"You cut my quote short there. You should add "that I have found" if you care at all about trying to be objective."
Perhaps you could explain how this impacts objectivity, rather than just insinuate a lack of objectivity on my part. I would maintain that it makes absolutely no difference to what I said, nor twist what you said. It does not change the context nor impact objectivity whatsoever. I was quoting YOU, the author of the post I was commenting on, the opinion piece YOU wrote and just clarified again was merely subjective opinion - how does this impact objectivity?
"By talking about our subjective view points, we can try to find objective truth."
What?......maybe you could explain this reasoning a little clearer too, as it seems completely nonsensical to me. For example, what is the nicer colour - pink or blue?
You can talk about your subjective view points as long as you want, you will never find any objective truth this way. If something (anything) is subjective in nature, then you cannot make any objective conclusions about it.
"by not even asking any questions and assuming there is nothing to it and pushing it as fake news."
I haven't claimed you are reporting "fake news", you are not reporting any news at all - as you clarified yourself, you were writing an opinion piece on a subjective matter. I have also just asked you 2 questions, first to clarify where you see any lack of objectivity on my part and secondly, how you find objective truth from discussing matters of a subjective nature - let's see how you go on with those for starters.
"There is no smoking gun yet, in my opinion."
Nor mine, that is why I would not claim anything that can not be found to be objectively true as "damning evidence" as you did.
"But to completely dismiss it, because we have not yet found the smoking gun, is dismissive and non productive."
Yes, to dismiss it is dismissive.....lol. You also just (totally unfairly) dismissed my response to you as lacking objectivity - how productive is that?
I don't "completely dismiss " things because of the lack of a smoking gun, but because the so called subjective "evidence" presented so far is less than persuasive to me and presented (a lot of the time) with a lot of bells and whistles, false claims and sensationalist conspiracy theory type paranoid reasoning. This is what is off-putting to anybody such as myself. I'm not going to spend time watching bloody videos with pyramids, all seeing eyes and Masonic symbols plastered all over it, am I?
"Everything will come to light eventually. I hope you share your opinion with me when that finally happens."
This is when it will happen:
"When I have more powerful evidence".......