Cyprus-Forum.com

[Maynard23]

This really is a stupid topic

Absolutely, your spot on mate !!.

What's up with you today Maynard23?

Nothing mate, just validating your opinion.

I thought you thought I was bollocks

I do, but that doesn't mean your not entitled to an opinion, lighten up mate, these are only games we play.

[Z4]

This really is a stupid topic

Absolutely, your spot on mate !!.

What's up with you today Maynard23?

Nothing mate, just validating your opinion.

I thought you thought I was bollocks

I do, but that doesn't mean your not entitled to an opinion, lighten up mate, these are only games we play.

[cyprusgrump]

This really is a stupid topic

Absolutely, your spot on mate !!.

What's up with you today Maynard23?

Nothing mate, just validating your opinion.

I thought you thought I was bollocks

I do, but that doesn't mean your not entitled to an opinion, lighten up mate, these are only games we play.

Hahahaha!

Z4, you are Gareth!

[Oracle]

OK good examples from those that bothered answering the topic.

(I see iceman has the curfew mentality firmly embedded in his occupied brain.)

Dino I agree many opinions could be backed up, but we can make value judgements on how they are arrived at, and then decide if they are equally valid to more sustainable views....

Surely that's what Humans are good at: weighing up the evidence and making decisions. Meaning not all opinions are equally valid.

My example:

The Pope has no scientific knowledge yet he firmly refutes the evidence from Evolution, that Creation by a God, was not necessary to put life on Earth.

Dawkins is the leading authority on the vast data and research we have which profoundly prove life can be "created" in a test tube, even by us mere mortals. This eliminates the central doctrine for a need of a "Creator-God".

Surely the Pope's opinion is then not equally valid, arising without justification or foundation, to that of Dawkins', in establishing whether Creation or Evolution, should be taught in Biology classes at schools.

Does this not just prove that your validity is only backed up by how many people you can convince to believe your version either by plain ignorance or just being scared????

Having opinions is not merely about wanting to convince others to adopt them.

But how one arrives at those opinions reflects what you are prepared to accept as the truth.

So your opinions reflect whether you are a fantasist (not taking on board established facts or preferred popular opinion) or a realist weighing up all available evidence.

During Hitler's era there was a lot of evidence to suggest those people were indeed inferior, so he formed his opinion accordingly.

We know now, all people are born the same .... so only a fantasist would believe otherwise and hold such an invalid opinion.

[Z4]

OK good examples from those that bothered answering the topic.

(I see iceman has the curfew mentality firmly embedded in his occupied brain.)

Dino I agree many opinions could be backed up, but we can make value judgements on how they are arrived at, and then decide if they are equally valid to more sustainable views....

Surely that's what Humans are good at: weighing up the evidence and making decisions. Meaning not all opinions are equally valid.

My example:

The Pope has no scientific knowledge yet he firmly refutes the evidence from Evolution, that Creation by a God, was not necessary to put life on Earth.

Dawkins is the leading authority on the vast data and research we have which profoundly prove life can be "created" in a test tube, even by us mere mortals. This eliminates the central doctrine for a need of a "Creator-God".

Surely the Pope's opinion is then not equally valid, arising without justification or foundation, to that of Dawkins', in establishing whether Creation or Evolution, should be taught in Biology classes at schools.

Does this not just prove that your validity is only backed up by how many people you can convince to believe your version either by plain ignorance or just being scared????

Having opinions is not merely about wanting to convince others to adopt them.

But how one arrives at those opinions reflects what you are prepared to accept as the truth.

So your opinions reflect whether you are a fantasist (not taking on board established facts or preferred popular opinion) or a realist weighing up all available evidence.

During Hitler's era there was a lot of evidence to suggest those people were indeed inferior, so he formed his opinion accordingly.

We know now, all people are born the same .... so only a fantasist would believe otherwise and hold such an invalid opinion.

What a boring post and a boring topic we have here, from another really dull member

[cyprusgrump]

OK good examples from those that bothered answering the topic.

(I see iceman has the curfew mentality firmly embedded in his occupied brain.)

Dino I agree many opinions could be backed up, but we can make value judgements on how they are arrived at, and then decide if they are equally valid to more sustainable views....

Surely that's what Humans are good at: weighing up the evidence and making decisions. Meaning not all opinions are equally valid.

My example:

The Pope has no scientific knowledge yet he firmly refutes the evidence from Evolution, that Creation by a God, was not necessary to put life on Earth.

Dawkins is the leading authority on the vast data and research we have which profoundly prove life can be "created" in a test tube, even by us mere mortals. This eliminates the central doctrine for a need of a "Creator-God".

Surely the Pope's opinion is then not equally valid, arising without justification or foundation, to that of Dawkins', in establishing whether Creation or Evolution, should be taught in Biology classes at schools.

Does this not just prove that your validity is only backed up by how many people you can convince to believe your version either by plain ignorance or just being scared????

Having opinions is not merely about wanting to convince others to adopt them.

But how one arrives at those opinions reflects what you are prepared to accept as the truth.

So your opinions reflect whether you are a fantasist (not taking on board established facts or preferred popular opinion) or a realist weighing up all available evidence.

During Hitler's era there was a lot of evidence to suggest those people were indeed inferior, so he formed his opinion accordingly.

