Why is the MAGA movement so susceptible to crazy conspiracy theories?

[Liverpool Lou]

On 10/11/2024 at 12:04 PM, Hamus Yaigh said:

On 10/11/2024 at 7:45 AM, MalcolmB said:

A tragic accident, kids stopped in the middle of a dark road. It could have happened to any of us.

 

Tik obviously didn’t mean it and is remorseful and apologetic.

 

The haters will hate though, especially because Tik is a successful person.

A sick attempt at satire?

Nothing "sick" about his comment that clearly wasn't intended to be, nor was, satirical.

[Liverpool Lou]

On 10/11/2024 at 12:00 PM, richard_smith237 said:

Had he ? you know him and his driving record ? 

 

Driving with dark glasses on at night is an accident waiting to happen

Was he?  Do you know that he was wearing sunglasses when he was driving?

[Liverpool Lou]

On 10/11/2024 at 12:27 PM, watchcat said:

On 10/11/2024 at 12:00 PM, richard_smith237 said:

Driving with dark glasses on at night

 

Why did he do that, Well he thought obviously he'd lokingng  like a a cool loking guy

Where was it reported that he was wearing them whilst driving, before he got out of his car?

[richard_smith237]

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

On 10/11/2024 at 12:00 PM, richard_smith237 said:

Had he ? you know him and his driving record ? 

 

Driving with dark glasses on at night is an accident waiting to happen

Was he?  Do you know that he was wearing sunglasses when he was driving?

 

No, I don't know that... But he was wearing 'dark glasses' when out of the car at the side of the road.

 

So... there is no proof that he was wearing dark glasses while driving and he only put on dark glasses after he got out of his van - but, one would question why ?

 

Thus: the van driver wearing dark-glasses while driving is an assumption and not proven (as you indicate)...

[Liverpool Lou]

22 hours ago, zepplin said:

And why was he go so fast…? Because he can , because of the useless Thai police, who let any driver do what they want with minimal consequences…

"...why was he go so fast…?"

So fast?  How fast was he going. then?

[richard_smith237]

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

On 10/11/2024 at 12:27 PM, watchcat said:

On 10/11/2024 at 12:00 PM, richard_smith237 said:

Driving with dark glasses on at night

 

Why did he do that, Well he thought obviously he'd lokingng  like a a cool loking guy

Where was it reported that he was wearing them whilst driving, before he got out of his car?

 

(I've anwered you seriously above) ... now I'll give you the same time of response you'd give yourself.... 

 

Where was it reported that he was not wearing dark glasses whilst driving the van?

[Liverpool Lou]

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

So... there is no proof that he was wearing dark glasses while driving and he only put on dark glasses after he got out of his van - but, one would question why ?

Why?  Something that easily recognised celebrities have a tendency to do, amongst other reasons it can hide ageing features.

[Liverpool Lou]

7 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

now I'll give you the same time of response you'd give yourself.... 

 

Where was it reported that he was not wearing dark glasses whilst driving the van?

Well, it was not reported that he had been wearing sunglasses.  It was not reported, either, that he was driving with a bag over his head, but maybe you'd like to surmise that because that was not reported he may have been wearing one?

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

So... there is no proof that he was wearing dark glasses while driving and he only put on dark glasses after he got out of his van - but, one would question why ?

Why?  Something that easily recognised celebrities have a tendency to do, amongst other reasons it can hide ageing features.

 

Agreed....   

 

So you think he crashed into a stationary motorcycle and people, and his first reaction was to reach for his sun-glasses to hide his aging features because he's famous ??

 

Or... you pointed out the potential for aging features, could these have been prescription glasses with darker lenses and he was driving with them ?

 

As there is no photo, information or evidence of him not wearing those dark glasses, I'm inclined to suspect he was wearing them while driving, which could explain why he didn't see the parked motorcycle. 

 

 

17 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Where was it reported that he was wearing them whilst driving, before he got out of his car?

 

Of course, you can continue being pedantic...  You could also argue that he was driving without a shirt, because it was not reported that he was wearing a shirt whist driving...  ( I think that makes that point )... 

 

No need to go around in pedantic circles arguing about what was and wasn't reported when we are already familiar with the lack of information, poor standards and inaccuracies in many of these reports.

