Eiuol

No, I don't have any objective answer. Like I said, I can find meaning in a tarot card reading, but it isn't anything objective. Start with the first post about Epstein in 2017. Explain it to us.

Just review with us the process of interpreting Q posts. That would be easier than answering what it points to. Explain how it's different from interpreting poetry written by a paranoid schizophrenic having an episode. That's not an ad hominem attack - I literally don't know how to decipher the meaning.

What is a pointer? Postmodern poetry isn't much of anything besides word salad of word association.

It's like trying to explain why reading palm lines and using astrology is not a valid form of evidence. Yeah, I get the gist of what astrology readings mean, or what a paranoid schizophrenic means when they write a poem about the NSA spying on them from the basement surrounded by pentagrams. They aren't wrong that the NSA is spying on them, but the nature of that spying is delusional. What you say is like the paranoid schizophrenic saying that Edward Snowden revealing the spying of NSA confirms or adds weight to the claim that there is a global cabal or grand national conspiracy with a concerted effort involving satanic symbology. Musk didn't confirm anything, all he did is agree with the conclusion. Plus the conclusion is only really talking about content moderation and probably failures of dealing with content moderation. But hey, if Q counts as a credible source to you with pretty good evidence, I'm not surprised that you take something Musk said about content moderation (and I probably agree with him but I haven't delved into it deeply) as a wink wink.

I don't think vague posts about things Epstein was already accused of at that time is evidence of anything.

I mean, Nostradamus made real-world predictions about specific events at specific times, the indecipherable part is what exactly the prediction is. Not a broad generalization about trends. Since the posts are not objectively decipherable, you can make them point to whatever you want. A tarot card reading suggests information for further research, but based on whatever interpretation you want.

Like most prophecies, when they don't come true, they are reinterpreted so that they become a new prophecy. What Musk did hasn't shown much, just that Twitter had some politically minded intentions (what company doesn't?) But it was explicitly stated that there is no known direct involvement with the government. The mentions about the FBI didn't reveal the nature of what the FBI wanted, which might have been specifically about violent plots for all we know. And even if it was something profound, the whole idea of the storm stems from Q and objectively indecipherable posts. Again, the issue isn't that you make claims, it's that we can't even evaluate what your claims are based on. She portrayed a fictional world of the 50s, which could occur in a similar way if certain trends continue. Not even comparable to making real-world predictions about specific events at specific times inside enigmatic messages. Q said the storm was coming, not "it could be coming but it might not if you do something about it".

For everything you wrote, I find it bizarre that you are unwilling to say that "I think that Russia is overall in the moral right for this conflict." Well, as you can see, even when you grant everything he says, and all his statements, and all the information he presents, he still isn't willing to make a clear moral statement.

It's more like Nostradamus. Don't be so kind about it - the people who follow it are unhinged, treating all these things as hidden truths, but far from any rational methodology. Mysteries treated as guides to the real truth, where encoded messages are open to interpretation without a means to decipher them. And the mysteries are treated as evidence. Not to mention that "the storm" never did happen. The prophecy didn't come true. So when JL talks about "engaging the ideas", he's talking about engaging the equivalent of the ideas people have from looking at inkblots. How am I supposed to engage with that? I don't mean that metaphorically, I truly have nothing to say. And if I talked to JL about his claims, the evidence would be based on these mysterian messages. At least with flat earthers, they make claims you can prove or disprove. Why do you think that? A lot of political and social movements have been started based on conspiracies about what is "really" going on.

Right, so what's your conclusion about this context in this situation? I'm not asking a hypothetical, I'm asking what your judgment is, in this circumstance. In other words, are you saying that you congratulate Russia for the actions it took? I already know your moral judgment about the rest of the West in this circumstance: pretty damn bad. The options for Russia are that you think they are morally worse (doesn't sound like it), morally equivalent (I doubt it, unless the miscalculation about the time the conflict would take is morally equivalent to the mountain of bad things that the West has done in this case), or morally better. I'm asking what your moral judgment is. I'm well aware of how to properly make moral judgments, you don't need to explain all the caveats.

It's like people forget that we have to extend analysis back 20 years if we want to talk about provocation. If NATO provoked Russia, Russia should attack NATO. But they attacked Ukraine with its own issues. If they refused a direct attack on NATO because it would be certain suicide, they would be acting as if the Ukraine was independent of NATO. If NATO provoked, the justified target is NATO. Of course, if the Ukraine is de facto a member of NATO, Ukraine would be a justified target as well. But that would be suicidal, because if the Ukraine were a de facto member, NATO would retaliate. Except, NATO didn't retaliate. So I would conclude that Russia didn't think it was suicidal, and did not consider the Ukraine a de facto member of NATO. In other words, if NATO provoked, Russia attacked the wrong country. But then you might say "they knew that NATO would try to remain noncommittal to give the illusion of innocence!" The simple explanation: NATO doesn't consider Ukraine a member in the first place, so why would it commit?

I was referencing JL, whynot, and Tad. I realize that the question mark the thing can apply to you, but you aren't a Socratic troll. Oh man, you're in for a delicious treat. It's the most extensive and rich right wing conspiracy theory out there. Q is the alleged whistleblower from within the "deep state" who knows what's really going on but can only reveal details secretly. I forget sometimes that it's mostly an American thing.

