- Joined
- Mar 30, 2023
- Messages
- 5,787
- Reaction score
- 11,325
There's an actual discussion happening ITT. Just participate in that. You don't have to tard it up for no reason.
Last edited:
Social Robert F Kennedy Jr on Rogan right now
- Thread starter Eusung
- Start date
There's an actual discussion happening ITT. Just participate in that. You don't have to tard it up for no reason.
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 61,376
- Reaction score
- 23,227
No, there really isn't.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2023
- Messages
- 7,495
- Reaction score
- 14,182
If he's insane it should be easy to combat him with facts and logic. We've had vaccine skepticism for decades and the traditional way of dealing with it has always been to debate and debunk. We now live in a time where a lot of people refuse to do this and want to censor and not engage with the ideas instead. I think this is a terrible method of communication that only serves to increase public skepticism.
The problem with people like Hotez is that they are not coming from a place of intellectual honesty any more than the conspiracy theorists are. If you are going to represent the pro vaccine position honestly you need to be dealing with the facts and only the facts. But if you are making tweets claiming covid-19 is a leading cause of child deaths you are also engaging in spreading misinformation.
TLDR: refusing to engage while also spreading misinformation yourself makes RFK look more reasonable than debating him with facts and evidence would.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2006
- Messages
- 19,111
- Reaction score
- 12,482
You quoted scientific articles with no comment. What is your intent here?
I decided to glance over the articles since I'm inferring that your point is to demonstrate on race-based bioweapons that RFK is claiming exists or in development. This is still a far-cry from suggesting that there is an active program in the the United-States and Chinese governments created to actively target racial groups with bioweapons. Of course, RFK offered no evidence for any of his claims, and so your input is to suggest these articles are the evidence RFK lacked in his statement.
The first article offers no mention of racially targetted bioweapons. It's more of a historical take and the kinds of pathogens used in synthesized form.
The second article is a bioethics and medical ethics take on what racially targetted bioweapons could entail, or what is discussed by ethicists as potential research studies. They make no mention of any existing or ongoing research programs, let alone the degree of progress being made. One part said some concerns were raised with the human genome project where the results could be used (theoretically) for the purpose of designing racially targetted bioweapons. Then it mentions Vladimir Putin refusing to export bio samples to other countries fearing the West could target them. But we know Putin is a paranoid type anyways.
The third article is a news article about Putin's decision.
So absolutely none of this substantiates anything of what RFK Jr. said which, I will remind you, is a statement that China and the United-States have ongoing research in the racially targeted bioweapons field.
- Joined
- May 27, 2009
- Messages
- 27,780
- Reaction score
- 22,954
Hotez is simping so hard on Twitter... crying and complaining.
What a fucking douche. Dude was running his mouth in 2021/2022 about being an expert. Claiming the vaccine stopped infection and transmission.
Dude is a co-opted clown and shill... Fuck all these supposided "experts"
Yea he's almost a joke like a character from a comedy movie or something. I am no RFK fan but this guy is looking like a shell, a idiot and a moral coward. Yet he keeps at it every hour on Twitter. It would be one thing if he just said I am not interesting in debating science and moved on. The fact he keeps sharing legacy media stories that are attacking Rogan and RFK just shows you what kind of "scientist" he is.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 48,852
- Reaction score
- 15,852
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 61,376
- Reaction score
- 23,227
It is never necessary to play the debate game when it's far more effective to rebut on social media, one point at a time.
When a lunatic says something stupid and crazy, you can address it specifically and the exchange will be documented. Why is it so important for RFK to do this live in front of cameras? Why can't he make his case in text?
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2006
- Messages
- 19,111
- Reaction score
- 12,482
He's insane but has the Kennedy name which is enough for some people to get behind.
You can't debate insane people with facts and logic, first of all. Second of all, facts and logic do not work when addressing people who have severe distrust in institutions. I could throw vaccine safety and effectiveness studies at the audience until I'm blue in the face, they'll find one perceived flaw to disassemble the validity of the claims. Flaws such as funding source, researchers and institutions and who they're linked with, government resource aid etc. "Oh the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation gave a 150 thousand dollar grant to this project? FAIL!"
What happens in scientific debate on scientific validity is you get a bunch of labcoat men and women in a room and talk about methodology, results and analysis. They go back and forth and use science jargon to try and cast doubt on one another's claims until we get a general sense of where they're at. We sometimes see very small flashes of this type of thing happen publicly or in in social media, like when that French doctor suggested hydroxychloroquine was an effective treatment against covid-19 and a few others chimed in to say "no it isn't demonstrated". But for the most part these are done at conventions, conferences and symposiums where the average person's head would be spinning if they overheard the discussions because it's practically another language.
Having a scientist confront a (insane) politician where one person will use plain language to demonstrate scientific validity while the other simply talks about casting doubt on institutions, and maybe discredit the scientist's claims with half-baked and unverifiable counterpoints, but enough to keep the detractors afloat in their belief system, is a useless endeavor. You need someone with a strong rhetorical approach to throw the insane person off; someone like Jon Stewart. Someone who won't bite at bullshit, and someone who can turn the insane person's claims against them. Hoetz is not that person.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2006
- Messages
- 19,111
- Reaction score
- 12,482
Yeah but that allows his lackeys to google scientific articles they'll barely read or understand and flood the internets with them. Then they won't even have the capacity to understand that what they posted can be used against their claims.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2023
- Messages
- 5,787
- Reaction score
- 11,325
If only there were some huge public platform where he could debate someone from your side. Then he'd be truly exposed! They could even have the winner of the debate get a bunch of money to donate to a charity of their choice!
