Interesting YT Conversations...

BJL_City said:
I disapprove of everything Russell Brand says because he's Russell Brand.
Click to expand...

When someone falls deaf because of the speaker rather than the speech, something's wrong with your viewpoint.

He may not the best comedian and focused on himself for a period of his life, but he has evolved as a person.

I hate SoA, BUT I gave the idiot fair hearing (maybe about 10 times) before I formed the opinion that he's got nothing good to offer.

Brand has an interesting thought process that doesn't try to marginalise anybody's race, creed or religion.

He, simply, wants to know the best way for Human Beings to progress.

That's a worthy reason, alone, to give him a listen, in my opinion.
 
Bigga said:
When someone falls deaf because of the speaker rather than the speech, something's wrong with your viewpoint.

He may not the best comedian and focused on himself for a period of his life, but he has evolved as a person.

I hate SoA, BUT I gave the idiot fair hearing (maybe about 10 times) before I formed the opinion that he's got nothing good to offer.

Brand has an interesting thought process that doesn't try to marginalise anybody's race, creed or religion.

He, simply, wants to know the best way for Human Beings to progress.

That's a worthy reason, alone, to give him a listen, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

na, Brand lost any right to be heard or respected when he abused the dear Andrew Sachs.
 
BJL_City said:
na, Brand lost any right to be heard or respected when he abused the dear Andrew Sachs.
Click to expand...

So, an ill judged joke makes someone no longer worthy of reform? Interesting...

I guess you've cut a LOT of people off then? These boards RIFE with people with a poor sense of humour. Have you cut them off?

I wonder which side of the political aisle you stand on?
 
Bigga said:
So, an ill judged joke makes someone no longer worthy of reform? Interesting...

I guess you've cut a LOT of people off then? These boards RIFE with people with a poor sense of humour. Have you cut them off?

I wonder which side of the political aisle you stand on?
Click to expand...

The middle, centre stage where all rational folk reside. I think the public humiliation of a national treasure is beyond a "joke".

He's a bully, he may put up a facade these days but that's symptomatic of the left till they feel remotely threatened and then their true colours flow.

and for balance, it's battle of the cunts to be next PM.
 
BJL_City said:
The middle, centre stage where all rational folk reside. I think the public humiliation of a national treasure is beyond a "joke".

He's a bully, he may put up a facade these days but that's symptomatic of the left till they feel remotely threatened and then their true colours flow.

and for balance, it's battle of the cunts to be next PM.
Click to expand...

It seems rather acceptable that 'humour' is allowed against other Human Beings, regardless of the pedestal height given and the dear ol' Queen and Nutty Phil is of no exception.

But, whatever. I may not have agreed with Brand's questionable humour on Sachs (nor do I see him as a 'national treasure'), BUT I do not define him by it.

If you see Sachs as a 'national treasure' you will have to see Cleese as one too as he's been more iconic than Sachs would ever be.

Yet Cleese has said some extremely questionable things.
 
Bigga said:
It seems rather acceptable that 'humour' is allowed against other Human Beings, regardless of the pedestal height given and the dear ol' Queen and Nutty Phil is of no exception.

But, whatever. I may not have agreed with Brand's questionable humour on Sachs (nor do I see him as a 'national treasure'), BUT I do not define him by it.

If you see Sachs as a 'national treasure' you will have to see Cleese as one too as he's been more iconic than Sachs would ever be.

Yet Cleese has said some extremely questionable things.
Click to expand...

Sachs is Sachs, Cleese is Cleese.
 
Bigga said:
Again a type of centrist answer for defence of a non answer.

It's laughable, but that's fine.

I'll leave you with your 'reasoned' "Sachs is Sachs. Cleese is Cleese" defence and let you 'win' your 'debate'.
Click to expand...

not a debate. 2 different people can have 2 different views, and other people can have 2 different opinions on them which is not arbitrarily defined by their success.

It could just be that someone could consider Sachs a more affable and amiable fellow, and think that Cleese was a genius but is now an insufferable chap.

Ultimately, both more talented and successful than Russell and the respect everyone else managed to show Sachs says to me he was a better person too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.