I agree, they are recognised agents, so they should be invited, and I would turn on the microphone for them and wait patiently until they finished their speech within their rightful time, we play according to the rules, but then I would continue as if those minutes never existed, as a journalist I would provide the report of the real value of those irrelevant words and as a consumer I would treat their speech as useless as a child’s play as an adult blabbering, not too much to do with it, why isolate their catchy fallacies and amplify them? They do not contribute constructively to a coherent debate but exploit the system weaknesses. I believe that it starts in our individual choices.
sircac
joined 2 years ago
I already said it somewhere else:
I think this people have long already disqualified their ability to speech anything worth of coherent value, why keep listening them or take note of their words? They do not follow the rules of that game, is not possible to play on the same terms so that battleground is a distraction at best, a cancer at worst.
Don’t feed the troll, don’t support the bully.
I think this people have long already disqualified their ability to speech anything worth of coherent value, why keep listening them or take note of their words? They do not follow the rules of that game, is not possible to play on the same terms so that battleground is a distraction at best, a cancer at worst.
Don’t feed the troll, don’t support the bully.
Like it or not, but with agents prone to use military force around the corner we better prepare for it one way or another, either to fight back or to subdue, because deterrence is at the weakest point since decades and most of Europe has become unused to war efforts.
I personally hate to have to do this, strength countries mutual balanced dependence that makes this undesirable for both parts is my preferred choice over spending on military resources, but lacking of that tie with those agents around…
We live in an interconnected world. As an American, I’d like to know some ways that I could purchase goods, in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Canada and Mexico, and still avoid the
Nope, no stay silent about them at all, actions must be taken indeed, but stay silent to them: if you answer or react to his words you accept the dialogue, legitimating the value of a speech full of fallacies, from someone that does not speak for a prolific constructive exchange of ideas that may result in advancing the understanding of a situation regardless of the thesis but from someone that only say those words to echo those slogan-like fallacies for the long run strategy.
The more care we put in avoid working for their propaganda the better. I believe that media and personalities reactions would better be accompanied by the statement that is a speech so full of fallacies that is worthless consider the arguments exposed nor the apparent conclusions, therefore no dialogue effort has been carried out but an attempt of manipulation based on lies, what more can be the opinion but the inappropriateness of such behaviour?