Hypocritical critic. You seem to be educated, well informed and searching for truth. Yet, this is an intentional illusion or you are too brainwashed for your own good, AND your readers/subscribers.
The same fake "science" you criticize regarding vaccines is the same fake "science" responsible for "outer space", planets, solar systems etc.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at surface reflections from salt flats, which are hundreds of thousands of square miles, to see the LACK of CURVATURE to the surface of earth.
It's NOT A BALL. In addition to the lack of curvature, the FIRMAMENT exists 73 miles above. This link is a video of rockets staying VERTICAL. They have a velocity of Mach 6.5.
That being said, do some actual research, and come to real reality, or continue on being the hypocritical critic, mocking the true creation and Creator, foregoing credibility. There are those of us who actually reside in real reality, under the dome that, in actuality, does exist.
Hi Igor, As a woman I find that it is usually men who choose to debate an issue, not necessarily to "prove" their position but to perform for their audience. An audience who probably already believes the position they are espousing. Kirsch for one is always challenging people to debate, yes he is bright but he displays limited emotional intelligence, always seeking to be the brightest pencil in the box and compete with the big boys. Debating is an exercise in an effort to dominate......warfare via verbiage when the war has already been won by the bad guys, the "vaccine" bio-weapon cabal. They have all the power the issue is not debatable as to how we shift their power and we know it. We need to repeal the laws that have created this monster. But bright, well thought of leaders continue to debate their legitimacy via the cause or outcome of laws many of which are imposed on us via corrupt Constitutional laws. Let's move on to encouraging all of the populace to stand up for truth to demand change and to resist coercion. Meanwhile why are we not debating how to change the laws that entrap us in an endless war waged against us by our own government? See Katherine Watt at Bailiwick News and Sasah Latypova of Due Diligence and Art...These are brave women who post the truth with multiple references and do not seek to debate but clearly state the truth about the situation we are in without resorting to egotistical posturing. Thanks for providing a forum for me to state my position.
"Debating is an exercise in an effort to dominate"
Y'all are STILL trying to see the offer to debate as the POINT! None of these "safe-and-effective" (S&E) "scientists" will ever agree to debate -- for any number of reasons, among them: not "giving validity" to the challenger, not risking the chance of a loss and looking a fool, not allowed to by their paymasters, and so on... Likely, none of them is "emotionally wedded" to their side; they believe what they believe and won't accept a challenge to look at it.
The CHALLENGER's point is: "hey everyone LOOK! I've just offered $123,465.00 to this guy and he ran away!" THAT catches the eye -- even IF it's an S&E eye. Either to roll said eye with derision or pity; or to raise an eyebrow at such a large amount. *IF* any of the S&E proponents ever DID agree to debate, and even if they WON -- primates ALWAYS love to watch a fight -- and SOME of the audience -- the unaligned, the uneducated, the "I only watch hockey for the fights!" audience members -- will have HEARD the NOT-S&E side's points. A 'heard bell' cannot be unheard.
Igor wrote correctly, I'm paraphrasing: NO ONE wins a debate...
Me: Winning's not the point!
Some of the audience will (not might -- WILL!) be startled or baffled or even just slightly interested in "something wrong" they heard and were not expecting. HOW did our side manage to pull together so many studies -- and by REAL docs in REAL journals? -- that say things never before seen in MSM?! Some will say: "oh, that number HAS to be a lie!" and will go look it up to prove us wrong. (oops.) Some may just want to validate or verify -- or more often debunk -- something they heard. "Winning' the debate is NOT the point! Getting people INTO the hall (metaphorical or other) where the debate is held is the point.
The point is getting people who would not "willingly" listen to us, to STILL hear us, while listening to (and providing/showing support for) "their defender"! I'm sure Steve Kirsch knows for an absolute FACT that the S&E paid puppets will not EVER debate him. If one ever DID agree to debate, it STILL doesn't matter if Steve "wins" or not! (Well, it does to his wallet, but since none of the S&Es will EVER agree, not a big worry.) Igor is right -- "winning" will change nothing.
