But that actually is my point, discourse rarely gets beyond “you’re thick”.
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...
But that actually is my point, discourse rarely gets beyond “you’re thick”.
In which case you’ll have evidence that actors weren’t used.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.
Of course I don’t and I would never resort to calling you thick for disagreeing with meThe 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.
Everyone has a right to an opinion. Everyone is also entitled to an opinion on everyone else’s opinion. I happen to think that Matt Le Tissier’s political and scientific opinions are fucking stupid and the kind of drivel that only a completely ignorant moron could possibly come out with. If Le Tissier didn’t want people judging and debating his ignorant opinions then he wouldn’t be putting them out there.
No need for you to be such a snowflake about it. Why is it that the most “free speech” obsessed people are the ones with the thinnest skin?
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.Of course I don’t and I would never resort to calling you thick for disagreeing with me
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.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.
Far too reasoned for the youth of todayIt'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.
In the Middle Ages they publicly humiliated the 'village idiot'. It makes us feel more rational and superior. Now we do it behind keyboards.Far too reasoned for the youth of today
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.
I've got my own researched opinions some of them match his some don't. Easy. Its called being an adult.You are welcome to go through what he said and dissect it.
Are willing to share which match?I've got my own researched opinions some of them match his some don't. Easy.
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.Are willing to share which match?
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.I've got my own researched opinions some of them match his some don't. Easy. Its called being an adult.
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.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.
What would you like me to address that I haven't so far?Not addressing my posts much then.
How the search for truth is more nuanced than name calling people cranks.What would you like me to address that I haven't so far?