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

Just now, richard_smith237 said:

No need to go around in pedantic circles arguing about what was and wasn't reported when we are already familiar with the lack of information, poor standards and inaccuracies in many of these reports.

 

I think my comment above covers that...     

 

I'm not willing to get dragged down the LL rabbit hole of pedantic stupidity... 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Well, it was not reported that he had been wearing sunglasses.  It was not reported, either, that he was driving with a bag over his head, but maybe you'd like to surmise that because that was not reported he may have been wearing one?

 

The summary I will make is that you are painfully pedantic, stubbornly grasping at absurd arguments to oppose what is clearly common sense - in all photo's we was wearing those dark glasses....   a fair assumption can be made that he was wearing them while driving.

[MikeandDow]

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I think my comment above covers that...     

 

I'm not willing to get dragged down the LL rabbit hole of pedantic stupidity... 

 

 

 

The summary I will make is that you are painfully pedantic, stubbornly grasping at absurd arguments to oppose what is clearly common sense - in all photo's we was wearing those dark glasses....   a fair assumption can be made that he was wearing them while driving.

 Think you are twisting things, Assumption  a willingness to accept something as true without question or proof:

 I think you are not a Police investigator  (just the King of Assumptions)  everybody on this forum is allowed to have there own options even you !!  and calling other poster names it goes against the forum rules and spoils  the discussion   as far as this goes its best left to police investigators to find out if he was wearing dark glasses or not   just bear in mind 2 people lost their lives

[MalcolmB]

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

The summary I will make is that you are painfully pedantic, stubbornly grasping at absurd arguments

I read it as Lou just trying to keep to the facts and not make stuff up so you can carry on more as you do.

Time to pull your head in mate.

[Captain Flack]

Some off topic posts have been removed, please discuss the topic

[richard_smith237]

22 hours ago, MikeandDow said:

 Think you are twisting things, Assumption  a willingness to accept something as true without question or proof:

 I think you are not a Police investigator  (just the King of Assumptions)  everybody on this forum is allowed to have there own options even you !!  and calling other poster names it goes against the forum rules and spoils  the discussion   as far as this goes its best left to police investigators to find out if he was wearing dark glasses or not   just bear in mind 2 people lost their lives

 

You keep mentioning the forum rules to me (I think at least 3 comment so far)...  such a 'wannabe-mod' !!!... 

 

The guy had dark glasses on...    there is no evidence anywhere of him without dark glasses.

 

What assumption would you make ?... that he was driving with or without those dark glasses ?

 

The whole point of a forum like this is for discussions and opinions... LL's opinion is that he might not have been wearing those dark glasses whilst driving because there is no proof... using the same logic there is no evidence that he was not driving naked, because there is no proof.

 

We can only go by what we see in the photo's and videos and there is not one photo of video of him (Tik Shiro) without dark glasses on....   But, as you, MalcomB and LL want to argue, there is no photo or video of him point out there is no evidence of him (Tik Shiro) driving with dark glasses on either...   It gets a bit pedantic when going down such rabbit holes. 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

21 hours ago, MalcolmB said:

On 10/12/2024 at 1:21 PM, richard_smith237 said:

The summary I will make is that you are painfully pedantic, stubbornly grasping at absurd arguments

I read it as Lou just trying to keep to the facts and not make stuff up so you can carry on more as you do.

Time to pull your head in mate.

 

He (LL) wants to stick to the facts, but he relies upon what has been written in the article as fact, he does not allow for flexibility, interpretation, experience, how poorly the article is written, or how often important facts are missed out from these reports etc...   If its not mentioned in the article, then LL will argue to the end of the earth there's no proof.

 

I operate under different guidelines, I'm aware that the articles are often flawed, miss out on facts and may miss pertinent points - we have the benefit of discussion without the burden of proof, we are not lawyers, this is just a discussion forum.

 

When I see a report such as this and see the guy who had the accident wearing dark-tinted glasses in every photo and video, even though its in the middle of the night, I think the assumption is a fair one that he was also driving with those glasses. 

 

I agree there is no absolute proof of this - but, I think there is strong argument to consider the likelihood of Tik-Shiro wearing those dark tinted glasses while driving.... 

 

I think this combined with window tint led to poorer visibility and perhaps one of the root causes of him not seeing the parked up motorcycle on the side of the road

 

Also note that there is a 1m 'shoulder' on the side of the road - so it would appear that either he (Tik Shiro) was not driving within in his lane, or the motorcyclist has stopped in the lane itself.

