Posted on 05/03/2018 8:06:25 PM PDT by Beave Meister
the bible says everyone comes from incest....
Now one of your friends is trying to discredit the Word of God in a non-Collaboration thread. Are there no Q-followinng Christians who can help with your friend’s issues? Isn’t that what friends do for each other—help each other through the more difficult issues and questions in their lives?
Fantasy writer Says: “Well their Q Collaboration threads are dying on the vine”
Sure princess, cause you say so....
maybe you should go troll threads where the participants don’t like to go research stuff on their own, maybe some of your ridiculous bullshit won’t receive as much scrutiny there...
I guess we have different definitions of what “dying” means, only thing I see dying on this thread is you and enchante’s credibility.
Q Anon: (3/2/18)FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
03/02/2018 12:58:27 AM PST · by ransomnote · 1,321 replies
Q Anon: (3/5/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
03/05/2018 12:05:20 AM PST · by ransomnote · 1,394 replies
Q Anon: (3/7/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
03/07/2018 12:11:23 AM PST · by ransomnote · 1,741 replies
Q Anon: (3/9/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
03/09/2018 12:57:47 AM PST · by ransomnote · 2,647 replies
Q Anon: (3/12/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
03/12/2018 12:17:08 AM PDT · by ransomnote · 1,188 replies
Q Anon: (3/13/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
03/13/2018 10:28:10 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 1,950 replies
Q Anon: (3/16/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
03/16/2018 7:38:19 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 2,049 replies
Q Anon: (3/18/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
03/18/2018 10:04:49 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 1,245 replies
Q Anon: (3/20/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
03/20/2018 9:27:44 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 1,669 replies
Q Anon: (3/22/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
03/22/2018 6:22:46 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 2,285 replies
Q Anon: (3/24/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
03/24/2018 10:04:41 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 2,382 replies
Q Anon: (3/28/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
03/28/2018 7:15:36 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 1,881 replies
Q Anon: (3/30/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
03/30/2018 6:24:24 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 1,669 replies
Q Anon: (4/2/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
04/02/2018 5:44:07 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 2,968 replies
Q Anon: (4/4/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
04/04/2018 5:34:29 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 3,045 replies
Q Anon: (4/6/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
04/06/2018 6:28:11 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 3,148 replies
Q Anon: (4/8/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
04/08/2018 6:58:47 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 2,367 replies
Q Anon: (4/10/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
04/10/2018 6:09:31 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 2,188 replies
Q Anon: (4/12/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
04/12/2018 6:51:12 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 2,018 replies
Q Anon: (4/14/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
04/14/2018 5:11:44 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 1,998 replies
Q Anon: (4/16/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
04/16/2018 6:10:46 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 1,878 replies
Q Anon: (4/18/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
04/18/2018 6:45:35 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 2,573 replies
Q Anon: (4/20/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
04/20/2018 5:42:51 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 2,891 replies
Q Anon: (4/22/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
04/22/2018 5:32:43 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 2,492 replies
Q Anon: (4/24/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
04/24/2018 7:32:57 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 2,437 replies
Q Anon: (4/26/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
04/26/2018 7:46:16 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 2,088 replies
Q Anon: (4/28/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
04/28/2018 6:21:02 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 2,013 replies
Q Anon: (4/30/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
04/30/2018 7:01:38 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 1,699 replies
Q Anon: (5/2/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
05/02/2018 9:42:10 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 2,084 replies
Q Anon: (5/4/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
05/04/2018 8:46:08 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 1,991 replies
Q Anon: (5/6/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration
05/06/2018 8:08:36 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 1,878 replies
So give me a holler when your “Q skeptic” thread get to 60,000 replies, or just keep kissing enchante’s ass every other post till next year and maybe reach 60,000 replies that way, loser trolls.
why are you attacking me for my skepticism?
the bible says Adam and Eve had Cain and Able Cain killed able where did everyone else come from?
What’s the matter you can dish it out but cant take it troll?
This looks like a job for a Q-believing Christian. One of your very own, Edzo, has a foundational question re the Bible. If one of you can help him out, that would be great. (He would trust and listen to one of you, as he is well disposed toward Q-believers.)
Here’s his issue:
‘the bible says everyone comes from incest....’
Thank you all in advance. I know you’ll handle this question with grace and insight.
Oops, Skypilot, I didn’t mean to slight you. One of your fellow Q-believers has a Biblical issue with which you would doubtless be able to help. The details are in post 1,505. Thank you in advance.
you are such a pathetic loser.
don’t even recognize when you are being trolled
LOL anyone else you want to cry for help to troll?
Be patient. Surely one of your Q-Christian friends will help you out.
Surely.
That’s what friends are for.
Why are you attacking my skepticism. Maybe you should make FR ban anyone that disagrees with the Bible or those that are Christians?
I absloutely love hoisting trolls like you by your own retarded petard of hypocrisy....
