Message from @Sar
Discord ID: 507981829710675999
Yeah Q is pretty on point
from what i can tell
Conspiracy theories are fun, but I'm an amateur intelligence analyst. Sar, I think you appeal to authority more than I do.
Just like there is a public reality and an occult one (classified), there is also centralized government and self-government.
or central intelligence and general intelligence
Q isn't a "conspiracy theory", he's a real group of people
People posting photos from AF1 and the Oval Office
again, appeal to authority.
do you see?
That doesn't mean what you think it means
I hope I am wrong about what my 4-D eye saw re: OPN Taco Bell
"What's the proof Trump is President?" "He tweets from the oval office" "Appeal to authority fallacy!"
appealing to authority does not only mean referring to a fallacy. are you an NPC?
man go off script a minute
everything you say comes from some secondary source dude
its annoying
appeal to authority in common parlance is a fallacy
Since this is common parlance, we follow the modes of common parlance
If you're talking so only yourself can understand you, you might as well carry on such a thing privately
All I said was that QAnon is not a "conspiracy theory", he's a real group of people (based on evidence)
Well we know one thing for sure...
Q is not an L
😉
@𝓢𝓸𝓵ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็𝓻 appeal to authority
when you say things like "Q isn't a "conspiracy theory", he's a real group of people
People posting photos from AF1 and the Oval Office" what do you mean?
right there you are qualifying the fact that Q isn't a conspiracy theory because there are photos from AF1 and OO.
then you turn around and try to correct me about my usage of "appeal to authority" you gas-lighter
most of the stuff you post is some sort of referral to a secondary source, which is fine, I gather impressions from various sources too, not putting you down, but I stated already that I am a first hand synthesizer of intel analysis.
that doesn't mean I am always right. for example, Saddam didn't really have WMDs
at least according to public sources
his photos from AF1 and the OO are primary sources
They constitute proof of his identity
A theory is something that isn't proven
right, but you are using those as a secondary source
What does that mean, using primary sources as secondary sources?
you are making a point using facts that you have gathered
As opposed to my own ideas?
RIGHT
sheesh
My own ideas are not called sources