 11:17:41 AM

Awesome!!!