Opens thread. Reads last few posts. Confused. Remembers "Show ignored content" button. Hits button. Who the heck is persianfootball? Doesn't remember putting in ignore Reads a few posts. Still doesn't remember...but agree with decision. Backs out of thread
firstly, not every post of mine is conducted in such a manner. secondly, when it is, it is just my opinion. if we all stuck to the facts as we currently know them, then what would be the purpose of any discussion on here? are you promoting the establishment of a dictatorship here? i was stating my opinion, and gave reasons why i think it is a reasonable one. however, you are not being reasonable because you simply refer to my arguments as "conspiracy theories." so which on of us has acted more sensible? anyone can say anyone who comes up with something lacking evidence is just "speculating." there is a difference between random and out of the blue speculation and one that is supported by reason, such as mine. i did not try to change the narrative; i was making it richer. as for the part you made bold, i did not come out of the blue with it. it was simply a logically correct response to refute unreasonable assertions against my theory. i did not harp on anything, rather, you and others are harping on your vehement disagreement to my theory. either way, i presented my argument. i am done here. for now.
i never said that, but i did say why US acted as the impetus. why you chose to ignore what i wrote about that, i dont know. perhaps you are trolling? my sources said that he was banned for the payment. under swiss law, oral agreements are legal. so i was confused as to why fifa chose that specific action to justify the ban with. but another member has now revealed that there was more to it. i dont know why you are bringing this up again. perhaps you are trolling? you seem to know an awful lot about trolling. thats all i will say.
how much evidence is there that donald trump actually hates muslims? does that preclude the possibility that he does? see my point? anyways, i am just using this to show you my point. no need to take the thread off its course now and make it about trump.
there is no "evidence" that donald trump hates muslims. however, it is a reasonable assertion to make, considering the relevant factors. similarly, there is no evidence that certain americans involved in this case do not want russia to get 2018, but based on relevant factors, it would be reasonable to suspect so.
If there is evidence of something, this is an indication that it is true. If there is no evidence of something, this also is an indication that it is true. Hmm.
You said that Blatter was correct for blaming the U.S. for an analysis and decision made not by the U.S., but by the FIFA Ethics Committee. And as I indicated before, there was never a reason to be confused. A private organization of which he's been an officer sanctioned him for violating the trust of that organization. The law is not relevant: things can be legal, but forbidden for officers of a private organization by that organization. Yeah, I've seen your posts! If only that were true.
now youre just arguing over semantics. when i used "evidence" i implied worthy evidence. technically, anything remotely relevant can be deemed "evidence." just because there is no directly relevant evidence connecting the US investigation to russia 2018, it does not mean that we cant extrapolate and make a reasonable connection.
i never said that. i said agree with him to the extent that US was the impetus, which it was. when i said that, the information i had was that the private organization justified his ban due to the payment, which the pertaining oral agreement was done in switzerland, and is legal in switzerland, and the organization is based in switzerland. so it seemed questionable that they would use that as the justification. better yet, you have your own posting history to reflect upon. it would have been true if you did not continue to vehemently drag on your attack by responding to my post again. therefore, you were the catalyst for it not being true.
nobody is posting conspiracy theories here. a conspiracy theory is a theory which is completely baseless, for example, that 9/11 was an inside job. you are probably of the opinion that i believe that, but you are wrong. just to set the record straight, i dont think the bush administration carried out the 9/11 attacks, however, i do believe they had intelligence about it (how accurate i dont know) which they purposely brushed off. i just mentioned the above example because it would serve as a strong logical parallel, no need to sidetrack the thread and get into political issues now. plus, lack of evidence does not necessarily preclude that the so called "conspiracy theory" is definitely false. that is simply not true. to determine if something is a conspiracy theory or not, we can only use reasonable judgement: only something totally crazy/something that makes no sense can be considered a conspiracy theory.
which evidence do you have for me being high? this is clearly a conspiracy theory. you sir, are a hypocrite.
Yes, you did. In the cited article, Blatter blamed the U.S. for his ban. That's a fact. You then responded with: That you said this is also a fact. The decision to ban him was made by the FIFA Ethics Committee. That, too, is a fact. Therefore, via modus ponens, you said Blatter was correct for blaming the U.S. for an analysis and decision by the FIFA Ethics Committee. And now you're saying you never said that. It's obvious now that you're not engaging in this honestly. I feel stupid for not realizing more quickly what most other people here seem to have already known. Lesson learned. *plonk*
you are clearly pursuing a character assassination attempt with your repeated replies which are baseless. what you said about what i said is simply incorrect, and childish. i already clarified my position several times so i am not about to reply anymore to your circular posts. whenever you have something constructive to say i will respond.
Maybe it's because when you present your "opinions" you contradict your own statements by drawing conclusions based on conjecture. Besides... So to use your own argument, the evidence (or lack thereof) doesn't preclude the potential fact that you are high.
i did no such thing. by virtue of factual logic, you are correct when you state that it does not preclude the potential fact that i was high, however, just because something does not necessarily preclude a potential fact does not mean it cannot be a conspiracy theory. saying i am high is a conspiracy theory, because it would go against reasonable judgement to say someone like me is high, given my highly reasonable posting history and argumentation skills. i think this is just a witch hunt against me. one look at your profile provides the evidence. 1 of the 2 people you are following has been recently bashing me in this very thread. although this evidence is not sufficient to clearly make the case for this claim, the lack of its strength does not preclude the potential fact that you 2 are out to get me. it is a reasonable claim to make.
Of course, there's always the possibility that we actually favored Russia over England to get the 2018 World Cup, because we're pissed off about the War of 1812.
Well, let's talk about the meaning of 'baseless' -- typically some level of 'facts' constitute a base. So far, I have seen no facts from you whatsoever in support of your theories - just allusions to political relationships that are not specific to the case in question. Therefore, your theories are, by your own definition, baseless. Let's not forget, in regards to the Swiss criminal investigation into Sepp Blatter, that they too have brushed aside that under Swiss law an oral agreement is legal. While many (including the Ethics committee) find that assertion by Blatter and Platini to be nonsense, the real issue from a legal point of view is that the liability incurred upon FIFA by Blatter's agreement was NEVER reported to FIFA. That, my friend is an illegal act, in and of itself, Sepp Blatter has signed off on multiple Financial Reports that did NOT include that liability in it's reports. That no one else on the Executive Committee was ever told about that liability is, I am sure, a huge part of the Ethics Committee's findings. That there was a nine year lag between agreement and payment is also something of interest to the Swiss authorities, so much so that they call it a 'disloyal payment'. Which, seemingly by the use by Switzerland's highest law enforcement in his announcement of a criminal investigation implies something serious. Here is a translation of 'disloyal' by the Economist (article here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2015/10/johnson-lost-translation ) Note - if you don't like the source then find a better translation rather than just pooh-poohing this one. A “disloyal payment”? Even readers who care little for football may be left scratching their heads over this term. How can a payment be “disloyal”? The answer may be lost in translation. The term in question, the second word in the French “paiementdéloyal”, can mean both “disloyal” (un ami déloyal, a disloyal friend, for example) and “denoting a lack of good faith or of honesty”, according to the French Academy’s online dictionary. The legal Swiss-French term “paiementdéloyal” is difficult to translate because there is no exact proxy in legal English. “Corrupt” is too strong; “unauthorised” has the right bureaucratic ring, but emphasises the wrong element (authorisation rather than honesty). “Illicit”is close—meaning originally without “license” or permission. But etymologically, plain “illegal” might be the closest thing. The English words “legal” and “loyal” both come from the same place: originally a Latin word meaning in accordance with duty and the law.