Famous People Who You've Changed Your Opinion On

[Nalis]

2 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

He's a blowhard full of his own self importance. 

 

I still can't begin to understand why people find him shrilly laughing at his own mediocre jokes. 

 

Like a lot of British folk on American TV he also does the self righteous moralising figure thing. That's annoying too. 

I'm admittedly a bit of a comedy snob but lowest common denominator usual wins in comedy unfortunately. James Corden, Mrs Browns Boys and Miranda are popular yet slated constantly.

 

On the flipside, I've seen a clip of Bill Bailey on one of the US talk shows but he barely got any laughs from the audience whereas I thought he was as hilarious as usual.

 

Part of me thinks fair play to the likes of Corden and Brendan O'Carroll for making money from something they love doing, but just dont call it comedy.

[Beliall]

madders. i never liked him , but seeing his interviews  im coming around. 

[RonnieTodger]

Frankie Boyle. 

 

Used to be the best thing about panel shows, but then became a bit of a try-hard and is far too touchy considering he made a career off the back of Harvey Price and Princess Diana.

[Jattdogg]

20 hours ago, ozleicester said:

For your benefit or hers? 

Hers clearly.

[Scotch]

The Kardashians are a weird one for me....

 

Clearly, they are horrible, HORRIBLE people and the last people I would want my daughter idolizing but you've just got to respect how fvcking successful they've made themselves. That doesn't happen without a bit of graft. 

 

They didn't exactly come from a poor background but they certainly didnt come from a family of billionaires either and that's what they've made for themselves. 

[Benguin]

On 16/06/2020 at 18:45, Parafox said:

Ricky Gervais. My initial opinion of him in The Office was he was a funny and clever writer. Having watched interviews on Jonathon Ross my opinion changed to thinking he was a bit of an up-himself knob and subsequently having watched The Late Show in the USA and interviews he's done since and some of the things he's said on social media, my opinion now is he's a self opinionated, rather arrogant, unpleasant individual who thinks he is funnier and cleverer than he actually is. A bit like a male version of Lily Allen.

Massive example of pseudo-intelligence and sophistry, along with the likes of Russel Brand. 

[Jimothy]

40 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Massive example of pseudo-intelligence and sophistry, along with the likes of Russel Brand. 

I wonder why a devout Christian would dislike devout Athiest Ricky Gervais 😉

[Benguin]

48 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I wonder why a devout Christian would dislike devout Athiest Ricky Gervais 😉

Because I prefer intellectually stimulating challenges to faith rather than celebrities who use sophistry to attack low hanging fruit.
 

It’s not a dislike but more a frustration that people choose not to expose themselves to more rigorous challenge with their worldview and instead stay in an echo chamber where no serious advocate or opponent dwells and therefore no purpose is served in terms of advancing a worldview. (not just on theology but on all sorts of issues) 

[Jimothy]

Just now, Benguin said:

Because I prefer intellectually stimulating challenges to faith rather than celebrities who use sophistry to attack low hanging fruit.
 

It’s not a dislike but more a frustration that people choose not to expose themselves to more rigorous challenge with their worldview and instead stay in an echo chamber where no serious advocate or opponent dwells and therefore no purpose is served in terms of advancing a worldview. (not just on theology but on all sorts of issues) 

Firstly Gervais is comic. In his shows and interviews he's trying to entertain. This often means not going to deep, not getting too serious on subjects. Comedians often skirt round the issue and cherry pick for laughs. One of the most famous pieces of stand up over the last decade is Jim Jefferies' Gun Control bit. Whilst I totally agree with him over gun control, he does make some arguments poory for comic effect. When you actually get some of these comic like Gervais, Jefferies and Burr on serious news shows they do make the point better and in a more concise way. I don't have an issue with Gervais, he's an intelligent bloke, maybe says things you don't agree with, but he's not stupid.

 

Russel Brand on the other hand, I agree. Tries too hard to sound clever but often says very little.

