re: Just stepped in th Q thread on the poli board

The motto of that thread should be question everything just not anything posted in this thread.

The Dems GOTV campaign is comprised of free dinners and bussing millions of uninterested poors to the polls. Those damn 200 Q people though !!

Well we see some of the standard Q haters in this thread. Like a moth to a flame .

There is come crazy in there, but there is more truth than fiction as well.

You have to be a complete moron to not see all the corruption in our government being pointed out. You can make fun of the messenger, but the message is sound fact.

The best part, all the ones claiming to be banned or making fun of it - follow it religiously. You try and deny it, but you know there is a ton of truth in it.

quote:

---

Now that is fricking hilarious

---

Go research for yourself about the government corruption. It is very real and very disturbing.

Or you can post on the OT and enjoy stupidity

quote:

---

How crazy are those guys?

---

Actual answers to the questions that "Q" posts:
33% true
33% plausibly deniable BS or gibberish
33% utter fantasy

Belief in answers to "Q" questions on the "Q" thread:
100% true

Therefore they are about 66% crazy.

The trick is figuring out the 33% without getting sucked into believing there is an alien fusion reactor buried under Antarctica.

But people talking about it, and that's the point.

quote:

---

But people talking about it, and that's the point.

---

Thanks Jussie

quote:

---

The best part, all the ones claiming to be banned or making fun of it - follow it religiously. You try and deny it, but you know there is a ton of truth in it.

---

fakenews.

quote:

---

Don't make me blow the Q-tard horn.




A lot of us Q-tards believe just like you. There hasn't been any direct evidence, but there's a whole lot of coincidences.

After riding that ride from the beginning, I'm intrigued, and I think something related is happening.

If Q is a larp, he's the best larp in the history of the internet. Plus, why piss in the cheerios of people that are trying to do research and spamming the frick out of these dirty fricks, with the intent of transparency and accountability?

---

Just like in Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild. The dude on the watch tower is blowing the horn for Supah as we speak. How dare you Question. ThanQ.

Q sent me, you mother friggin bishes that dare Question


[-17]
[-21]
[-66]
[-56]

you see the pattern, and if you don't...

we will spoon feed you using chocolate because we are far superior to you as we are the bread makers and Q posted our meme.



[trust Sessions he bakes]





[November]
[December]

[March]
[April]

[next November for sure]

[Sat com_bravo]
[BUPERS_end clas]

[the plane figs know all]
[we are watching everything]
[Q sees this thread]

quote:

---

nobody is arguing that there isn't corruption in government

---

^^^this.

LINK
The Allegory of the Cave
Plato realizes that the general run of humankind can think, and speak, etc., without (so far as they acknowledge) any awareness of his realm of Forms.
The allegory of the cave is supposed to explain this.
In the allegory, Plato likens people untutored in the Theory of Forms to prisoners chained in a cave, unable to turn their heads. All they can see is the wall of the cave. Behind them burns a fire. Between the fire and the prisoners there is a parapet, along which puppeteers can walk. The puppeteers, who are behind the prisoners, hold up puppets that cast shadows on the wall of the cave. The prisoners are unable to see these puppets, the real objects, that pass behind them. What the prisoners see and hear are shadows and echoes cast by objects that they do not see. Here is an illustration of Plato’s Cave:

From Great Dialogues of Plato (Warmington and Rouse, eds.) New York, Signet Classics: 1999. p. 316.
Such prisoners would mistake appearance for reality. They would think the things they see on the wall (the shadows) were real; they would know nothing of the real causes of the shadows.
So when the prisoners talk, what are they talking about? If an object (a book, let us say) is carried past behind them, and it casts a shadow on the wall, and a prisoner says “I see a book,” what is he talking about?
He thinks he is talking about a book, but he is really talking about a shadow. But he uses the word “book.” What does that refer to?

Plato gives his answer at line (515b2). The text here has puzzled many editors, and it has been frequently emended. The translation in Grube/Reeve gets the point correctly:
“And if they could talk to one another, don’t you think they’d suppose that the names they used applied to the things they see passing before them?”
Plato’s point is that the prisoners would be mistaken. For they would be taking the terms in their language to refer to the shadows that pass before their eyes, rather than (as is correct, in Plato’s view) to the real things that cast the shadows.
If a prisoner says “That’s a book” he thinks that the word “book” refers to the very thing he is looking at. But he would be wrong. He’s only looking at a shadow. The real referent of the word “book” he cannot see. To see it, he would have to turn his head around.

Plato’s point: the general terms of our language are not “names” of the physical objects that we can see. They are actually names of things that we cannot see, things that we can only grasp with the mind.
When the prisoners are released, they can turn their heads and see the real objects. Then they realize their error. What can we do that is analogous to turning our heads and seeing the causes of the shadows? We can come to grasp the Forms with our minds.
Plato’s aim in the Republic is to describe what is necessary for us to achieve this reflective understanding. But even without it, it remains true that our very ability to think and to speak depends on the Forms. For the terms of the language we use get their meaning by “naming” the Forms that the objects we perceive participate in.
The prisoners may learn what a book is by their experience with shadows of books. But they would be mistaken if they thought that the word “book” refers to something that any of them has ever seen.
Likewise, we may acquire concepts by our perceptual experience of physical objects. But we would be mistaken if we thought that the concepts that we grasp were on the same level as the things we perceive.


Copyright © 2006, S. Marc Cohen
This page was last updated on 07/25/2015 00:23:55