Karla how do you envision us "encouraging all of the populace to stand up for truth to demand change and to resist coercion" (is that not what we here are all doing all the time)? What steps do you think we take that we are not already taking? Do you USE the stats Steve and our other mathy guys provide in your attempts to REACH the "populace" you know?
Do you think Steve's time would be better served writing ... I dunno, public relations releases? Oh wait, he already DOES that. Should he call and write the CDC/FDA and try to get someone there to provide dat... oh wait, he already does that. Oh! Maybe a BILLBOARD or two outside the CDC here in ATL? Oh, yeah, already done -- how many THOUSANDS of ATL-ans drove by those billboard every single day? Maybe he should go try to deliver the israeli not-safety data TO the US FED who is SUPPOSED to be gathering dat... oh wait, nope, he did that AND posted for us when the cops came to shoo him away...
I once had a brief forum chat with Sasha, because she said the people WERE (are) smart enough to understand her deep medical info We disagreed, because it doesn't MATTER, wrote I, HOW intelligent anyone is if they have a guaranteed 100% DIS-interest in reading or learning! HER audience is *us* -- the deeply involved, the ones reading and following the data... the ones TRYING to get 'normal folks' to understand the danger, if not the science! Because WE want to know, want to learn, want to scream to everyone to "wake the hell up!!" we follow our NOT-S&E folks and try to spread the news...
Sasha et al. are making dents and causing movement AMONGST US -- she's NOT reaching, nor likely TO reach the normal folks. THEY don't read; THEY "keep believing my doctor, thanks anyway"; they have neither interest nor desire to BECOME us.
Dr Peter Sandman has a GREAT 'division' of the publics, with a great synopsis here:
Risk Communication: Notes from a class taught by Dr. Peter M. Sandman
From which:
There are four levels of public interest (on any particular topic):
Level 1 Fanatics to whom it’s one of their top 2–3 issues and who learn all they can.
Level 2 Attentives to whom it’s one of their top 10 or so issues, and who will read an entire newspaper article on the subject.
Level 3 Browsers to whom it’s one of their top 100–200 issues and who will read the first couple of paragraphs of a newspaper story on the issue.
Level 4 Inattentives who are not interested and are willing to rely on the fanatics and attentives to call their attention to it if warranted.
Four rules:
Rule 1 Forget the inattentives. You cannot reach them.
Rule 2 To reach browsers, and to some extent the attentives, use the media. The media are a one-way communication. You must keep repeating the basics over and over because the browsers only catch bits at a time. Even when you think EVERYONE must know the basics by now, keep repeating them. Browsers are the principle target of the media.
Rule 3 Your most important public are the fanatics. You cannot make them browsers. You cannot turn their interest. You must deal with them as they are.
Rule 4 The key to public involvement is the permeability of the boundaries between the four types. A good public involvement program helps people cross the boundaries. If you can mollify the fanatics, by involving them as watchdogs and respectfully and carefully addressing their outrage, you may drop their level of mistrust to that of an attentive. However, by mistreating the attentives, you may drive them over into your loyal group of fanatics (this is NOT to be desired!).
Do not agree! if you refuse debates this means you are not willing to put your statements to scrutiny. It means you are not seeking the truth, but ultimately trying to win an argument and those two things are very different. For example RFK Jr is openly saying - show me the convincing arguments why the vaccines are safe and effective, and if those arguments are solid then I am willing to accept it. It's how it should work! We have certain believes and ideas, but we can update them when presented with new information. That's the opposite of being an ideological shill.
Debating is not one and done either: you lose a debate and then you are either convinced by the argument of the other side or make a new case and put it forward. Next time you'll try to do it better. Refusing to debate is an absolute no go - you lose credibility altogether. it's like proclaiming you are the fastest man in the world but refuse to run in a competition.
They don't want to publicize misinformation spreaders in a performance that will not change anyone's mind. Of course, they also deny any arguments that contradict the scientific consensus could possibly be true and should not be allowed.
