Rogan came out and said that he's going to start having people on with different opinions soon after a controversial guest. Obviously this should have been his approach all along. He says he's just having conversations but, he hand picks the guests himself, several vax skeptics, and he pushes the anti vax agenda on twitter. Go look at his comments in support of the Truckers in Ottawa. It's clear he has an opinion/agenda specifically when it comes to vaccines...and Atlantis...and JFK...and other odd stuff. But, those opinions aren't harmful
Rogan came out and said that he's going to start having people on with different opinions soon after a controversial guest. Obviously this should have been his approach all along. He says he's just having conversations but, he hand picks the guests himself, several vax skeptics, and he pushes the anti vax agenda on twitter. Go look at his comments in support of the Truckers in Ottawa. It's clear he has an opinion/agenda specifically when it comes to vaccines...and Atlantis...and JFK...and other odd stuff. But, those opinions aren't harmful
You can’t call it facts unless it can be challenged. Without opposition challenging ideas you have only dictation. I never said I agreed or disagreed with any of the statements of Joe Rogan or that of his guests so your “fact check” is irrelevant to this conversation. I was just pointing Joe Rogan has the right to challenge the status quo of “facts” If you know for sure beyond a doubt that what was stated was false you can challenge it. But to say no one can question something because some people say it’s facts is ridiculous. No matter who those people are or how qualified. People treat Science like God today. Science has been wrong many times throughout history. It wasn’t long ago (1950’s) that lobotomies were finally considered counter productive. It’s the people who challenge the status quo who have lead us to our advancements. Is every single person who has done so absolutely correct? Hell no, a lot of people get things wrong along the way. But you can’t even know if it is truth without the freedom to challenge the “facts”. If they are in fact FACTS then they will hold up to scrutiny just fine. And it is up to an individual to make decisions for themselves, even in life or death situations, which as Michael said becomes more likely to turn out negative when you censor the nah sayers then if you just refute them.
While I agree with Sherman you need to know your opposition and everyone has the right to their opinions, but not to the facts. In the case of COVID vaccinations, it’s a matter of life and death. Can’t say that about creationism vs evolution, or flat earth theories, or most of the other cookie ideas. There’s no “equal weight” argument here. Ivermectin? Please!
What do you mean “giving him a pass”? Do you mean be careful when choosing not to deny Joe Rogan his right to speak and my right to listen to him and decide for myself where he is right or where his guests MAY be wrong? Michael Shermer IS being Skeptical, he said in his comments he encourages your skepticism, and for you to listen to those you disagree with even if only to strengthen your own position. And he also mentioned several of the disagreements he has with Joe Rogan. Did YOU go deep into this audio? Because your comment sounds like you didn’t listen at all
Have you actually listened to the Rogan/Malone podcast? Malone alleges that Fauci and Gates created the pandemic. Joe does not press Malone, McCullough, et al, the same way he does Hotez and Gupta. Yes, Rogan's 10 minute video is pitch perfect, but please go deeper before giving him a pass. I don't know that "censorship" is the answer, but you, of all people, should be more skeptical.
Rogan came out and said that he's going to start having people on with different opinions soon after a controversial guest. Obviously this should have been his approach all along. He says he's just having conversations but, he hand picks the guests himself, several vax skeptics, and he pushes the anti vax agenda on twitter. Go look at his comments in support of the Truckers in Ottawa. It's clear he has an opinion/agenda specifically when it comes to vaccines...and Atlantis...and JFK...and other odd stuff. But, those opinions aren't harmful
Rogan came out and said that he's going to start having people on with different opinions soon after a controversial guest. Obviously this should have been his approach all along. He says he's just having conversations but, he hand picks the guests himself, several vax skeptics, and he pushes the anti vax agenda on twitter. Go look at his comments in support of the Truckers in Ottawa. It's clear he has an opinion/agenda specifically when it comes to vaccines...and Atlantis...and JFK...and other odd stuff. But, those opinions aren't harmful
You can’t call it facts unless it can be challenged. Without opposition challenging ideas you have only dictation. I never said I agreed or disagreed with any of the statements of Joe Rogan or that of his guests so your “fact check” is irrelevant to this conversation. I was just pointing Joe Rogan has the right to challenge the status quo of “facts” If you know for sure beyond a doubt that what was stated was false you can challenge it. But to say no one can question something because some people say it’s facts is ridiculous. No matter who those people are or how qualified. People treat Science like God today. Science has been wrong many times throughout history. It wasn’t long ago (1950’s) that lobotomies were finally considered counter productive. It’s the people who challenge the status quo who have lead us to our advancements. Is every single person who has done so absolutely correct? Hell no, a lot of people get things wrong along the way. But you can’t even know if it is truth without the freedom to challenge the “facts”. If they are in fact FACTS then they will hold up to scrutiny just fine. And it is up to an individual to make decisions for themselves, even in life or death situations, which as Michael said becomes more likely to turn out negative when you censor the nah sayers then if you just refute them.
While I agree with Sherman you need to know your opposition and everyone has the right to their opinions, but not to the facts. In the case of COVID vaccinations, it’s a matter of life and death. Can’t say that about creationism vs evolution, or flat earth theories, or most of the other cookie ideas. There’s no “equal weight” argument here. Ivermectin? Please!
Here is a fact- check of Rogans points.
https://bbc.in/3GgabbX?fbclid=IwAR1p8aW17xV2fUnsfarnIf9DQ4uwCOr26BTcKP-hMe04u9e3civs2BUNT3E
What do you mean “giving him a pass”? Do you mean be careful when choosing not to deny Joe Rogan his right to speak and my right to listen to him and decide for myself where he is right or where his guests MAY be wrong? Michael Shermer IS being Skeptical, he said in his comments he encourages your skepticism, and for you to listen to those you disagree with even if only to strengthen your own position. And he also mentioned several of the disagreements he has with Joe Rogan. Did YOU go deep into this audio? Because your comment sounds like you didn’t listen at all
Have you actually listened to the Rogan/Malone podcast? Malone alleges that Fauci and Gates created the pandemic. Joe does not press Malone, McCullough, et al, the same way he does Hotez and Gupta. Yes, Rogan's 10 minute video is pitch perfect, but please go deeper before giving him a pass. I don't know that "censorship" is the answer, but you, of all people, should be more skeptical.