[Benguin]

2 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Firstly Gervais is comic. In his shows and interviews he's trying to entertain. This often means not going to deep, not getting too serious on subjects. Comedians often skirt round the issue and cherry pick for laughs. One of the most famous pieces of stand up over the last decade is Jim Jefferies' Gun Control bit. Whilst I totally agree with him over gun control, he does make some arguments poory for comic effect. When you actually get some of these comic like Gervais, Jefferies and Burr on serious news shows they do make the point better and in a more concise way. I don't have an issue with Gervais, he's an intelligent bloke, maybe says things you don't agree with, but he's not stupid.

 

Russel Brand on the other hand, I agree. Tries too hard to sound clever but often says very little.

Oh yeah, absolutely agree.  He is a comic and this tactic works well for comedy. It’s more that people look to people like him as a good advocate for atheism, when In fact his arguments are quite poor and would be easily rebutted in a serious debate. 
 

He has every right to do what he does, I just hope people take it for what it is (comedy) and challenge their worldviews through other, more sophisticated debaters.

[Jimothy]

Just now, Benguin said:

Oh yeah, absolutely agree.  He is a comic and this tactic works well for comedy. It’s more that people look to people like him as a good advocate for atheism, when In fact his arguments are quite poor and would be easily rebutted in a serious debate. 
 

He has every right to do what he does, I just hope people take it for what it is (comedy) and challenge their worldviews through other, more sophisticated debaters.

Like I say, I've seen Gervais on more serious discussion shows and he put himself across well. Its lazy to label him just a comic.

[Benguin]

Just now, Facecloth said:

Like I say, I've seen Gervais on more serious discussion shows and he put himself across well. Its lazy to label him just a comic.

I have also seen him in more serious conversations and disagree. Not saying he’s stupid but that he uses weak arguments against low hanging fruit. He is one of the biggest examples of someone who steals from a theistic worldview to make his points. 

[Jimothy]

Just now, Benguin said:

I have also seen him in more serious conversations and disagree. Not saying he’s stupid but that he uses weak arguments against low hanging fruit. He is one of the biggest examples of someone who steals from a theistic worldview to make his points. 

Not for me sorry. He puts across a strong argument of why all religion is bullshit. Youre a devout Christian, so of course you're not going to like it when he pull apart all your beliefs.

[Benguin]

3 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Not for me sorry. He puts across a strong argument of why all religion is bullshit. Youre a devout Christian, so of course you're not going to like it when he pull apart all your beliefs.

You’re misunderstanding me. I find Ricky funny. I love a good challenge to my faith, as you may have gathered from my eagerness to engage people in here. I would much rather people engaged more seriously than the laughable arguments Gervais makes. 

[Jimothy]

3 minutes ago, Benguin said:

You’re misunderstanding me. I find Ricky funny. I love a good challenge to my faith, as you may have gathered from my eagerness to engage people in here. I would much rather people engaged more seriously than the laughable arguments Gervais makes. 

You misunderstand me. I don't find some of his arguments laughable, just factual.

[Benguin]

2 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

You misunderstand me. I don't find some of his arguments laughable, just factual.

And you have every right to think that, as do I. 

[Jimothy]

53 minutes ago, Benguin said:

And you have every right to think that, as do I. 

I also don't think you like discussing religion. You like telling people they are wrong and they can't be right because YOU believe something so therefore they are wrong. Gervais never outright tells people they are wrong to believe in something, just holds a mirror up to try and make them see why it might not be right. He uses clear arguments to point out why what he's saying is factually correct, I'm afraid you don't. And that is why people like you dislike people like him.

 

Also I often find your way of engaging in discussion on religion disrespectful, condescending and you seem unwilling to accept even slightly why someone woulbn't believe the same as you.

[Jimothy]

23 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Thought James Corden was a funny lad in the G&S days, how wrong I was

I can see why Corden the presenter rubs people up the wrong way, but hes clearly a talented comedy writer.

[Izzy]

2 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I also don't think you like discussing religion. You like telling people they are wrong and they can't be right because YOU believe something so therefore they are wrong. Gervais never outright tells people they are wrong to believe in something, just holds a mirror up to try and make them see why it might not be right. He uses clear arguments to point out why what he's saying is factually correct, I'm afraid you don't. And that is why people like you dislike people like him.

 

Also I often find your way of engaging in discussion on religion disrespectful, condescending and you seem unwilling to accept even slightly why someone woulbn't believe the same as you.

