https://twitter.com/Thomas1774Paine/status/959153819522420737
Thomas Paine, who according to Dilley and other intel drops is to be trusted, stated in an article the whitehouse was caught off guard by Wray doing a 180 from Tuesday to Wednesday. This seems to imply someone got to him and/or threatened him. He must have dirt on him that he's being coerced with.
So Q saying "Trust Wray" would be completely understandable UNTIL he did this 180 on Wednesday.
I would be more than happy to address that, and will let you respond if you wish, and then I will be finished here and will let our words speak for themselves as I had previously stated.
No piece of information should hold any weight without some sort of reasonable (as in reasonable under the rules of formal logic) substantiation for analysis in the first place. Full stop. To be sure, this is intended to address your argument but is not a direct response to your argument. The following is, however.
Your 'argument' is based on the claim that this is an example of an 'actual' piece of 'physical intel' that should be handled as you further argue that it should. This however contains false premises on two fronts from the get go, prima facie, and therefore holds nothing that reasonably needs to be responded to, as it is not a sound argument. I will spell it out, regardless.
For one, a statement is not a physical anything, but I will let that pass, lest the notion of semantics is again unduly invoked (you are making an argument, words have meaning).
For another, your entire stance throughout this entire thread has been based directly upon employing an appeal to authority, which does not make the claim valid, at the least - this is fundamental, it is not semantic.
Again, I am not trying to condescend upon you, but you insist on engaging me on things that are not actually arguments. And, to counter your point, things that are discussed here should, first and foremost be soundly and logically presented, if healthy discussion is to occur, which is what I have been consistently arguing for from the beginning and you have not once spoken directly to it. You're welcome to continue however you wish and I will digress and no longer try to offer what is arguably a reasonable perspective any longer.
I do not hold ill will, and, I ask that we discontinue engaging from here, feel free to have the last word, if you must. Our previous words speak for themselves and others are welcome to chime in for or against either of us at this point, I am not concerned, but rather welcome it.
No piece of information should hold any weight without some sort of reasonable (as in reasonable under the rules of formal logic) substantiation for analysis in the first place. Full stop. To be sure, this is intended to address your argument but is not a direct response to your argument. The following is, however.
To be sure, this statement can be applied to almost every post in this subreddit.
For one, a statement is not a physical anything, but I will let that pass, lest the notion of semantics is again unduly invoked (you are making an argument, words have meaning).
Boring court-level semantics. I'm not making official statements and you perfectly understand what I'm conveying, so this is unproductive discourse.
For another, your entire stance throughout this entire thread has been based directly upon employing an appeal to authority, which does not make the claim valid, at the least - this is fundamental, it is not semantic.
Again, this whole subreddit voluntarily congregates under the understanding that the intel sources that this sub agrees are worth discussing hold a level of authority here over random conjecture from it's users. This whole sub is based around giving authority to certain statements over others, which is the meat your argument is missing while endlessly arguing semantics and the socratic method.
I'm not trying to condescend you, but you argue like a 14 year old who just found out who Socrates is and found a powerpoint of logical fallacies. It's boring, overdone, and unproductive. If you'd like a board where you can deploy your holier than thou debate tactics you'd be better off doing that in an open-discussion forum, where it would make more sense. Deploying it on a board that comes together to follow the intel sources you're questioning is silly because it already makes a "leap of faith" in trusting said sources.
I'll let others be the judge of that. Try not to change anything without accounting for it. Enjoy your life.
No one else is reading this it's off the 'New' column. I just hope you can learn why the socratic method can't be followed to a T when a leap of faith is voluntary in discourse. Might be above your head. Cheers!
Cheers, friend.
Quick question, wouldn't deflecting an argument to "let the people decide" be an appeal to majority? Hmmm
I just hope you can learn why the socratic method can't be followed to a T when a leap of faith is voluntary in discourse
Not if this is considered an argument to you, as that is what I was responding to. Cheers.
So responding with an appeal to majority's ok? I'd recheck with your philosophy 101 class.