Joe Rogan and Spotify

Colonel_Klinck said:
It was never scientific fact. It was religious dogma passed off as science.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, would you prefer a world where people had the freedom to question things and disagree with others, or would you rather a global echo chamber where we all just share your view?

One sounds pretty boring to me but for someone like yourself who seems to go out of their way to find someone to argue with, I can't quite work out what your utopian world would look like.

Seems to me you just get off on bullying the half of society you don't think is clever enough to be allowed an opinion.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
I have no problem with people of different view points. There aren't different view points when it comes to the snake oil that Hancock sells though. He passes off lies as truth, nonsense as fact. Everyone should have a problem with that because truth and facts actually matter and he doesn't do it for laughs or entertainment he just does it for $. He has every right to say it but people who have him on their shows should push back on it.
Click to expand...
Hahaha there aren't different viewpoint re: hancock?? Yet, you've spent a lot of energy in this thread shouting how his viewpoint is incorrect and the mainstream alternative is legit... I'm so confused as to your actual position. I can only think you just like to be the one to tell people what they should/shouldn't ingest.

Colonel_Klinck said:
I kicked off over Kennedy because Joe gave him a platform and did nothing to push back on his nonsense. The man is a loon and a liar who spreads dangerous anti science. He sat there and said he'd never told anyone not to take a vaccine, he said that on numerous platforms, he said it under oath in Congress.

His quote from the “Health Freedom for Humanity” podcast in 2021
Click to expand...

Because the mainstream tell you to? They tell you this guy is spouting nonsense and should be ignored, so you need to tell everyone else the same, and demonise anyone who gives them a platform.

Your actual issue with RFK Jr, iirc, was that he shouldn't be allowed a platform to debate with an expert - or that an expert should not be allowed to sit and debate with him. Apprently he was 'too stupid to debate' or some similar gibberish.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
It was never scientific fact. It was religious dogma passed off as science.

edit: and that is exactly what the problem is here. Then it was religious charlatans telling the population what to believe for £, control and power. It held back humanity for centuries. In the end they couldn't hold it back any longer but they fought it all the way. Truth and science actually matter.
Click to expand...

But, that's the point. Religious Dogma was the scientific fact of its day.
 
Hedge said:
Out of curiosity, would you prefer a world where people had the freedom to question things and disagree with others, or would you rather a global echo chamber where we all just share your view?

One sounds pretty boring to me but for someone like yourself who seems to go out of their way to find someone to argue with, I can't quite work out what your utopian world would look like.

Seems to me you just get off on bullying the half of society you don't think is clever enough to be allowed an opinion.
Click to expand...

Where have I said people shouldn't have the freedom to disagree with others? We now live in a world where more and more people believe in conspiracies. It is getting worse year by year. Over covid we had people burning down cell towers because they believed 5G caused/spread covid. Is that harmless fun? I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to say anything. I just wish people with these platforms that millions watch/listen to would push back. I'm asking them to disagree with these guests when they make extraordinary claims. Doesn't seem like that is asking much.
 
Vidar said:
But, that's the point. Religious Dogma was the scientific fact of its day.
Click to expand...

Yes but it was religious dogma which is the exact opposite of science. Science changes what it believes as new facts are discovered and understood. Religion tries to change those facts to suit its dogma and only when it has no other choice will it change its dogma. No where have I said new science and discoveries should be ignored or not published/talked about.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
No where have I said new science and discoveries should be ignored or not published/talked about.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should listen to a JRE episode with Hancock or similar, as the majority of their content is referring to new discoveries or research. They then tend to put their own personal theory on it, which is what you appear to dislike. How dare they share unique thought?!.
 
Last edited:
NVP said:
Or even have a live debate with an expert in the field? That sounds like a good plan, you can't possibly have a problem with that.... oh wait!
Click to expand...

Oh I'd love to see Dr Hotez debate someone with some expertise in the field. I enjoy TED talks and debates in general. I said Dr Holez shouldn't go near any debate with Kennedy because he's a loon and a liar. The man will sit there and lies just spill out of his mouth. He'll shout that he never told anyone not to vaccinate their child while he knew he'd not only done it but he'd told people he'd done it. Why should a leading scientist in his field debate such a dishonest person?
 
NVP said:
Perhaps you should listen to a JRE episode with Hancock or similar, as the majority of their content is referring to new discoveries or research. They then tend to put their own personal theory on it, which is what you appear to dislike. How dare they share unique thought?!.
Click to expand...

Why would I listen to a liar? What is to be gained from that? Honesty should be the bare minimum expected.
 
8yYx2qJ.gif


It was simply a comment hinting that these guests do discuss new research/discoveries... :cry:
 
Last edited:
Colonel_Klinck said:
I said Dr Holez shouldn't go near any debate with Kennedy because he's a loon and a liar.
Click to expand...

Yet:

Colonel_Klinck said:
I'm asking them to disagree with these guests when they make extraordinary claims. Doesn't seem like that is asking much.
Click to expand...

:confused: :confused:


So you want an uninformed host to shut this guy down, rather than an expert in the field? You make so much sense....
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
Why would I listen to a liar? What is to be gained from that? Honesty should be the bare minimum expected.
Click to expand...

What if the person wholeheartedly believes something? To them it wouldn't be a lie. Would you have decency to let someone speak?

I not religious so if someone told me God exists I could probably call them a liar. Doesn't mean I would feel the need to though. I would listen to their justification and politely disagree. I wouldn't demand they were silenced from ever talking about it to people who want to listen.

You care too much about conversations you aren't even supposedly interested in. You seem to be searching for conflict on the Internet. You single out roar at every opportunity and you revisit this thread to stir up more misery.

You should probably focus more on what's important in your life. Not giving yourself an aneurism over one person you don't like talking to another person you don't like.
 
Last edited:
Hedge said:
Would you have decency to let someone speak?
Click to expand...
No, it's not possible for leftists have their version of the truth questioned.

Hedge said:
You should probably focus more on what's important in your life. Not giving yourself an aneurism over one person you don't like talking to another person you don't like.
Click to expand...

Good advice, I fear it falls upon deaf ears of people who like to always be offended.
 
I don't understand why people think interviews are all about challenging the person being interviewed.

An interview is about trying to get as much information from the person being interviewed as possible.

I think it says more about the people who want interviews about flat earth, aliens, vaccines etc banned than it does about those subjects. Why feel so threatened by hearing those views?

We often assume others think similar to ourselves. Do the people who want those interviews shut down feel susceptible to believing them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom