• Size: 61.40 min.
• Raiting: 4.964139
• Vives: 151721
• Category: People • Keywords:
A conversation with the British comedian, author, actor and filmmaker.
Well all of my opinions come from the illuminati. I don't really know antything. The Illuminati control everything.
I´╗┐ didn't mean any of this, All lies.
No, I'm also basing it on´╗┐ what the Moon people tell me and how many green bugs I see on Thursday.
Are you basing´╗┐ everything on this? It seems you are.
He's a clever guy, talented, and somewhat interesting but I hear nothing deep or´╗┐ original in his comments.
Quoting "I don't like him"? I asked you the question. That's what I completely disagree with. He is a great mind and a great thinker. The fact´╗┐ that he is successful screenwriter, author, playwright and journalist disregards that he is not a great thinker or a great mind. In what way do you think he isn't?
Whatever its origins, "sturm and drang" is generally used by English speakers to mean roughly the´╗┐ same as tumult or upheaval.
How dare I? Are you on acid? I say what I please and damn anyone who doesn't like it. The fact that he´╗┐ "went to Cambridge" (did he ever return?) is not relevant to anything I've written here. I never said he was stupid or poorly educated. I also never said I "don't like him". For at least the fourth time in these comments: He's a great comic actor, he is well educated, he has an impressive vocabulary. He is not a great thinker or a great mind.
I actually made a point and backed it up with evidence. Your´╗┐ points in all of this have been stupid´╗┐ remarks with no evidence to back it up. How exactly does Stephen Fry not want to hear or read anything that disturbs his world view? Could you answer this question instead of avoiding it as you have done in every comment.
If you feel that Fry runs from differing opinions are you aware of this (/watch?v=xBXy323hoWA) an intelligence┬▓ debate in which Stephen Fry 'engages, refutes, credits' and by no means does he hide from the´╗┐ topic "The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world". He's went out of his way to get his opinion out there. This completely goes against everything in that last comment.
Again, you only address one point that he made. What about the validness of´╗┐ my earlier comment about Aristotle? You have been absolutely bombarded in these comments. Your views are so superficial and wrong. Wake up.
The fact that they show up as "This comment has received too many negative votes" rather than the comment doesn't mean nothing. What exactly are you trying to gain from this? Do you not like Stephen Fry? How dare you say he isn't intellectual, the fact he went to Cambridge dismisses that comment. Have you watched Qi? You might observe him as shallow, but seeing as though you don't like´╗┐ him I bet you don't know much about him. I've read his books and he is a deep man with high morals.
Sturm und´╗┐ Drang - storm and drive, very emotional.
wait whoa´╗┐ whoa whoa, there are people on this world who DON'T like Stephen Fry?!? HOW?!?
Could somebody explain to me the foreign phrase he uses at about 18:30? It sounds´╗┐ to me like Schteur mont trang, which sounds German, but Google's results beg to differ (at least as far as spelling is concerned).
No offense taken. Communicating with strangers online is often difficult. This debate began when someone suggested that Fry is a great man/intellect etc. I disagreed. In the back and forth I offered as evidence his admission that he shields himself from hearing opinions contrary to his own. Truly great minds don't run from differing opinions. They engage them, refute them, and even credit them,´╗┐ but they don't hide from them. Fry is intelligent and talented which is praise aplenty for any man.
Let's reign in the suppositions. I never claimed to be liberal nor did I say your opinion was invalid - it was your conduct towards other people I addressed. So you don't dislike Fry, that was my supposition. You have disregarded several arguments that run counter to yours though. Also, by your rationale should we absorb every persons output without any filters whatsoever? We wouldn't have time for anything else. I apologise for any earlier´╗┐ animosity - this is quite an interesting discussion.
"All the laws of circumcision and of eating and on what to do´╗┐ with menstruating women..." XD
This man could blather on about absolutely ANYTHING in the world and still´╗┐ I would listen, spellbound. His optimism on life is refreshing and beautiful to behold.
Stephen Fry on acid, I would
pay hard money too´╗┐ see that
"why sit through an hour long interview of someone you clearly dislike?"
To continue my comments and to directly respond to the question quoted above: Should we then only watch videos of people we agree with? Having done so should we only make´╗┐ comments that are adulatory? Granted that clicking on a video solely to comment "he sucks" is not useful, why would a supposedly liberal person be so off put by the mere expression of considered opinion that happens to run counter to your own?
"Fry talking about Aristotle" was not a counter, it was intended to distract from Fry's other comments in which he clearly states that he shields himself from hearing opinions from people who believe differently than he does. Please provide evidence that I "clearly dislike" Fry. In fact as stated elsewhere in this "thread" I consider him a gifted comedian, an above average conversationalist, and he clearly has an impressive vocabulary. He is´╗┐ not however a great or profound thinker.
You ignore the example of Fry talking about Aristotle (he read something he didn't agree with, which is a valid counter to your original statement) hence my mentioning hypocrisy. As to what you mean it's not hard to understand. What does beguile me is´╗┐ the behaviour of people in YouTube comments - why sit through an hour long interview of someone you clearly dislike and then make inflammatory statements clearly designed to start arguments? I guess trolling just discovered a thesaurus. Well done.