Russell Brand Is an Immature Buffoon With Unrealisitc Idealogies

So this argument is split into two points. 1. Russell is immature and stupid. 2. His ideologies are unrealistic. My main point and stance: I will argue that everybody is immature in many, if not most, aspects of their life. But I will argue that the way Russell sees the world, is far from 'immature'. Also I don't believe that Russell has said enough about his ideological vision of the future, to have a substantial debate about. But, non the less, because I like Russell Brands views, I will argue that he is right. But what ideology are you saying is wrong? Could you be more clear so I know what it is you disagree with, so we can have a proper debate. SIDE NOTE: You make bold statements about interllect and back them up with unsubstantial evidence. A mans intelligence is immaterial, unfathomable, imcomensurable and subjective. Calling someone stupid, is quite a stupid thing to do. It's narrow minded. People have different types of intelligences, and they are not the ones we where taught at school! You make several arguments amid your rant, attempting to prove your point. will try to organise them: 1. Russell saying that FOX news is like a terrorist organisation, when you believe it is not like a terrorist organisation. 2. You think dropping bombs on this occasion is okay, Russell says its what got us is this mess in the first place. 3. Russel makes a statement about the word terrorists and the idea of Hamas as a terrorist group, you say that Hamas is a terrorist group. Also you think he has his facts mixed up about human shielding. 4.You don't agree with drug legalisation and Russell does. You say: "While I do not like Fox News, Russell Brand's criticism of the network is laughably idiotic. When he commented on the opening statement of Judge Jeanine Pirro when she said "ISIS is a fanatical religious terrorist organization". Those words were as accurate as it gets in referring to ISIS. Russell Brand said then that "Fox News is fanatical terrorist organization and is more dangerous than ISIS". He even went on to compare the Judge to Hitler and Goebbels. Now let me ask you something: Is that a fair accusation? I think that is a very slanderous, unrealistic, and idiotic statement considering Fox has never murdered anyone, bombed anything, or opted for the genocide of people they didn't like (which is a lot)." Your missing the point. Russell's message is that the society we live in is full of contradiction and hypocracy. Fox News has many similarities to the stereotypical terrorist organisation. Indeed it's part of one in the eyes of al-Qaeda and other people's. So to liken Fox News to a terrorist organisation is not completely idiotic. You say Fox News has never murdered anyone (not true, they support the death penalty) you say they have never bombed anyone (they support the war you crazy man) and you you say never opted for genicide (well maybe not in them terms, but it is quite racist and supportive of violent intervention). Also, Russell is likening them to terrorists because he believes in things like drug companies and weapon manufacturers making money of suffering, and he believes that they fund FOX, who in turn help too help cover-up the wickedness. (By cover-up, I don't necessarily mean literally, I mean by encouraging people to be supportive of the status quo and to be nieve and distracted). So if FOX are aiding death and suffering for profit, then that is a similarity to terrorism. Indeed I would go so far to say that the drive for profit could be a less honourable cause than some 'terrorists' causes. But we are getting ahead of ourselves, I'm still trying to drill the point that 'terrorist' is a word used by governments for groups of people (with no recognised government) that are aggressive towards them. You say that you would agree with the bombing, and you base your argument on facts displayed by one side of the conflict. Bombing is a way to kill, and its not going to kill the regime. It's only going to make the innocent citizens angry and fearful of the US, when they already are fearful of the terrorist group. This will encourage some members to even join with the terrorists. Russell's comment that its what got us in this mess in the first place may not be accurate, I don't know the details, but violent intervention at least excasabates the situation. In fact, Russell is right in a way: The very notion of Mujahideen (or 'struggle' against the 'infidels') was first heard in the West when the British invaded. They where a group of people fighting for their own land against the invaders. Nothing wrong with that I'm sure you will agree. So it was us being violent and disrespectful towards them that caused the conflict, Russell was right. Things have been complicated ever since, how can you make so bold a claim when you know little of these matters? Indeed, if you read all the information available to you, you still would know not what it is like, to experience the lives of these Muslims. You say Russell is childish for imitating Hamas, perhaps, but humour is often childlike. I don't see why this is so important. You say, to intelligent people, that's using human shields. Well, not exactly. It's not using human shields in the universal understanding of the word, in some way it's like using human shields, but Russell is right-there is no evidence of them using human shields. Drug legislation. Russell is not pro-drug use. He just doesn't think people who get addicted to them, should be punished. Drugs alone are not addictive, it's the person who is the deciding factor. For instance we all shop, go to the gym, work, drink alcohol, try a cigarette, have lovers, and yet don't get addicted. For more information on this watch 'human nature talk' with Robert sapolsky. What Russel is trying to say is that drug abuse is a reflection of a problem with the society, not the drugs or the drug deaelers. As people who get addicted are missing from their life, what the drug offers. What is your stance on drugs? Your remark about him and Kate not being together anymore reflecting his inability to speak about the world is laughable. I assume its a joke.