Qanon -The Storm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4e6e43e45606

In 2008, Epstein — a legendary New York money manager who has lavish spreads in Manhattan, Palm Beach and on a Caribbean island he owns — pleaded guilty to a Florida state charge of felony solicitation of underage girls, for which he served a 13-month jail sentence. But to many of his accusers and critics, that was a light punishment compared with what he would have faced if federal prosecutors had been allowed to move ahead with a 53-page indictment they had drawn up.
According to an 82-page prosecution memo produced by the U.S. attorney’s office in Miami a decade ago, Epstein, with help from several female assistants, “would recruit underage females to travel to his home in Palm Beach to engage in lewd conduct in exchange for money . . . Some went there as much as 100 times or more. Some of the women’s conduct was limited to performing a topless or nude massage while Mr. Epstein masturbated himself. For other women, the conduct escalated to full sexual intercourse.”
But that case was shut down by then-U.S. Attorney Acosta, who in 2007 signed a non-prosecution deal in which he agreed to halt federal action against Epstein in exchange for Epstein pleading guilty to the state charge. Epstein also was required to register as a sex offender and to pay restitution to victims identified in the federal investigation.
“This agreement will not be made part of any public record,” the deal between Epstein and Acosta said. But it became public in 2015, when the document was unsealed by a federal judge in a civil lawsuit.

Years before Trump nominated him to be labor secretary, Acosta explained in a “To whom it may concern” letter that he had backed away from the Epstein case after “a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors” by “an army of legal superstars” who represented Epstein, including Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr, who had led the investigation that brought about Clinton’s impeachment.

M
 
More insults!

There is a little more substance to what I said, which is why you won't answer my very simple question.

OK. Strip away all the fallacies and tell me what your argument was. It's instructive that you went from "show me a single fallacy in my argument" to changing posts about your fallacies to bemoaning the fact that I refuse to clog the thread with the same fallacies that would indicate that I'm arrogant enough to think that my personal credulity argument from ignorance should be used as a refuter to someone's argument.

Strip away the fallacies and show me your substance. I'll reiterate. It boils down to this:

I-dont-believe-you.gif



That's all well and good. You're entitled to your opinion. But stated like that, it just doesn't seem to have the same pseudo-intellectual false authority you're known for, does it?
 
OK. Strip away all the fallacies and tell me what your argument was. It's instructive that you went from "show me a single fallacy in my argument" to changing posts about your fallacies to bemoaning the fact that I refuse to clog the thread with the same fallacies that would indicate that I'm arrogant enough to think that my personal credulity argument from ignorance should be used as a refuter to someone's argument.

Strip away the fallacies and show me your substance. I'll reiterate. It boils down to this:

I-dont-believe-you.gif


That's all well and good. You're entitled to your opinion. But stated like that, it just doesn't seem to have the same pseudo-intellectual false authority you're known for, does it?

Why won't you just answer the question?

An argument from ignorance*? Apparently you don't even know what that means. In what way am I doing that? I haven't even claimed to be right. I haven't claimed to disprove Q. I haven't claimed an absence of proof supports my position. I've been talking about the likelihood of conspiracies.

* If a proposition has not been disproved, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true. If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.
 
Then what's your point in arguing that? I've gone back and looked again at the context and still don't know what you're trying to prove with it if your point isn't to in some way undermine Q's trustworthiness because it's being posted on 8chan, which is advertiser-supported.

It sounds amazingly like a wasted attack-the-man fallacy.
DOWN WITH THE MAN✊🏻!!! 🤪
 
Why won't you just answer the question?

An argument from ignorance*? Apparently you don't even know what that means. In what way am I doing that? I haven't even claimed to be right. I haven't claimed to disprove Q. I haven't claimed an absence of proof supports my position. I've been talking about the likelihood of conspiracies.

* If a proposition has not been disproved, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true. If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.

My point per ignorance is that your entire argument has been based on ignorance as opposed to knowledge. Its foundation is what you don't know as opposed to what is known.

The timestamps were given as evidence for Q's legitimacy. Your claim isn't in proof or evidence to the contrary, or disproving the evidence, but in denying the presented evidence based on non-facts and things that you don't know. Your claim to deny the evidence given is non-evidence about people you don't know doing things that you suspect, based on your personal incredulity. It's absurd.

And I've answered why I've refused to give the answer you want. And that question is absurd as well. I answered. I answered in detail. As a matter of fact, you're still bemoaning the fact that I answered in detail. You mocked the fact that I answered in detail. I just didn't give the answer within the binary format you want imposed.

"I don't really have much of a valid opinion on that" is an answer.

Now, at risk of more moaning from you due to length of response to the question, I'll give more detail.

At times, I suspect Q is a talented LARP that's built a system that can't be disproved ("misinformation is necessary").

