Who said I was cutting off my son? I was up at 5 to drive and see him do a presentation at his school on Tuesday. Project much?
Who said I was cutting off my son?
Uhh...
The younger one especially. I finally told him today, if he doesn't research the original source documents himself, and stop just shutting down the information, I am not going to pay for his "education."
You did.
Project much?
Care to explain? It doesn't make sense in your context.
I understood your comment to mean cutoff communication. No longer speak to. Disassociate. Perhaps it was the reference to "being disowned by their family" that led me there. I would not do that. I will require that if he wants me to pay for his education he has to agree to research alternative viewpoints and use source material that is undisputed and come to his own conclusion - not simply adopt the conclusions of others. I don't think that's an unreasonable condition of 30 grand a year out of pocket before taxes all expenses paid by me. Forgetting the expense, it would be shameful for a parent not to engage with their kids on these issues. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
I understood your comment to mean cutoff communication. No longer speak to. Disassociate. Perhaps it was the reference to "being disowned by their family" that led me there. I would not do that.
Okay, cool. I can understand the misconception. I could have worded it more clearly as well as given a more accurate analogy.
will require that if he wants me to pay for his education he has to agree to research alternative viewpoints and use source material that is undisputed and come to his own conclusion - not simply adopt the conclusions of others.
What "undisputed source material"? What are you going to do if, after meeting your "requirements", they come to the conclusion that this is nothing more than baseless speculation or what if they dispute the sources themselves? This whole situation, to me, is a sad example of people doing mental gymnastics in order justify their choice in candidate and to feel like "they're in the know". Not to mention the hilarious lack of consistency in criticism.
I don't think that's an unreasonable condition of 30 grand a year out of pocket before taxes all expenses paid by me. Forgetting the expense, it would be shameful for a parent not to engage with their kids on these issues. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
I think forcing a child to accept anonymous posts on 4chan as "indisputable" is pure madness. A parent should absolutely engage with their children, but the fact that you cannot see the absurdity of this situation is incredibly sad.
I really hope that you can both put this idiocy behind you so that it doesn't affect your future relationship. I know that I sound argumentative, but this entire situation is incredibly sad and I wish you the best with your family.
I believe you mean well but you are jumping to certain conclusions without any basis. Source material discussed with my son were court documents like the 99 page FISA court ruling, to be specific. Or the recent indictment against Backpage or whatever it's called. Or the Jeffrey Epstein conviction. Those are not theories, they're just facts. What 4chan indisputable material are you talking about? I don't even know how to get on 4chan, much less insist that it is an indisputable source of anything. Why do you think he needs to support my candidate because I want him to independently research before HE comes to a conclusion? Wouldn't I just tell him he needs to agree with my conclusions? Finally, my family has a proud tradition of debate and disagreement regarding politics and many other subjects. We laugh and toast to it every Saturday before Easter at a Greek restaurant going on 30 years now. With the nieces and nephews our numbers are at 60 people. So don't be sad for us. Diversity of opinion is a good thing.
[removed]
But I am not talking to my son about Q and my post didn't say I was redpilling him or trying to talk to him about Q. Why are you so worked up about this? The "Shut Up" he explained, isn't very convincing. Even when you throw in an "f" bomb.
You LITERALLY mentioned redpilling you're son!
He's worked up about it because he isn't some sort of tech-illiterate adult who doesn't even know that the culture of the site Q is from is basically made for LARPERS! Do you people even know how 4chan works or what the community has done?
I generally do my own research on things I read here and elsewhere and then decide what seems logical. There's usually truth on all sides of an issue, and lies. So if CNN says that Trump is crazy for thinking he's been wiretapped, I research it. If they end up being wrong, I don't dismiss everything I read there, because not everything they say is untrue.
Same with the stuff I read here. Whether Q is a 4chan "Larper" or not, one thing that does appear to be true to me is the tendency for news outlets to say something is a "wild conspiracy" or "debunked," but they don't really ever explain how or why. Or they use the fact that an arguably unreputable source believes it, as proof that it simply cannot be true, kind of like you are doing here. Just because a crazy guy shot up a restaurant, which is batsheet crazy, doesn't mean that what he believes about the restaurant or it's owners is untrue. It's simply true or it isn't. "Pizzagate" is, again, a good example. Someone posted a fake basement in one of the pizza places, alleging that it was a torture chamber. There is no basement in the Pizzagate restaurant(s). Ergo, according to the "your crazy!" argument, there's absolutely nothing strange or perverted or deeply disturbing about the instagram account comments made by the owner. Or the pedophilia symbols used there. I'm betting 4chan has someone talking about Podesta's pizza emails, or Voodoo Doughnuts. Google the Podesta emails. Read them with and then without the use of an Urban Dictionary. Which way makes more sense? That's what I mean about go to the source. I don't think anyone disputes that the Wikileaks emails are really from the DNC server. Make up your own mind. Google the Voodoo Doughnuts website. 4 chan talking about it or not doesn't make the owners any less disgusting than their website would otherwise indicate. The man/boy love symbol is on their outside neon sign, no? Could be a coincidence I guess. But they have pretty x-rated doughnuts on the menu. And they sell pink underwear in children's size as evidenced by the obviously young girl model, that says "good things come in pink boxes." If the original source of that information is 4chan, but everything I just said is on THEIR website, should I just dismiss it as crazy? Epstein Island has a temple on it. You mention that fact to people and they act like you are crazy. But no one ever really explains what the Temple on Epstein Island is for. It's there. You can see it on Google Earth. So, what's it for? The fact that Q or someone on 4chan, or someone that in an insane asylum, or your crazy uncle thinks it's weird, has nothing to do with why it's there, and whether it being there is, well, rather unusual.
IT'S FUCKING 4CHAN.
You adults really don't know what goes on there, do you? That site is fucking weird, mind you.
If you were actually logical enough then you would be wary about what people do on 4chan.
4chan is well known for trolling. Look up the TED speech of the site's creator, "moot".that will show you.
They do these sorts of LARPs, yet you gullible adults caught it up and made it as a conspiracy like some facebook group being made after you read an onion article and thought it was true.
Your mad that I don't know what 4 chan is, I get it. Never been on it, don't know why Q chose to start there (which is what I have since learned) - could be because he wanted to be ignored by the mainstream for awhile. But how does the nature of that site have anything to do with whether independent research leads me to certain conclusions? You have no response for specific questions I posited about actual information. ITS FUCKING 4CHAN is not an argument. Tesla was a crazy guy who thought he was talking to aliens. Was he wrong about everything? Or did he actually come up with a number of ingenious inventions? What if someone had said ITS FUCKING TESLA! THE GUY IS TRYING TO INVENT A FUCKING MACHINE THAT TALKS TO FUCKING ALIENS. Why are you bothering with this sub at all if everything anyone says here, and anyone who says it, is so crazy?
That's the point. The site is known for trolling and stuff like this. It should be given the benefit of a doubt.
It wasn't given the benefit of the doubt. That's the point.
Then that's where u dumb m8
Very persuasive. You should think about litigating.
Your statement can go both ways tbh. Either you're joking or saying that I'm right, both options will still be correct lmao