egg

Facial tattoos. Just why.

Symptoms

Our approach is different on this. Mine, very simply, is that the factual information should be available to us, but unfounded opinions should not be easily accessible to the gullible masses. Over and above the (very Valid) freedom of speech argument, how does it benefit the reader/society to have false information laid it on multiple forums?

The irony of you calling me dim. Jeez. You may be right or wrong, ditto me, but my view is that impressionable need saving from themselves when information is laid before them. Let's just agree to differ.

This.

You can only express your opinion, and the reaction to my earlier post suggests that the majority view is not what you think it is. The lad clearly has/had something going on. My stance is to respect that, wish him well and wait patiently for him to pull on the red and white

It's a very simple thing Weston. Impressionable people see stuff on social media that they don't elect to see. It's laid out before them by retweets, shares, likes, or other actions by 3rd parties. By seeing something that they don't elect to see, a post and it's content is unsolicited, thus forced upon them. I have the ability to scroll past posts (despite finding myself responding to more of your nonsense than I should), and most people are the same. Alas, the amount of nutters and impressionable out there is staggering.

Depends what it links to. If it's to another unfounded conspiracy theory, is it wise to allow the impressionable to see it? It's a tough area, and censorship is something I generally feel strongly against, but if one person believes an anti vax conspiracy theory and dies as a consequence, its one person too many.

People with a brain scroll past, but people without a brain can read and believe nonsense posted by other brainless idiots. This is too important an issue and my view (others can take the contra view, I respect that) is that allowing people to put conspiracy theorist nonsense out there is dangerous as impressionable people may believe it and pass on a vaccine that could save their life. We'll agree to differ on social media but it staggers me that you really do not accept that people post their opinions on social media because they want other people to read (and probably agree with) their opinion. I thought every one knew that was one of its basic uses.

Behave. If some idiot is expressing his view publicly he's only doing so wanting other people to read it. If you disagree with that, I think that you misunderstand the basics.

He's been a breath of fresh air so far. As Hypo says, the direct running is what we've been missing. If he can stay fit I think he'll be great for us. As for a contract, it's early days but based on performances and attitude, it has to be on the agenda.

Sounds awful. Good to hear that you're on the way back.

If a claim by Dave the builder from Dagenham about a vax doing xyz isn't corroborated by anything and it's just Dave's opinion it's reasonable to assume it's nonsense. Do you think that ramblings from the likes of Dave should be permitted on such an important matter?

No idea who, but the why should is on its merits and social impact. Idiots in the states believed trumps bleach nonsense, and people will believe that a vax will be damaging if they hear that message enough. For me, if the social media message is against the vax, and is based on bs and conjecture, that message should be cut off at the knees. If teh message had truth and was important to be heard, I'd think differently.

The problem with the anti vax crowd is that they argue against it on their principles, but often support it with false beliefs. If someone does not want a vaccine, that's up to them, but don't be forcing your views on others and relying on false beliefs in support. Doing so is irresponsible and dangerous. Because of that I'm in support of a ban.

It's quite easy to join the dots laid out by the club and see that the issue is likely a sensitive one. It says more about you than the cub that you feel a "right" to know something that most can see is private, and that should stay private. Ask yourself 2 simple questions: 1. Will it bring Salisu any benefit for the public to know details about his issue? 2. Will it bring the public any benefit to know any details about his issue? No to both is the only reasonable answer imo.

Calling the 3rd party a liar, which is essentially what you're saying, is a bit strong.

Yep. It's not hard to comprehend.

I'm not talking about the gay point. Not sure why you raise it.

Go easy expressing an opinion mate. They're not allowed.

It wasn't. Post up the words that you say he used expressing his opinion. I'll help you though - there were none.

A conspiracy theorist could have an opinion on the latter. He's now out of the job.

We'll agree to differ. In passing on my experience with my daughters, I'm passing on fact not expressing an opinion. Clarke did exactly the same. If you say that he expressed a personal opinion about girls / footy / goalkeepers, you're wrong.

That's an opinion. I'm talking facts.

We're approaching this completely differently. I'm not suggesting that my girls experience proves anything, other than a) it happened, and that b) my experience is in line with what Clarke said. Clarke was reporting facts as he understood them. There can be no issue with it. Like it or not, reality and stereotypes can match.