Associate
- Joined
- 10 Jul 2018
- Posts
- 511
- Location
- London.
what?
Joe Rogan and Spotify
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
what?
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 4,294
Episode 2006 about 2 hrs 20 mins in.
Just because something is a pseudoscience doesn't mean someone can't specialise in it.
Yes, it may conflict with actual scientific theories but it doesn't mean they are not an authority on their pseudoscience.
Last edited:
Why would you like to see people publicly called out in a voluntary, casual discussion? Surely you're fine deciding for yourself whether to ignore or ingest their beliefs?
Why would you want Joe to insult and attack his guests like paxman? Do you think that would help or hinder making his podcast the most successful in the world?
Some strange views in here.
Edit: I just noticed @Colonel_Klinck liked your post regarding a 3 way discussion, yet has spent the last few pages putting forward his case as to why Kennedy shouldn't be allowed to debate with an expert
confoundingly hilarious 
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
He isn't an expert in Intelligent Design believers, he is an intelligent design believer who is being called an expert in that nonsense belief. Of course you can have an expert in Flat Earthers or any other of these wacky beliefs but that kind of expert looks at the people who belief it, their beliefs and the mental gymnastics they go through to try and get science to back them up. There is a huge difference.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
Why would you like to see people publicly called out in a voluntary, casual discussion? Surely you're fine deciding for yourself whether to ignore or ingest their beliefs?
Why would you want Joe to insult and attack his guests like paxman? Do you think that would help or hinder making his podcast the most successful in the world?
Some strange views in here.
Edit: I just noticed @Colonel_Klinck liked your post regarding a 3 way discussion, yet has spent the last few pages putting forward his case as to why Kennedy shouldn't be allowed to debate with an expert
No I said an actual expert in vaccines and their development shouldn't be debating a conspiracy theorist on Joe Rogan. In a proper setting where there is a moderator who will control it and stop any of the kind of shenanigans that Kennedy likes to employ, that is a different matter all together. As many have said in this thread, Joe Rogan is an entertainment show, he has zero interest in truth or holding anyone to account. Why would a distinguished scientist put themselves in that situation, its a no win.
edit: and reading the post I liked again he mentions the likes of Paxman. Joe Rogan is as far from Paxman as it gets. He couldn't seriously challenge anyone, he will just take a it hit on a spliff, down a couple of fingers of Jack Daniels and then laugh.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
I knew it wouldn't take long for his mask to slip. Nut jobs struggle to contain it for long. So @NVP is he an idiot or is this sound science that means a leading scientist should feel he'd be debating in good faith? Those dammed Jews and Chinese.
The video is in the article.
nypost.com
The video is in the article.
Exclusive | RFK Jr. says COVID may have been ‘ethnically targeted’ to spare Jews
Kennedy — a longtime aficionado of conspiracy theories — floated the idea during a question and answer portion of a raucous booze and fart filled dinner at Tony’s Di Napoli on the Upper East …
nypost.com
Last edited:
Jeez youre like a dog with a bone.
He's said “We don’t know whether it was deliberately targeted or not but there are papers out there that show the racial or ethnic differential and impact,” but there is no source for those papers included so I'm not sure what you wish me to comment on.
If you're using this as a reason why he shouldn't debate an expert then you'll have to expand on your reasoning, as I still see no argument against it.
He's said “We don’t know whether it was deliberately targeted or not but there are papers out there that show the racial or ethnic differential and impact,” but there is no source for those papers included so I'm not sure what you wish me to comment on.
If you're using this as a reason why he shouldn't debate an expert then you'll have to expand on your reasoning, as I still see no argument against it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
He is talking out of his arse. There is no scientific evidence it was manufactured or that it was targeted to not be as infectious to Jews or Chinese people. He likes to mix in scientific jargon with his utter nonsense to make it sound like it has real science behind it.
The point is that he is talking idiotic nonsense. The man is a conspiracy theorist and deserves to be treated as such.
Last edited:
Part of the problem is that while the anti-vaxxers are crazy for the most part, the pro side came out with all sort of unhelpful nonsense too that doesn't help and gives these types gotcha moments.
Reports that the Vax will make you immune, the obsession with 0.9r. I remember there was a big push that the pharma companies had rushed 10 years worth of testing in 9 months, which is just a stupid statement.
debating would be pointless as these points would be pulled out to discredit everything.
It could be if it influences millions of listeners. The whole point wouldn't be to prove the moron wrong, but to educate the listeners as to why the moron is incorrect.
Or you know don't bother wasting time trying to discredit positions that have no basis in fact because all it takes for the person with feels to win over people is to make it look like they're a victim.
Last edited:
He can do as he pleases. But he's the one who makes himself a public figure, where the majority of Drs/researchers etc don't. He obviously feels his views are important enough to be heard, that he's been on Joe before and constantly in the limelight on social media.
The issue with that is, the people who follow him will already believe him. He has an opportunity to reach a bigger audience, something he seems to deem important.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
You are just giving him credibility by putting an actual expert in the field on the stage with him, a man who develops patent free vaccines. Those who think that Kennedy is right won't have their minds changed by someone they consider no better than Josef Mengele. The professor has offered to go back and speak to Joe again. He speaks about it all in an interview to the AMA a few days ago. Its really worth watching.
Dr. Peter Hotez on the anti-science movement and declining Joe Rogan’s debate challenge
The AMA Update covers a range of health care topics affecting the lives of physicians and patients. Learn more about the anti-science movement.
www.ama-assn.org
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
Did you listen to him? He likes to throw in scientific jargon to make it seem like he knows what he is talking about and its taken from actual studies. Neither is true.
just in case you don't have an account
and we haven't even touched on the "US are developing bio agents that are ethnicity targeted"
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
Wow he just lied under oath today before Congress. Hopefully the DOJ are watching, lying to Congress is a crime.
it's been on the bbc rogan looks a right pratt 'interviewing' the guy - well, if you lie with dogs , they even played the dinner conversation from Kennedy - who needs twitter.
I thought at least in UK jurisdiction anti-vax views can still be banned, who knows what the chinese will concoct next - could Coots legitimately refuse giving both a bank account.