You were quite clear that the West has done a lot worse with nefarious intentions and these intentions were not from rational errors (irrational errors are immoral), while Russia/Putin made a rational error (which, hopefully you are aware, is not immoral by Oist standards). So, assuming that your pages upon pages of analysis are correct, and we consider all the issues that are relevant, Russia comes out as the moral superior with regard to this conflict. Of course it's complex, but you've been posting your opinions for many months now on this topic, with a lot of (supposed) analysis. More than enough time for you to reach a conclusion. I mean, you should read the essay by Rand called "The Cult of Moral Grayness".

I was referring to JL, who you quoted. But really, the site is mostly dead. You have the stupidity of a Q believer, the drunken ramblings of what resembles an old man who watches too much Newsmax, and the Socratic trolling of a guy who always hits space bar before a question mark. This is probably more than half the posts in the past few months. I just pop in once in a while hoping to see a decent threat on philosophy, but I can't resist sometimes to see how the psych ward is doing. Get out while you still can!

Wait, and you can't just say that you prefer Russia here? There is no leading question here, or if there were, you would be criticizing me for leading you into saying that you prefer Russia here? Since you're trying to say that they aren't bad, why wouldn't you just say that Russia is overall in the moral right? You said that "no one is innocent" but at the same time you are saying that "the only error Russia made is expecting a short campaign", aren't you saying that Russia is more innocent than everyone else? I'm criticizing you for the apparent moral relativism. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm trying to figure out what your moral position is. It's more of a psychological curiosity why Nick Fuentes makes his moral position abundantly clear, but your moral position is pretty vague. The guy literally believes in Q. Look at his post history. I'm telling you, don't bother.

What are some of the moral errors that Russia has made regarding this conflict? You seem to have innumerable examples of moral errors from the west, but none from Russia.

It isn't irrelevant, you're just expanding the topic beyond what you started with. As far as its relationship to aesthetics, sexual response is like responding to art. But you have a lot more ground to cover when you want to defend a philosophical theory on sex.

Who said the Russian people consented? Okay, so why don't you say "Russia is morally preferable"? You gave me everything about your moral judgment regarding the West, but nothing about your moral judgment about Russia. I know what your judgment is, I'm just wondering why you don't just say it.

Who is worse, the US or Russia? Who is worse, the Ukraine or Russia? There you go, now you can answer in a way that isn't as simple pure evil or pure good. Otherwise, you're going to sound like Kanye saying that he loves everyone, both Jews and Nazis. I've asked for a moral preference, and I'm sure you know enough to judge whether one is worse than the other right now. I have an unequivocal moral preference for the US today. I'm not even calling you out for being wrong here, I'm talking about failure to make moral judgments during war. I'll put it this way: morally speaking, "no one is innocent" is just a way to avoid judging whether someone is more guilty than another. Okay, then would you list a few things that Putin did which were immoral?

Not that I entirely disagree, but you don't have much of an argument here because it isn't based on sense of life. You're talking about sense of life, then bring in a whole context about what sex is, what makes a good, and why it matters. The question wasn't what is good or bad sex, it was the relationship between sex and sense of life. Picking an example about socially constructed agreements seems to focus on inessential issues (who cares about breaking social rules). You didn't mention what the person finds sexually attractive, rather you mentioned that the view on one's situation leads to some kind of sense of life. Besides, liberation from social mores indicates independence, and independence is partially about one's sense of power to get what they want. If you're only talking about fantasy, what I'm saying still applies. Tell me more about attraction.

Then I hope you realize it's a a bad bout source, with an error that big. That's because most people don't think authoritarianism, and Putin is to blame for this. Your position is more like "akshully the West is morally equivalent, on balance Putin is pretty good, and we should acknowledge he might truly have admirable and virtuous intentions". Just make the moral case that Russia didn't do anything wrong and is a force for good, instead of going in circles all the time and avoiding making your moral judgment. As much as this guy is pretty much scum, we don't have to wonder what he thinks. Forget your act of "people are mean to Putin", or realize that it sounds disingenuous.

I still don't get your point. It sounds really besides the point to talk about "illicit situations", what counts is what you find sexually attractive. What are you talking about with what ordinary people can or can't do? You seem to be saying that some people find certain relations sexually attractive because they are perversely doing something against who they are. But Rand is saying people find these situations attractive exactly because of who they are, because of their sense of life, not that some people find things attractive because they are attempting to bypass who they are. Indeed people can attempt to bypass who they are, but what they find attractive cannot be bypassed, it's inherent whenever they feel sexual attraction. Somebody can deny their attractions, sure, but they still have the attraction because of their sense of life and who they are.

I'm not even sure what you're getting at. All the quote really said is that sex has a lot to do with sense of life but it can be difficult to identify in that context. The section about sex seems out of left field, or not commenting on sense of life with regard to sex (eg what might role-play say about sense of life?)

lol Did you even read your link? “They have moved more troops in, number one. Number two, we have reason to believe they are engaged in a false flag operation to have an excuse to go in. Every indication we have is they are prepared to go into Ukraine, attack Ukraine,” Biden said. "

Russia has nukes, and you're talking about Ukraine "potentially" getting nukes? My going into another country with its own problems?