 

 

So.. head wound out or in... or wherever you think it should be.. What do you think ???????  Given the photographs and videos:

a) Do you think Tik Shiro wearing dark-tinted glasses while driving ?

b) Do you think Tik Shiro put on the dark-tinted glasses only after the incident ?

 

 

[MikeandDow]

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

You keep mentioning the forum rules to me (I think at least 3 comment so far)...  such a 'wannabe-mod' !!!... 

 

The guy had dark glasses on...    there is no evidence anywhere of him without dark glasses.

 

What assumption would you make ?... that he was driving with or without those dark glasses ?

 

The whole point of a forum like this is for discussions and opinions... LL's opinion is that he might not have been wearing those dark glasses whilst driving because there is no proof... using the same logic there is no evidence that he was not driving naked, because there is no proof.

 

We can only go by what we see in the photo's and videos and there is not one photo of video of him (Tik Shiro) without dark glasses on....   But, as you, MalcomB and LL want to argue, there is no photo or video of him point out there is no evidence of him (Tik Shiro) driving with dark glasses on either...   It gets a bit pedantic when going down such rabbit holes. 

 

 

Rules are made to be followed  by which you do not , i would not want to be a mod on hear reading your whining post

 Why are you so fixated on whether he wore dark glasses on or not  its not your Job it is the police and i would advice you leave it to them

“In the absence of information, we jump to the worst conclusions.” 

yes this is a forum of discussion and opinions  but you are a nonconformist  a person who does not listen to others opinion so there is no discussion just bickering  you need to calm down

[MikeandDow]

11 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

He (LL) wants to stick to the facts, but he relies upon what has been written in the article as fact, he does not allow for flexibility, interpretation, experience, how poorly the article is written, or how often important facts are missed out from these reports etc...   If its not mentioned in the article, then LL will argue to the end of the earth there's no proof.

 

I operate under different guidelines, I'm aware that the articles are often flawed, miss out on facts and may miss pertinent points - we have the benefit of discussion without the burden of proof, we are not lawyers, this is just a discussion forum.

 

When I see a report such as this and see the guy who had the accident wearing dark-tinted glasses in every photo and video, even though its in the middle of the night, I think the assumption is a fair one that he was also driving with those glasses. 

 

I agree there is no absolute proof of this - but, I think there is strong argument to consider the likelihood of Tik-Shiro wearing those dark tinted glasses while driving.... 

 

I think this combined with window tint led to poorer visibility and perhaps one of the root causes of him not seeing the parked up motorcycle on the side of the road

 

Also note that there is a 1m 'shoulder' on the side of the road - so it would appear that either he (Tik Shiro) was not driving within in his lane, or the motorcyclist has stopped in the lane itself.

 

 

So.. head wound out or in... or wherever you think it should be.. What do you think ???????  Given the photographs and videos:

a) Do you think Tik Shiro wearing dark-tinted glasses while driving ?

b) Do you think Tik Shiro put on the dark-tinted glasses only after the incident ?

 

 

To be honest I would state my Opinion,   And say IN MY Opinion And review the photos there is a good chance he was wearing them when driving  it really does not matter about the glasses the focus should be on the lose of life  I enjoy a good Discussion had a few on hear but you have to always take in other poster opinion  if you can Prove he had dark glasses on  present your proof

“ We make the assumption that everyone sees life the way we do.”

[richard_smith237]

13 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

Rules are made to be followed  by which you do not , i would not want to be a mod on hear reading your whining post

 

Give it a rest teachers-pet / wanna-be mod... Going to tell them I'm calling you names ?

Pathetic. 

 

13 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

 Why are you so fixated on whether he wore dark glasses on or not  its not your Job it is the police and i would advice you leave it to them

 

Becasue its a discussion forum, designed for discussion. IF you dont want to read discussions, go and read the news !!!!....    This is a place where people can exchange ideas, it seems that is lost on you.

 

So... why am I fixated on the wearing of dark glasses....   thats a valid question, but I have epxlained that enough times already - I'll do so again, because you stubbornly ignoring the point.... 

...  As this singer can be observed in every photo and video at the scene wearing dark-glasses, I think its a fair assumption that he was driving in them, thus, his poor visibility may well have been the root cause of the incident. 