You have a reputation as the Q explainer. Well an explanation is needed. One of your fellow Q-believers has a Biblical issue in need of answers. You’ll find the details in post 1,505. Thank you in advance.
S = Stupid
My favorite charity is me.
oh, yes, I’m highly familiar with Kuhn’s work, although certainly no expert. I even got to meet him when he was still alive and teaching at MIT in the ‘80s. Remarkable, brilliant man. Enormously influential, of course, although one must be cautious about distinguishing Kuhn’s own views from many of his followers who went in different directions, which is not surprising in such a dynamic intellectual movement across several major disciplines from history of science and philosophy to most/all of the social sciences and humanities to one degree or another.
The perception/resistance issues are fascinating, and can lend support to some of Kuhn’s major themes (paradigm, normal vs. revolutionary science, etc.) at least for metaphors and analogies. But such examples can cut different ways, since the “Q” followers can say THEY are the ones “seeing” accurately and others are confused and “resisting”.....
What the card experiments (Bruner & Postman, 1949) may imply can be interpreted in different ways, though. The matter gets complicated (typical for philosophy, ha). For instance, one can argue that issues about perception of color, shape etc. don’t necessarily apply widely outside of the psychology of perception, in which case this might still be valuable as a metaphor but not as some firm description of the “reality” of all kinds of conceptual processing in other areas of mental activity. Kuhn was often accused of trying to make too much of the gestalt and perception type issues, but at the very least the metaphorical examples can still be useful. I don’t know where the “scientific” aspects of comparing perceptions of physical experiences vs. all kinds of other cognitive activities has gone.
Overall, there is a lot about the “paradigm” concept that can be applied to the “Q” situation, although nothing of what is going on so far could be called scientific.... so it’s all more in the metaphor stage, I would say. Still, “Q” followers can say that it is they who are developing a “revolutionary” new paradigm and skeptics are resisters, ignorant, failing to “see” the world in terms of the new paradigm, etc. I would say more that in relation to Q we are in a “pre-science” phase where there is no justification at all for moving forward into what Kuhn called “normal science” where a paradigm is accepted and everyone should just get on with the daily business of examining alleged facts in relation to the overall “Q-paradigm.” That is what the Q followers want to do, in Kuhnian terms, and of course they have every right to keep developing things in terms of their favored “paradigm.” But I am not in the least convinced that there the fundamentals of “Q” are sound, so of course I am unwilling to proceed within that paradigm.
The issues of developing any new paradigm and judging among competing theories, views, paradigms, etc. are very intricate and many books and articles are written about this kind of thing. In brief, I’d just say that one shouldn’t develop a “new paradigm” by embracing things that are obviously unsubstantiated (Q world), but the everything comes down to arguing through details of what should or should not be regarded as substantiated (to use a different term than is common in either Q discussions or Kuhn discussions).
Also, absolutely ANY new view can be claimed to be a “new paradigm” — that doesn’t make it right, correct, rational, sensible, etc. A lot more has to be said for it (any view, not just “Q”) than simply “oh, you other people are stuck in your old ways, you just can’t SEE the world the way Q sees it” etc.).
A lot of followers of Kuhn went into very “relativistic” directions, such as no rational judgments across competing paradigms etc. But that is not what the “Q” followers do, since of course they claim that they are right and everyone who resists or dissents is wrong. Kuhn himself used a lot of language at times which seemed to feed relativistic views, but he denounced strongly, at least informally in personal settings, etc. the more relativistic interpretations. He thought there there were enormous challenges in comparing different paradigms and that one could not simply try to compare individual bits of “data” across different paradigms, since so much went into the conceptual structures of even understanding what one is “observing”....
In relation to Kuhnian terms, I’d say that the Q followers are jumping into a new paradigm before they have completed even the most elementary assessments of what goes into developing a sound paradigm. But one can always argue about rationality from “within” vs from “without” i.e., IF Q is right about certain things then of course it may make enormous sense to pursue further “normal science” in a Q-paradigm. But I (and you, obviously) don’t see how the Q-paradigm even gets started intelligently unless certain things about Q are indeed TRUE.
[still, getting into true and false, fact and value, etc. raises enormous trains of arguments about Kuhn’s work and about much/all of philosophy of science]
Well I’m waiting,
Perhaps you should ping some more random freepers to help you, you’re bound to find one that doesn’t think you are a useless troll.
It's good when a man recognizes his limitations. Only replace "dissenters" with "trolls."
TS/DR
Christian assistance needed! One of your fellow Q-believers has a Biblical issue/question with which you appear to be very well equipped to address. The details are in post 1,505. Thank you in advance.
What, you think they didn't? If Adam and Eve were the first and only people, then of course there was incest. Also, explain the story of Noah's ark. Weren't all the surviving people of the flood related to each other? Also incest?
This question has always puzzled me. Maybe your crying and reacing out to others can solve this for me. Why don't you have an opinion, Frantasywriter, you coward?
So then why are you so obsessed with us?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.