Watch what he say before judging him

[Cú ChulainnParticipant 3910]

X11 is using the Genetic Logical Fallacy:

This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something’s or someone’s origins. It’s similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone’s argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.

In this case: David Icke, the well known professional conspiracy theorist makes a video claiming that we should all be very wary of the things we hear about the Las Vegas shootings in the media, because it might be the deep state in a false flag op. At any rate we should question the narrative.

X11 counters this by saying that because Icke made some outlandish claims after seeing a psychic in 1990, about shapeshifting lizards etc, his views now, in 2017, are invalid.

Now before he threatens to knock me out for $100 dollars I may add that I don’t think Icke is right, and as someone else said earlier – even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. But his views cannot be dismissed simply because he was/is eccentric in his other opinions and beliefs. His arguments must be countered on the evidence presented, not his personality and history.

Finally, in Icke’s defence, he said in the video that a knee jerk ‘false flag’ conspiracy response to Vegas is as unhelpful as blind acceptance of the MSM narrative. He only stated there are questions to be answered, and even if they may seem eccentric or overly cynical, in a free situation authority should be questioned and held to account by those living under it.

[It’sallbsParticipant]

X11 wrote:

Don’t think anyone is going to waste time watching a video of a guy who thinks he is the godhead or whatever and is an antisemitic believer in reptilian shape shifters.

Credibility problem.

Your honour I rest my case.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[It’sallbsParticipant]

Cú Chulainn wrote:

X11 is using the Genetic Logical Fallacy:

This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something’s or someone’s origins. It’s similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone’s argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.

In this case: David Icke, the well known professional conspiracy theorist makes a video claiming that we should all be very wary of the things we hear about the Las Vegas shootings in the media, because it might be the deep state in a false flag op. At any rate we should question the narrative.

X11 counters this by saying that because Icke made some outlandish claims after seeing a psychic in 1990, about shapeshifting lizards etc, his views now, in 2017, are invalid.

Now before he threatens to knock me out for $100 dollars I may add that I don’t think Icke is right, and as someone else said earlier – even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. But his views cannot be dismissed simply because he was/is eccentric in his other opinions and beliefs. His arguments must be countered on the evidence presented, not his personality and history.

Finally, in Icke’s defence, he said in the video that a knee jerk ‘false flag’ conspiracy response to Vegas is as unhelpful as blind acceptance of the MSM narrative. He only stated there are questions to be answered, and even if they may seem eccentric or overly cynical, in a free situation authority should be questioned and held to account by those living under it.

Exactly.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[X11Spectator 4520]

No fallacy, just fact the guy is an idiot and snake oil salesman.

It would only be a fallacy if I watched the video. I didn’t, the guy is a fraud and I don’t want to give views that will lead to dollars in a fraudsters pocket.

But perhaps you could explain the video if you think it is a viable argument.

You should really stop using terms you don’t understand.

[It’sallbsParticipant]

Cú Chulainn wrote:

Finally, in Icke’s defence, he said in the video that a knee jerk ‘false flag’ conspiracy response to Vegas is as unhelpful as blind acceptance of the MSM narrative. He only stated there are questions to be answered, and even if they may seem eccentric or overly cynical, in a free situation authority should be questioned and held to account by those living under it.

Yes and that is what I like about the guy. I suspect some of his videos you would agree with but either way he always seems to raise questions to be answered that you may not always spot.

Now he thinks many of the events that seem random are connected I think sometimes he is right and other times not.

What I don’t do is automatically ridicule him because of 199o as chu said.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[X11Spectator 4520]

1990, so the guy has recanted on his lizard theory and no longer believes it???

It’s a yes / no question.

It’sallbs wrote:

What I don’t do is automatically ridicule him because of 199o

[It’sallbsParticipant]

X11 wrote:

Yes he has suffered like Nelson Mandela by the courts silencing him;

“Icke had defamed Warman in his 2001 book Children of the Matrix by making allegations of Satanic child abuse and murder. This was in addition to an out of court settlement of $120,000CAN Warman had already received from three Canadian book stores who continued to sell the book after being named as co-respondants in the case.”

He also said teh same about Savill and Ted Heath 2years ago and has bene proven right

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[It’sallbsParticipant]

X11 wrote:

No fallacy, just fact the guy is an idiot and snake oil salesman.

It would only be a fallacy if I watched the video. I didn’t, the guy is a fraud and I don’t want to give views that will lead to dollars in a fraudsters pocket.

But perhaps you could explain the video if you think it is a viable argument.

You should really stop using terms you don’t understand.

YOu have continually proved me right through this thread re read chu’s 2 posts and then read what you just posted.

YOu have proven his point 100% correct as well.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[X11Spectator 4520]

Yeah 2 years ago the rest of the world said the same AFTER the evidence came out.

Now if he he had prior evidence of saville in 1990 say or earlier why didn’t he present it.

Any fool can predict something after it happens.

Sucker.

[Cú ChulainnParticipant 3910]

X11 wrote:

No fallacy, just fact the guy is an idiot and snake oil salesman.

It would only be a fallacy if I watched the video. I didn’t, the guy is a fraud and I don’t want to give views that will lead to dollars in a fraudsters pocket.

But perhaps you could explain the video if you think it is a viable argument.

You should really stop using terms you don’t understand.

No I understand it quite well, I studied logic in tertiary education. Now, another example of the same fallacy. You mentioned Icke should be judged on what he says because of his bank account? Why? What does the amount of money someone holds in a bank have to do with whatever views they are espousing online?

Because he makes money out of conspiracy theorizing his arguments can be disregarded? Genetic fallacy.

You are also asking me to explain a video to you that you refuse to watch yourself LOL. I have stated I don’t necessarily agree with Icke, and I’m fully aware of his bizarre former behaviour. But that’s not a logical argument for discounting him, its a gut feeling, and feelings don’t come into logical thinking.

[It’sallbsParticipant]

X11 wrote:

It would only be a fallacy if I watched the video. I didn’t, the guy is a fraud and I don’t want to give views that will lead to dollars in a fraudsters pocket.

Bull s~~~ you are just an immature boyman who is doing exactly what cu said because you want to create a little gang and call everyone Tuna and be a cool kid.

TRust me sunshine I was born MGTW saying you bet 100$ you could knock me out how immature are you -you have never even met me

Sadly there is a small but growing minority of member on here who fit that description.

That said there are many people on here who have disagreed with some of my views who I hold in high regard including Old Sage and Old BAll sack.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[It’sallbsParticipant]

X11 wrote:

Yeah 2 years ago the rest of the world said the same AFTER the evidence came out.

Now if he he had prior evidence of saville in 1990 say or earlier why didn’t he present it.

Any fool can predict something after it happens.

Sucker.

He did and was attacked and ridiculed for it.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[Cú ChulainnParticipant 3910]

X11 wrote:

It would only be a fallacy if I watched the video.

Which fallacy would that be??

You’re talking gibberish at this point.

[X11Spectator 4520]

Dude it’s common sense. The guy talks bogus s~~~ for money so f~~~ what he says.

If I have a dentist tell me that he believes tooth decay is caused by demons and my chakras are out of alugnment then f~~~ if I will let him near my teeth.

It’s called the fallacy of not being an idiot fallacy.

[It’sallbsParticipant]

X11 wrote:

Yeah 2 years ago the rest of the world said the same AFTER the evidence came out.

Now if he he had prior evidence of saville in 1990 say or earlier why didn’t he present it.

Any fool can predict something after it happens.

Sucker.

X11 wrote:

Yeah 2 years ago the rest of the world said the same AFTER the evidence came out.

Now if he he had prior evidence of saville in 1990 say or earlier why didn’t he present it.

Any fool can predict something after it happens.

Sucker.

THat was my poor typing skills again I meant 20 years ago.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[X11Spectator 4520]

Cú Chulainn wrote:

Which fallacy would that be??

You’re talking gibberish at this point.

You can suck icke’s dick for all I care, NFG.

The guy is a fraud, nuff said.

But hey I respect your right to believe he is the godhead.

[It’sallbsParticipant]

X11 just admit you have made a mistake and myself and CU are right.

He has said some bizarr s~~~ no doubt about it but he has been right on much over the last 20plus years.

Many war ed about savill and they were fired ridiculed BBC covered it up for years.

The heath thing gos deeper with other politicians hence why that was covered up.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[It’sallbsParticipant]

X11 just admit you have made a mistake and myself and CU are right.

Thta’s what a man would do.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[It’sallbsParticipant]

X11 wrote:

You can suck icke’s dick for all I care, NFG.

The guy is a fraud, nuff said.

But hey I respect your right to believe he is the godhead.

You immature little bafoon.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[X11Spectator 4520]

Nah I’m fine, admit you are gullible.

Why do you care, remember this is not reality according to you.

[Author]

Posts