Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
It didn't occur to me to check out his credentials before I heard what he has to say.
Nor did I. I checked them( credentials ) before I heard what he said I checked them after ... And it was insightful to why he said what he said... I am curious did you come across him on the web or thru an email ? I call these feeder clips sent out by like minded people who's
bigger picture tend to include T foil hats
|
I like to judge what is said by the words that are actually spoken or written. Checking the background of who spoke the words can be insightful. Or it can be misleading. Checking the background can lead to varying and contradictory conclusions. And those conclusions can more easily be concocted to fit the checker's version depending on the T foil hats he wears than if the actual spoken or written words in question are honestly examined.
In a court of law, it is the guilt or innocence that is to be determined. Motivation can enlighten as to why a crime is committed. But the existence of an actual crime, and the who is responsible for it, is foremost what is to be established. Ending an investigation and discussion at possible motivations leaves the jury with nothing substantial to come to a meaningful verdict about anything. Without the prosecution claiming or proving that any crime was committed leaves the jury wondering for what purpose they have been assembled.
I checked Molyneux's background available on the net, found your Wikipedia entry, and found another which made him out to be a horrible person and another which made him look good. None of them had any impact on my opinion of his video.
The source of information, for me, is far less relevant than the actual information. I notice, from your other discussions, as in the WikiLeaks and the "interpretation" of the Constitution, that you value peripheral things more than actual text. It didn't seem to matter to you if the leaks were true or not as much as who the source of the leaks was. It doesn't matter to you what the actual words and their actual meanings as written in the Constitution are, rather it is more important for you what "interpretations" of those words can be concocted by five people. And here you are even implying that the source for my finding the video is more important than what is in the video.
And, here, as in other instances where I have provided a video or an article, you totally ignore a discussion of what is presented and dismiss it with extraneous, peripheral insinuation.
Casting aspersions of T foil hattery can rebound back to you. You seem to think that because something is presented by other than some mainstream media outlet (that is if it isn't a "right wing" mainstream media), it is part of a "like minded" conspiracy of Tinfoilers--fake news. Well, the sources on which you depend are also loaded with fake news. Ironically, you imply that coming across something on the web can tend to include T foil hats. Yet you checked Molyneux out on the web.
You might try to actually discuss the actual words on the video.