It’s 10am on Saturday morning and Facecloth is already into his first major argument of the day.

Who will be the next to feel his wrath? 

[Jimothy]

1 minute ago, Izzy said:

It’s 10am on Saturday morning and Facecloth is already into his first major argument of the day.

Who will be the next to feel his wrath? 

Argumentative? Me? 

 

My sister invited me to some Facebook politics group she's in because she says I'm argumentative and I'd enjoy it 

[Benguin]

12 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I also don't think you like discussing religion. You like telling people they are wrong and they can't be right because YOU believe something so therefore they are wrong. Gervais never outright tells people they are wrong to believe in something, just holds a mirror up to try and make them see why it might not be right. He uses clear arguments to point out why what he's saying is factually correct, I'm afraid you don't. And that is why people like you dislike people like him.

 

Also I often find your way of engaging in discussion on religion disrespectful, condescending and you seem unwilling to accept even slightly why someone woulbn't believe the same as you.

You’re more than welcome to think that, though I’m not convinced that’s an accurate summary at all. I’ve never made or started a debate on religion, it has always been me commenting my thoughts on someone else’s post and then answering the many people who engage me. 
 

on the second point I’ve said several times on many threads that part of my worldview is that most will disagree. I don’t believe for a second that everyone has to believe as that is the opposite of what I think. 
 

Those are some inflammatory opinions of my decorum on here, I would hope that’s not the case but if it is, I’m sure you’ve got many examples of this. I’d love to not come across like that, so if you could show me where l, maybe it’s something I could work on. 

[Jimothy]

1 minute ago, Benguin said:

You’re more than welcome to think that, though I’m not convinced that’s an accurate summary at all. I’ve never made or started a debate on religion, it has always been me commenting my thoughts on someone else’s post and then answering the many people who engage me. 
 

on the second point I’ve said several times on many threads that part of my worldview is that most will disagree. I don’t believe for a second that everyone has to believe as that is the opposite of what I think. 
 

Those are some inflammatory opinions of my decorum on here, I would hope that’s not the case but if it is, I’m sure you’ve got many examples of this. I’d love to not come across like that, so if you could show me where l, maybe it’s something I could work on. 

Thats some trawling through posts ,so leave it with me.

[Benguin]

Also, just on your me being disrespectful and telling people they’re wrong:

 

1 hour ago, Facecloth said:

You misunderstand me. I don't find some of his arguments laughable, just factual.

 

1 hour ago, Facecloth said:

Not for me sorry. He puts across a strong argument of why all religion is bullshit. Youre a devout Christian, so of course you're not going to like it when he pull apart all your beliefs.

just holding a mirror up as you put it. 👍

[Jimothy]

19 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Also, just on your me being disrespectful and telling people they’re wrong:

 

 

just holding a mirror up as you put it. 👍

Well you are wrong, but if you offer me a decent argument as to why I am, I'll concede. You don't.

 

Remember the religion thread. Remember you telling people as we weren't Christians it meant we couldn't have a moral compass, couldn't really know what was right and wrong because we didn't have religion to guide us. That was extremely disrespectful, and when numerous people pointed out to they could and do have a moral compass without religion, and actually a none religious moral compass is more fluid and changeable as society changes, you just repeated the same rubbish argument about religion being the only true way to be moral. That's the kind of disrespect I'm on about.

[Benguin]

5 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Well you are wrong, but if you offer me a decent argument as to why I am, I'll concede. You don't.

 

Remember the religion thread. Remember you telling people as we weren't Christians it meant we couldn't have a moral compass, couldn't really know what was right and wrong because we didn't have religion to guide us. That was extremely disrespectful, and when numerous people pointed out to they could and do have a moral compass without religion, and actually a none religious moral compass is more fluid and changeable as society changes, you just repeated the same rubbish argument about religion being the only true way to be moral. That's the kind of disrespect I'm on about.

I can’t help it if you choose to consistently misinterpret a point. I have tried many times to address this with you but you seem determined to think I’m saying something I’m not. I have never and would never say you can’t be moral without God. I have said multiple times that you can’t explain why objective morals exist without the need for an objective standard. There is a difference.