 

 

13 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

“In the absence of information, we jump to the worst conclusions.” 

yes this is a forum of discussion and opinions  but you are a nonconformist  a person who does not listen to others opinion so there is no discussion just bickering  you need to calm down

 

We are all non-conformists....  we all draw our own opinions and discuss them.

 

You may not think it matters that he was wearing dark glasses at the scene - I think that information is worthy of discussion.... It has nothing to do with conformity, everything to do with making an observation and discussing it on a forum designed for discussion.

 

I am perfectly happy to take in the opinions of others - but you haven't offered an opinion, you've just argued against, mine, as has LL....      pick apart other peoples opinions by all means, but come up with your own ideas as part the discussion too.

[richard_smith237]

6 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

To be honest I would state my Opinion,   And say IN MY Opinion And review the photos there is a good chance he was wearing them when driving  it really does not matter about the glasses the focus should be on the lose of life  I enjoy a good Discussion had a few on hear but you have to always take in other poster opinion  if you can Prove he had dark glasses on  present your proof

“ We make the assumption that everyone sees life the way we do.”

 

The loss of life is tragic...   but that has happened... 

 

I always approach these discussions from the position of wanting to learn what happened and how it happened so I can better learn to avoid such issues.

 

i.e. recently purchasing a car, the darkness of film the dealership wanted to put on the vehicle was extreme, the staff thought I was mad wanting to cut back the darkness by a significant amount. 

The idea that I wanted to see clearly while driving at night was completely lost of them - they were primarily concerned with it 'getting too hot' in the day time in the car. 

 

I think these attitudes and end result of dark tints cause a lot of accidents at night in Thailand. 

 

And IF the driver was wearing dark glasses and had dark tint - then I think this is why he may have crashed into a stationary object.

 

Of course, I can't prove he had dark glasses on - but should that mean it should not be a part of the discussion, especially in light of the fact that in every photo and video he is seen with dark glasses ????

 

 

 

[BarraMarra]

Three on the bike ? none wearing Helmets what could go wrong at 4 in the morning.

[MikeandDow]

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Give it a rest teachers-pet / wanna-be mod... Going to tell them I'm calling you names ?

Pathetic. 

 

 

Becasue its a discussion forum, designed for discussion. IF you dont want to read discussions, go and read the news !!!!....    This is a place where people can exchange ideas, it seems that is lost on you.

 

So... why am I fixated on the wearing of dark glasses....   thats a valid question, but I have epxlained that enough times already - I'll do so again, because you stubbornly ignoring the point.... 

...  As this singer can be observed in every photo and video at the scene wearing dark-glasses, I think its a fair assumption that he was driving in them, thus, his poor visibility may well have been the root cause of the incident. 

 

 

 

We are all non-conformists....  we all draw our own opinions and discuss them.

 

You may not think it matters that he was wearing dark glasses at the scene - I think that information is worthy of discussion.... It has nothing to do with conformity, everything to do with making an observation and discussing it on a forum designed for discussion.

 

I am perfectly happy to take in the opinions of others - but you haven't offered an opinion, you've just argued against, mine, as has LL....      pick apart other peoples opinions by all means, but come up with your own ideas as part the discussion too.

"But you are making assumptions without all the facts, and that’s not a sign of intelligence.”

lost cause  you just like to argue and put people down that's not  a discussion just bickering

[richard_smith237]

22 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

"But you are making assumptions without all the facts, and that’s not a sign of intelligence.”

lost cause  you just like to argue and put people down that's not  a discussion just bickering

 

None of us know all the facts? Yet, by that logic, no one should say a word about the incident, and we should just scroll through pages of empty "RIP" comments.

 

That’s completely absurd. From where I’m standing, every one of your posts seems like a cheap shot aimed at tearing me down, which only makes you look like a hypocrite.

 

The difference? I'm not as fragile as you are when faced with opinions I don't agree with.

 

What’s truly laughable is that you actually agree with me ( as below ) , but still can’t resist picking a fight.

 

Because you've taken a disliking to me in other threads, you are arguing the person, not the debating the discussion...   

 

42 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

And say IN MY Opinion And review the photos there is a good chance he was wearing them when driving 

 

 

 

[Captain Flack]

A number of posts have been reported in this topic. I have not removed them, as there are some valid points in the posts, but if the bickering continues I will clean up the topic.