We know now, all people are born the same .... so only a fantasist would believe otherwise and hold such an invalid opinion.

What a boring post and a boring topic we have here, from another really dull member

What was that you said Gareth?

[Maynard23]

OK good examples from those that bothered answering the topic.

(I see iceman has the curfew mentality firmly embedded in his occupied brain.)

Dino I agree many opinions could be backed up, but we can make value judgements on how they are arrived at, and then decide if they are equally valid to more sustainable views....

Surely that's what Humans are good at: weighing up the evidence and making decisions. Meaning not all opinions are equally valid.

My example:

The Pope has no scientific knowledge yet he firmly refutes the evidence from Evolution, that Creation by a God, was not necessary to put life on Earth.

Dawkins is the leading authority on the vast data and research we have which profoundly prove life can be "created" in a test tube, even by us mere mortals. This eliminates the central doctrine for a need of a "Creator-God".

Surely the Pope's opinion is then not equally valid, arising without justification or foundation, to that of Dawkins', in establishing whether Creation or Evolution, should be taught in Biology classes at schools.

Does this not just prove that your validity is only backed up by how many people you can convince to believe your version either by plain ignorance or just being scared????

Having opinions is not merely about wanting to convince others to adopt them.

But how one arrives at those opinions reflects what you are prepared to accept as the truth.

So your opinions reflect whether you are a fantasist (not taking on board established facts or preferred popular opinion) or a realist weighing up all available evidence.

During Hitler's era there was a lot of evidence to suggest those people were indeed inferior, so he formed his opinion accordingly.

We know now, all people are born the same .... so only a fantasist would believe otherwise and hold such an invalid opinion.

What a boring post and a boring topic we have here, from another really dull member

Can't agree on your assessment of Oracle mate, controversial she certainly IS, but dull ?...............NEVER !!,

In my opinion of course, I wonder if any member would care to validate it ?.

[Maynard23]

Having opinions is not merely about wanting to convince others to adopt them.

But how one arrives at those opinions reflects what you are prepared to accept as the truth.

So your opinions reflect whether you are a fantasist (not taking on board established facts or preferred popular opinion) or a realist weighing up all available evidence.

During Hitler's era there was a lot of evidence to suggest those people were indeed inferior, so he formed his opinion accordingly.

We know now, all people are born the same .... so only a fantasist would believe otherwise and hold such an invalid opinion.

I believe that the interpretations of Hitler's reasons for ethnic cleansing were and are purposely distorted in order to conceal the real reasons for such.

At the time of the awful events that took place during the period of Hitler's leadership, the Jews were capitalizing on the misfortunes of others [ much as they are today] by dealing behind the scenes on both sides of the conflicts taking place.

Hitler considered them a non productive burden to the advancement of his country, which was being bled dry by the Jews.

Hitler's vision was to establish his country as a world leader in commerce and the manufacture of goods which they actually WERE except that the stranglehold of the Jew prevented the country as a whole to progress, much the same as is the case today only MORE so and on a wider scale.

Of course, these days such comments as I now make are more or less taboo, the mere mention of anything which might cast a shadow [actually a revelation of the TRUTH] in the direction of the Jew, will be met with howls of indignation from the masses who have been gulled into accepting that they are a persecuted race, oblivious to the fact that THESE DAYS, the Jews are the biggest persecutors on the face of the earth.

They hold the reins you see, just look at what is happening in the world, are you blind ?.

IMHO. and awaiting anyone with the guts to validate it.

[Z4]

OK good examples from those that bothered answering the topic.

(I see iceman has the curfew mentality firmly embedded in his occupied brain.)

Dino I agree many opinions could be backed up, but we can make value judgements on how they are arrived at, and then decide if they are equally valid to more sustainable views....

Surely that's what Humans are good at: weighing up the evidence and making decisions. Meaning not all opinions are equally valid.

My example:

The Pope has no scientific knowledge yet he firmly refutes the evidence from Evolution, that Creation by a God, was not necessary to put life on Earth.

Dawkins is the leading authority on the vast data and research we have which profoundly prove life can be "created" in a test tube, even by us mere mortals. This eliminates the central doctrine for a need of a "Creator-God".

Surely the Pope's opinion is then not equally valid, arising without justification or foundation, to that of Dawkins', in establishing whether Creation or Evolution, should be taught in Biology classes at schools.

Does this not just prove that your validity is only backed up by how many people you can convince to believe your version either by plain ignorance or just being scared????

Having opinions is not merely about wanting to convince others to adopt them.

But how one arrives at those opinions reflects what you are prepared to accept as the truth.

So your opinions reflect whether you are a fantasist (not taking on board established facts or preferred popular opinion) or a realist weighing up all available evidence.

During Hitler's era there was a lot of evidence to suggest those people were indeed inferior, so he formed his opinion accordingly.

We know now, all people are born the same .... so only a fantasist would believe otherwise and hold such an invalid opinion.

What a boring post and a boring topic we have here, from another really dull member

Can't agree on your assessment of Oracle mate, controversial she certainly IS, but dull ?...............NEVER !!,

In my opinion of course, I wonder if any member would care to validate it ?.

Please dont call me mate

[Maynard23]

Please dont call me mate

Why's that ?, surely you don't prefer the alternative !!