Truly unfortunately, I'm going to a funeral this weekend, previously healthy man seemed to have a sudden heart attack or stroke. I don't know their medical history, but the wife had a stroke, Feb 2021 as I recall, also seemed to be sudden and unexpected.
If future historians come close to telling the true, human story of Covid, it will be in large part because of the heroic work of an anonymous writer known as “Transcriber B” on Substack. My Q & A with this unsung hero explains why she’s doing what she’s doing and identifies some of the most heart-wrenching transcripts she’s preserved for posterity.
I wholeheartedly agree, Bill. I eagerly read every transcription Transcriber B posts and have made a particular point of replying to her with great appreciation for her memorializing the first-person experiences of everyday people harmed by covid, covid shots, and covid politics over the past 3+ years.
Thank you for giving her this well-deserved recognition. I look forward to reading your interview with her.
i agree that debates can backfire. i also agree kirsch may lose even truth on his side. he looks childish with his wagers. he is smart and well intentioned. i disagree on vax and autism, cdc suppressed real science
I was about to prepare my skills to debate you for the money.
Whatever the topic! (^_ ^ Hahaha
PS: You are correct, there are many problems with debates. The problem is this, "the general intellectual unpreparedness of the public for identifying sophistry in life. This ignorance of sophistry is further exacerbated by the confusion between the well reputed dialectics and the notorious sophistry." It's a quote from [How to Distinguish Dialectics from Sophistry?] https://fairlifebook.wordpress.com/2019/10/12/how-to-distinguish-dialectics-from-sophistry/
It's a good reading: "dialecticians and sophists assume the same guise as the philosopher, for sophistic is Wisdom which exists only in semblance, and dialecticians embrace all things in their dialectic".
If that's so, then you are NOT my audience (oops... but: emphasized!) If I had to convince my aging anyone, I would use whichever or both of rhetoric and dialectic, depending on knowing the person I was speaking with. Since I do not know my "audience" around on the web, I try to mix: I expect more folks here at Igor's are open to facts and stats -- thus I will offer links and vids and so on -- but I also am aware that 'new' folks (see? quote marks and single quote marks are just not useful as emphasis; because quote marks imply quoting, ands single quote marks imply paraphrasing) may need so emotional flavor to get them to consider the facts.
In my example used somewhere here: I started trying to 'hook' my sister by getting her to identify her (shotshotboosted) son as (I was guessing) a member of the Millennial class -- which allowed insertion of the 61k excess deaths in that age cohort. So, emotion-hook followed by dialectic facts.
And I push Ed Dowd's book and Mark Crispin Miller's substack because they are testimonials (but also data!) from multiple everyday people! Mixed with stats and dialectic.
Nah, it's colloquial writing... I write what I hear in my head, how I'd say it in person. Alas, there is no 'less annoying' way to show emphasis; no italics, no bold... And yes, written words generally do not have sufficient power; hence my habit of trying to express emphasis with the only tools provided. (Even knowing it annoys, I often don't have/take the time to go back and replace all the capitalization...)
Yes, I agree that if they accepted the challenge the outcome would be probably chaotic and the world then needs a debate about who won the debate. But I don't think a real debate was ever the goal. Kirsch came up with the idea to offer money and it created great puIlicity.
Isn't the idea to make them look like cowards running from the debate? And that works, I think. Because they don't accept many The 1.5 million was a great publicity stunt.
And one reason they don't accept is that they do not have the same pasdionate fan club as us anti-vaxxers. Outspoken private pro-vaxer are rare. The pro vax mob is mostly propaganda and industry driven. No grass root fans in there. Even most of those who willingly got vaxed don't run around pushing for it. But us anti-vaxxers do. So the debate fan crowd would be 90% anti. A home game, so to speak. And they know that, so they refuse. Which makes them look weak and wrong with the bystanders. Therefore I still think it is a great strategy. Let's just hope they never accept.
