The point is though that with zero evidence (or in fact some mild unreliable evidence against the point) you are assuming that you can read someone elses opinion. It seems bizarre to try and add credibility to your point by saying you think it is likely Gerrard agrees with you even though the only quotes we have access to would indicate that he has the opposite view. It's the evidence for other peoples points of view which I think is important. You can safely assume that most people know what you think on most topics already.
Whether intentionally or not your posts often come across as if you believe that there is only one opinion on a topic which is valid which is that which agrees with your own even in multifaceted subjective judgments.
Whether intentionally or not your posts often come across as if you believe that there is only one opinion on a topic which is valid which is that which agrees with your own even in multifaceted subjective judgments.


Comment