Pretty sad when people can say that the science is settled just to shut everyone who disagrees up. If you were some kind of expert you would welcome a debate to bash and prove beyond all doubt that the opposition was wrong. And if you run from debate you are simply proving that your position is untenable. Do you know what kind of places had NO debate… Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia to name 2. The positions that those governments took was undefendable BS that was based non on truth but lies.
I see what you’re saying, but I disagree in this case. It’s entirely possible for a well informed person to be lured into a situation where they are made to look like a fool, regardless of how good their information is. This is especially true if the subject is complicated and the audience doesn’t have enough knowledge to detect the bullshit, which is exactly the scenario that would exist on Rogan. Furthermore, with Rogan as an uninformed moderator, there is a good chance that he would further legitimize the misinformation by agreeing with it when he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
We will have to agree to disagree. A real expert is so well informed on the subject matter (that’s why they are considered an expert) that they would have the ability in layman’s terms to completely destroy the opposition. People who are open minded want to hear factual debates. Everyone comes to the table with their initial view that they have formulated through their own research. Research that they did on their own or the lazy research of just believing the mainstream media without question. People that disagree with the mainstream media narrative WANT to hear facts that may change their opinion. Other people fear facts that expose that what they believe in is false. History clearly shows us that governments that banned debate did it to keep the truth from people
Pretty sad when people can say that the science is settled just to shut everyone who disagrees up. If you were some kind of expert you would welcome a debate to bash and prove beyond all doubt that the opposition was wrong. And if you run from debate you are simply proving that your position is untenable. Do you know what kind of places had NO debate… Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia to name 2. The positions that those governments took was undefendable BS that was based non on truth but lies.
Dont play chess with a pigeon. All it’s gonna do is shit on the board and prance around like it won.
I like this this. This is mine now, I’m stealing it.
I see what you’re saying, but I disagree in this case. It’s entirely possible for a well informed person to be lured into a situation where they are made to look like a fool, regardless of how good their information is. This is especially true if the subject is complicated and the audience doesn’t have enough knowledge to detect the bullshit, which is exactly the scenario that would exist on Rogan. Furthermore, with Rogan as an uninformed moderator, there is a good chance that he would further legitimize the misinformation by agreeing with it when he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
We will have to agree to disagree. A real expert is so well informed on the subject matter (that’s why they are considered an expert) that they would have the ability in layman’s terms to completely destroy the opposition. People who are open minded want to hear factual debates. Everyone comes to the table with their initial view that they have formulated through their own research. Research that they did on their own or the lazy research of just believing the mainstream media without question. People that disagree with the mainstream media narrative WANT to hear facts that may change their opinion. Other people fear facts that expose that what they believe in is false. History clearly shows us that governments that banned debate did it to keep the truth from people
You kids have too much energy on the summer break.