At others, I suspect Q isn't a LARP, as I've seen what appears to be predictive posts, Trump actions that may reinforce his claims, timestamps, etc.

At times, I suspect they are all in this together to bring down the deep state and it's all completed, just being played out in public for the masses, just like Q claims.

At times, I think this is too Democrat-targeted to be a deep state swamp draining, so I suspect at those times that Q is a Trump-admin psy-op used singularly to make and reinforce red-hatters, and they'll all be brutally disappointed.

(Note the lack of a binary excluded middle that you gave as options: either LARP or deep state exists. He could be a LARP and the deep state exists. He could not be a LARP and the deep state exists. He could be a LARP and the deep state not exist. Etc...)

At any given time, I sway in my opinion because I really just don't know. But in any case, any opinion I lean toward, I try to do so based on what I know at the time as opposed to building them on what I don't know and disallowing evidence based on my own personal incredulities.

And again... If you follow my posts on the matter, "I'm fine to wait and see" is my general stance. I don't generally try to use fallacious arguments to counter other people's arguments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
@Orange_Crush I never excluded a middle. You're exhibiting the straw man fallacy. Asking you to pick which is more likely from two events does not exclude a middle. It's not a false dichotomy to compare the likelihood of two events unless you say/imply those are the only two possibilities.

So you've been engaging in ad hominem and straw man, you don't understand the argument from ignorance fallacy that you've been accusing me of, and you still haven't answered the question.
 
@Orange_Crush I never excluded a middle. You're exhibiting the straw man fallacy. Asking you to pick which is more likely from two events does not exclude a middle. It's not a false dichotomy to compare the likelihood of two events unless you say/imply those are the only two possibilities.

So you've been engaging in ad hominem and straw man, you don't understand the argument from ignorance fallacy that you've been accusing me of, and you still haven't answered the question.

Interesting. You gave me two choices yet bristle at me pointing out an excluded middle. You've disallowed a non-binary answer and claim no excluded middle. I completely dismantled your argument and you accuse me of an attack-the-man. I answered in detail the question, giving explicit reasons that I vacillate between different opinions at any given time, and you claim I still haven't answered.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt you asked for last night. Maybe you're just not on your game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeD
2548
Q!!mG7VJxZNCI4 Dec 2018 - 11:42:55 PM

Dc43CR5WAAAy400.jpg-large.jpg
📁
[Dec 4, 2018]
📁
"NBC News: There appears, although the redacted documents do not make it completely clear, that there is a [[[+++separate criminal investigation going on outside of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's purview+++]]] for which Flynn has been providing significant assistance."
Markers are important.
[Dec 4, 2017] > [Dec 4, 2018]
Think No Name.
Did Mueller have a choice in making the recommendation?
Who does Mueller 'now' report to?
Does WHITAKER also oversee HUBER + OIG?
What case(s) is HUBER + OIG + team of 470 currently working on?
Who has the server(s)?
Who has access to NSA UT Term1-12?
Does FISA grant access to NSA umbrella collection?
You are witnessing something [firsthand] that many cannot possibly comprehend or accept as reality [Sci-Fi or precision M_planning?]
Coincidences > > > reveal w/o violating NAT SEC
Coincidences > > > mathematically impossible to be 'FALSE'
Coincidences > > > bypass 'installed' restrictions to prevent future legal attachments
Comms understood? 5:5?
SENATE WAS THE TARGET.
Q
 
New: Title TBD
2549
Q!!mG7VJxZNCI5 Dec 2018 - 12:01:07 AM
Logical thinking.
D5 drops 1st - last.
Content & Dates.
Huber drops 1st - last.
Content & Dates.
Role of Huber (as portrayed by 'Q')?
What are the odds (mathematical probability) that Huber would be scheduled to testify re: Clinton Foundation on D5?
What are the odds (mathematical probability) GHWB passes away and the State Funeral date is on D5?
What other interviews and investigations were wiped clean (postponed) given a STATE FUNERAL takes up media coverage for a week?
Why does the (global) FAKE NEWS media [largest in the world] continually attack 'Q'?
Why is the WASH POST leading the attack?
Think ABC agency.
When you are awake you can SEE CLEARLY.
[RAPID_FIRE]
Q
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01
President Trump Risked Everything to Fight For & Defend We, the PEOPLE
2553

Q!!mG7VJxZNCI 5 Dec 2018 - 1:27:19 PM

Anonymous 5 Dec 2018 - 12:56:46 PM


Screen Shot 2018-12-05 at 9.53.35 AM.png

POTUS FLOTUS not participating in this evil.

>>4166910
One man, who gave up everything, risking his life (himself/family), to fight for & defend, We, the PEOPLE.
Bait expends ammunition.
EVIL has no place here.
Q
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01

VN Store



Back
Top