Oh if only that type of venue and the will to host that type of event existed.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 48,852
- Reaction score
- 15,852
I wouldn't be able to debate him about chemicals in the water turning kids trans without incessant laughing.
Not to worry tho, I got that pill for that from the holistic medicine Doctor I visited yesterday after this thread set me straight on what absolute morons scientists and the medical community are when it comes to the health of myself and my children are. Not her tho, she got her degree online from a place that was discredited by the State, which is how I know it's legit. Cuz they always target the truth tellers!!
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Messages
- 92,844
- Reaction score
- 28,742
Just gotta point out that Tom Nichols has long been one of the best right-leaning commentators, though he was a never-Trumper who is arguably not best classified as right-leaning anymore (still is philosophically but definitely not politically). Also kind of strawmanning him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Nichols_(academic)
Also, I think comparing anti-vaxism to flat-Earthism seems pretty fair to me. The Earth seems flat based on experience.
the more formal debates we have on this, the more information the people will have to decide what is best for them. I dont know what is true and what is not, but having open discourse on it is better than yelling across the interwebs from the respective echo chambers
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2010
- Messages
- 5,654
- Reaction score
- 6,559
Your comments made it seem like the very suggestion of a bio weapons program used to target specific genetic markers was a crack pot conspiracy, it’s not. I was merely providing articles from reputable sources to show that these ideas are not new, they’ve been anticipated for decades. Military R&D is often leaps and bounds ahead of the reporting, and Russia is clearing anticipating this based off of their previous efforts to reduce the export of genetic material. Chinese officials have also commented on these programs.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...of-a-genetically-engineered-ethnic-bioweapon/
“Biology is among seven “new domains of warfare” discussed in a 2017 book by Zhang Shibo (张仕波), a retired general and former president of the National Defense University, who concludes: “Modern biotechnology development is gradually showing strong signs characteristic of an offensive capability,” including the possibility that “specific ethnic genetic attacks” (特定种族基因攻击) could be employed.”
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2023
- Messages
- 5,787
- Reaction score
- 11,325
Dicktuck noted
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 48,852
- Reaction score
- 15,852
No no, the pill preventing the trans water chemicals works to undo that problem. We're good.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2011
- Messages
- 7,694
- Reaction score
- 11,965
Vaccine zealots don’t actually want debate, as shown in Hotez’s behavior and all the “follow the science” posters in this thread… and for good reason, because vaccine zealots have heavily promoted a one-sided argument, “Vaccines are safe and effective and you’re a loon if you think otherwise.”
Unfortunately for vaccine zealots, the facts don’t back up their claims (at least not when looking at safety) and even a cursory discussion about safety concerns will freak a lot parents out…
For example, a huge percentage of vaccine injuries are never recognized by doctors or monitoring systems supposed to ensure safety (VAERS/Yellowcard scheme).
Liability was removed from vaccine makers due to the fact that they were losing lawsuits brought because of vaccine injuries in the 1980’s.
Vaccines DO cause injuries and billions have been paid out due to vaccine injuries by the US govt alone.
Even one of these FACTS is liable to shock a normal person, and after that if they dig any deeper they will move further and further away from vaccinating ever again.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2006
- Messages
- 19,111
- Reaction score
- 12,482
Dude, it was a crackpot idea to suggest this is being done. We don't lack imagination on what could be done, or what the results of one research project could be used in further research down the line. But this guy comes out and says "oh yeah we know this is being done and it will be used for x, y and z". He could have easily said the government is looking to use nanobot technology to specifically target specific people for assassination attempts against them, and the nanobots self destruct leaving no evidence so there's no way to know who targeted who and for what reason. But he chose bioweapons and genetically engineered pathogens as the vehicle for mass targeting. I guess because the covid virus is still fresh in our collective minds, and so it's easier to accept as a possibility.
This is the problem with conspiracy theorists. They either offer up studies and articles they poorly understand as evidence to a claim, or they use one article and extrapolate a possibility of what could happen, and the gap between what could happen and what is happening is filled by distrust for institutions, and therefore these institutions must necessarily be engaging in these activities.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Messages
- 18,439
- Reaction score
- 32,212
What a load of garbage.
When you take away the young people who had one or more severe co-moridities (like cancer, etc), COVID deaths for 18 and under were less than 100. As it is, over three years, the total number is around 1,600. CDC estimates that 95% of COVID deaths had one or more co-morbities.
These fucks like Hotez are either ignorant or willful fear mongers. Scaring people into getting vaxed. They should be strung up
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2010
- Messages
- 5,654
- Reaction score
- 6,559
I don’t really know what to say to you, bro. If you don’t think the governments of nations that dropped the sun on two cities and starved millions of people have active programs dedicated to the R&D of technology that everyone is universally agreeing is within technological limits and also anticipating then you’re extremely naive.
