The “absurd” conclusion of a reductio ad absurdum argument can take a range of forms, as these examples show:

• The Earth cannot be flat; otherwise, we would find people falling off the edge.
• There is no smallest positive rational number because, if there were, then it could be divided by two to get a smaller one.

The first example argues that denial of the premise would result in a ridiculous conclusion, against the evidence of our senses. The second example is a mathematical proof by contradiction (also known as an indirect proof^[7]), which argues that the denial of the premise would result in a logical contradiction (there is a “smallest” number and yet there is a number smaller than it)

Aristotle clarified the connection between contradiction and falsity in his principle of non-contradiction, which states that a proposition cannot be both true and false.


Professor of Theology at Denver Seminary Doug Groothius says of this:

“When people are thoroughly addled, reductio ad absurdum arguments do not work on them. This is because they themselves are already absurd and embrace absurdities as part of their nature and the nature of reality outside themselves. See Isaiah 5:20; Romans 1:18-32.”

My observations is most of those in the Q-Anon movement embrace absurdities as part of their nature.

God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness

18 For ^kthe wrath of God ^lis revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be ^mknown about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, ⁿhave been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,⁷ in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they ^obecame futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 ^pClaiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and ^qexchanged the glory of ^rthe immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore ^sGod gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to ^tthe dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for ^ua lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, ^vwho is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason ^wGod gave them up to ^xdishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ^ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, ^zGod gave them up to ^aa debased mind to do ^bwhat ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know ^cGod’s righteous decree that those who practice such things ^ddeserve to die, they not only do them but ^egive approval to those who practice them.

Woe to those who call evil good
    and good evil,
who put darkness for light
    and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
    and sweet for bitter.

Last time I looked at the constitution it said general police powers belong to the states, not the federal government. But …

Psaki is talking here about a federal bill…vote for it else you are advocating defunding police? Only if Biden plans to have the federal government administrate control of police powers. Which is part of Biden’s bizarre and tyrannical plans.

So much for free speech. But does meg actually believe in free speech? What happens when a state legislator in Minnesota posts a graph about covid.

She gets triggered.

OK, so Meg posts a complaint about a state health agency that calls people to urge them to get covid vaccinations. She opposes vaccinations.

So she posts a video of a phone playing the message, and labels it as EVIL.

The bandwagon starts in again. Moralistic name calling and mud slinging. Never mind that it has nothing to do with what the legislator posted. The purpose of these miscreants is to constantly and purposely suppression civil discourse on legislative policy in Minnesota.

Is this the republican strategy? It looks like the typical hysteria of libertarians who are butt-hurt and triggered by people getting vaccinated. Like people don’t have a civil right to get vaccinated, because libertarians say so.

When are republicans going to turn serious about solving the nation’s problems?

Anybody who stands up and points out republican hysteria is of course vilified.

What chance do republicans have of winning elections if this is their best foot forward? keep in mind that some of the republican legislators in Minnesota are driving this. and they do it in the name of Christianity.

I say they are devil-spawn. Unqualified to lead the state or the nation.

What is evil? Well, there is real evil. And opposing it is cheapened by the republican hysteria. It is almost as if they are actually supporting the real evil by distracting from real issues by generating hysteria over every little picky subject they feel offended by. THAT IS WHAT THE LEFT DOES. It is what communists do. Distract with nonsense. I am perplexed by this. Maybe libertarians have been snookered. Maybe they are just dumb. I know what they are not. They are not tolerant and not in favor of free speech.