Should move this to the conspiracy thread. State of some of you.Im out.
I can see why you'd want to cancel debate when your idea of challenging ideas is a crying laughing face
Joe Rogan and Spotify
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
I can see why you'd want to cancel debate when your idea of challenging ideas is a crying laughing face
So ignoring the governement and doing their own research
We're not talking about very complex stuff though, we're mostly talking about taking a wider variety of opinions from other medical professionals, such as ones who said the virus was airborne and that wearing masks would be a good idea back in February 2020
This is the way!!!!
And how are you able to evaluate different opinions from different medical professionals about this subject? What credentials and experience do you have, which are relevant when it comes to making good decisions based on the merits of their different arguments?
This mask argument is pretty feeble. Argument seems to be that because some misinformation, out of the tons spewed forth, might end up being true we should allow any old toss to infect the public.
Rogan isn't a thorn in anyone's side.
No that's not the argument. The point is that what is considered misinformation changes so clamping down on free speech because you think something is misinformation isn't a good idea. We have given you examples of things that were widely considered misinformation but are not now. If you had your way none of the examples we gavce would ever have been challenged.
I'll ask again, who decides what is misinformation? Are you happy for them to decide everything for you even if they're proven to be wrong?
This is a silly post. At no point has anyone suggested wanting not having rules or laws to follow. We just don't want the information we hear to be controlled by anyone, especially by people who are proven to not be trustworthy. How dumb must people be to want the government to control what we're allowed to hear? Don't you realise what a slippery slope this is? Don't you have the intelligence to make up your own mind?
No I don't.
When it comes to complicated medical subjects about my health and the health of others when there's a pandemic, I have no idea - I go and ask a doctor, and I do what the doctor says, if I have any questions - I refer back to the doctor, and nobody else.
I studied physics, (Quantum Electrodynamics) and maths, I'm well educated, a software/network automation engineer.. But when it comes to questioning medicine and the advice of medical professionals - beyond asking things like "what's the best treatment", "do you think it'll work?" and "are there side effects" or whatever - sorry, I know literally nothing, zero, and I need someone to tell me what to do.
Doctors don't always agree though. Who did you listen to during the pandemic? How did you decide who was the right people to listen to? What do you do when you heard different opinions from different doctors/experts? You must have thought for yourself at some point during all this.
So you studied physics but you're unable to read the pretty straight forward pub med studies? lol
The mask issue. The most odd thing I saw was the lead medical doctor in the US, in uniform, showing people how to make a cloth mask. A cloth mask as been repeatedly shown to be useless, yet there are still people wearing them and still shops selling them. Why aren't these people called out? Shops should be banned from selling them in my opinion.
Complex medical situations are always going to have multiple opinions. We, as people, are supposed to listen to it all and make our own minds up about it. We can only do that if we can hear a range of opinions and see open debate about them.
I'm sorry, but if a person sits there unquestioningly accepts anything what a person says then there is something wrong. Why do people think there are consent forms? Because ultimately its your responsibility for your own body, not the doctor.
I agree. Though the problem with the scientific community is there isn't a consensus on what is a fact. Facts have been changing all the time. The biggest one is the Wuhan lab story which was considered to be a complete conspiracy theory, even though the official narrative was even more bizarre of a bat bite causing covid and would get you removed from social media. Now the lab theory is the leading official opinion and wuhan wet markets and bats aren't mentioned anymore.
Complex medical situations are always going to have multiple opinions. We, as people, are supposed to listen to it all and make our own minds up about it. We can only do that if we can hear a range of opinions and see open debate about them.
I'm sorry, but if a person sits there unquestioningly accepts anything what a person says then there is something wrong. Why do people think there are consent forms? Because ultimately its your responsibility for your own body, not the doctor.
I agree. Though the problem with the scientific community is there isn't a consensus on what is a fact. Facts have been changing all the time. The biggest one is the Wuhan lab story which was considered to be a complete conspiracy theory, even though the official narrative was even more bizarre of a bat bite causing covid and would get you removed from social media. Now the lab theory is the leading official opinion and wuhan wet markets and bats aren't mentioned anymore.
It's the trust equation. If you trust the person/entity, and you aren't particularly qualified to challenge their opinion, then yes - there are instances you should take what has been told to you as fact. Popular social media platforms create a pseudo trust/echo chamber. That's why they are dangerous. It promotes tertiary sources (i.e. my mates mum reckons mask work!) to 'primary'.
For e.g. most folks used to trust Amazon reviews, we know now they are mostly fake. We do secondary and tertiary research, including asking friends who may own the product.
The whole mask thing was true in how it was communicated - there was no data to show it was an effective means of protecting healthy people. The equation changed though, and it became a protection mechanism for you to help others, in case you may have it.
Unfortunately a lot of idiots need things spelt out black and white, and consider everything told to them as black and white.
For people spouting different opinions, (for example anti-vaccine) I didn't listen to their medical message, I did however investigate their backgrounds (around 15-20 well known people) and discovered a lot of problems. Previous convictions for fraud, disbarment from medical institutions, scam companies and massive great conflict of interests. (for example, people with vested interests and lots of money held up in different covid treatments, which have since been proven to not work)
Where you have a maverick or outlier, or somebody giving an alternate message from the mainstream, there are normally red flags and ulterior motives going on. Covid has seen a new wave of scammers and liars intentionally propagating lies to make a bit of cash, and they're fooling far too many people.
Yep - trying to understand what's being written in medical journals, intended for a medically qualified audience is a million miles outside of anything I know. I can read them - but I have absolutely no experience or knowledge in being able to make any determination as to whether they're right or wrong - which does actually matter, a lot.
When I had a problem with my eczema, I didn't spend till 3am each night reading complicated dermatology documents about skin conditions and treatments, I made an appointment with a dermatologist.
A layperson can understand a journal abstract usually. That's the great thing about science. If you're not sure about something, you can go and easily look up peer-reviewed articles and find out for yourself, instead of getting your information from entertainers and celebrities that are trying to sell something.
I don't agree at all, they might be able to read and understand what's being said, but to use that and make decisions one way or another about health related matters, without somebody qualified to walk them through it, is a recipe for disaster.
This is how you end up with people killing themselves by taking chloroquine phosphate outside of a medical setting, because they read it on the internet somewhere.
It's crazy - it's like, "Nah - don't need to ask my GP about anything, I'll just google the **** out of it, what can go wrong"
I'm actually able to read a medical journal abstract without then going and taking prescription drugs off the back of it
They're not mutually exclusive things though, you can read something and then raise it in conversation with your Doctor, I always have good chats with my Doctor and ask questions, they aren't seething because I've suggested something.
rogan racist comment for those that hadn't seen it (obviously ignore the noah guy)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/othe...osts-reaction-to-joe-rogans-remark/vi-AAThsrq
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/othe...osts-reaction-to-joe-rogans-remark/vi-AAThsrq
Is it ok if it's in print form? A reputable medical journal isn't 'on the internet somewhere'....
I don't read journals to decide what medicines to take. I have looked up studies on medications I've taken out of curiosity though, especially when I took a course of medication that didn't appear to do anything....and I have read quite a few covid-related during the pandemic so that I'm not just informed through secondary sources like the media, or worse, some B-grade celebrity podcast.
This is why science is great. It's not a black box that you need to have 'faith' in....you can just go and see the data for yourself.
What did he say that was racist? I assume there was something not involved in that clip.