There can be no discourse with someone deliberately offering no evidence of their opinions. You are simply left to judge them.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
There can be no discourse with someone deliberately offering no evidence of their opinions. You are simply left to judge them.
In which case you’ll have evidence that actors weren’t used.
See where this goes mate? I have no idea if actors were used but I’m not prepared to call someone thick just because they see things differently to me.
The evidence of the massacres in Ukraine is overwhelming. If someone wants to challenge that narrative then they need evidence. It isn't for me to prove that actors were not used. He makes the claim, he proves it.
And you do know whether actors were used or not.
Of course I don’t and I would never resort to calling you thick for disagreeing with me
Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one.
But opinions based on no facts or lies or just downright stupidity don't need to be shared. It just screams "look at me".
If people with outlandish views are unable to back then up with evidence then they lay themselves open to being described as thick. Its perfectly reasonable and we don't have to give him any credibility at all. If he provides evidence then it can be discussed.
It's also quite possible he may be right about some things and wrong about others. But that's too much nuance for the average intellect. David Icke publicly exposed Jimmy Savile in detail years before anyone else, and was called outlandish for doing so.
Far too reasoned for the youth of today
In the Middle Ages they publicly humiliated the 'village idiot'. It makes us feel more rational and superior. Now we do it behind keyboards.
You are welcome to go through what he said and dissect it.
I've got my own researched opinions some of them match his some don't. Easy. Its called being an adult.
Last edited:
Are willing to share which match?
I would say a lot of people made a lot of money and gained a lot of power during the pandemic. Possibly the largest wealth/power transfer in human history. SOME of those people told lies and exaggerated fear in order to do so.
I would say Lineker presents a 'woke' nice guy image which many behind the scenes know to be a pile of bullshit.
I think he should provide evidence and reasoning. That would be an adult thing to do. He is free to express his opinions, indeed he was handed a double page spread in The Times. It is also reasonable to call him a crank.
It's called the internet (for better or worse). He makes an argument, if it conflicts your view you research it. David Icke said Savile was a Pedophile. That conflicted with my image of 'uncle Jimmy'. I researched and found it was true years before it was trendy. History is full of such cases, sorry if that triggers you.
Not triggered in the slightest, thanks (not sure why you would use that word in your reply). I just think he should evidence his arguments, you clearly do not.
Not addressing my posts much then.
What would you like me to address that I haven't so far?
How the search for truth is more nuanced than name calling people cranks.
Le Tissier obviously spends a lot of time online reading other peoples research/conclusions and collates them in his capacity as a public figure. He is not a ground level researcher, he's a collator. Dig deeper maybe. Or are you scared you might find something you agree with and become one of 'them'?