You are correct and make great points. But sometimes like trying to undo a tight knot or tangle you don’t know which angle or piece is going to help. You just pick and pull with great care.
It would be great to have an online forum where people hammered out the terms of their adversarial collaboration and presented and rebutted arguments for and against their positions. Maybe written submissions would be better than a live debate as not everyone thinks on their feet so well and sometimes rhetorical tricks are used which don't further the search for robust conclusions. Anyone reading likely to host a forum for such adversarial collaborations?
please don't get too hung up on the word debate. i think Rogan just said debate without meaning an organized contest.
Hotez has been on Rogan several times; i get the feeling Rogan had some affection for the bumbling little professor. the now infamous episode where Rogan "scolded" him for not exercising and eating junk food also had some other choice moments that are maybe not as well known.
Hotez, as is his MO, complained about the "anti-vaxx" lobby and how all their slick, well produced documentaries funded by the russians were drowning out his "real" science. his book on vaccines was only #20 on amazon because there were 19 anti-vaxx books ahead of him and amazon should stop selling them and only sell his to indulge his persecution complex.
joe asked why he didn't have a talk (a debate) with someone like RFKjr to get his message out there and Hotez came up with every excuse in the book (he's a clever lawyer and i'm just a mere scientist with no verbal skills, i don't want to give him an legitimacy, i just want him censored so i don't have to work as hard, etc).
i've heard guests ask Rogan before why he'd never had RFKjr on and he gave some excuses (he has a weak voice) but i suspect he was a bit afraid of stirring up a hornet's nest and as he graciously said by way of apology at the beginning of their talk, he bought the MSM messaging around RFK and when he finally met him, was forced to rethink.
had Hotez not tweeted his criticism of spotify for "allowing" Rogan to choose a guest without Hotez's approval, this wouldn't have become a big deal. oh sure, it was great exposure for RFKjr but all these people willing to throw in big bucks to hear the two men converse? it's become crazy!
but it shows you how hungry people are for conversations across the divide.
my fear is not that RFK wouldn't "win;" it's that Hotez would take all that money and give out more vaccines with it. Rogan's offer of $100K was fair and appropriate but anything over that should go to RFK's campaign chest. giving it to Hotez would be a gigantic waste. and there ought to be a deadline on it. Hotez can't come back in a year when he's hard up and expect the deal to still be on the table.
or with that pool of money, have RFK talk to Hotez, then to Fauci and finally to Biden. maybe one with Vinay Prasad (who is becoming more of a fan of RFK's everyday even though he disagrees with him on some points). since they aren't really debates in the classic sense, there aren't really winners; unless you count the american people who listen in. i trust they'll hear who makes more sense to them.
i agree that steve should not debate. you gotta love him but he gets too emotional and hyper. remember that long Darkhorse podcast Bret Weinstein hosted with Malone and Kirsch? no one could make a point without him interrupting
Hypocritical critic. You seem to be educated, well informed and searching for truth. Yet, this is an intentional illusion or you are too brainwashed for your own good, AND your readers/subscribers.
The same fake "science" you criticize regarding vaccines is the same fake "science" responsible for "outer space", planets, solar systems etc.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at surface reflections from salt flats, which are hundreds of thousands of square miles, to see the LACK of CURVATURE to the surface of earth.
It's NOT A BALL. In addition to the lack of curvature, the FIRMAMENT exists 73 miles above. This link is a video of rockets staying VERTICAL. They have a velocity of Mach 6.5.
Altitude of 73 miles...and STOP INSTANTLY.
WITHOUT VARIANCE. THE DOME IS THERE.
Water on the other side. OUTER SPACE IS FAKE.
https://youtu.be/001IXnp0ogc
That being said, do some actual research, and come to real reality, or continue on being the hypocritical critic, mocking the true creation and Creator, foregoing credibility. There are those of us who actually reside in real reality, under the dome that, in actuality, does exist.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLU9Rmpq-ymsDuxLdSRZmwLsk19SttxIDm
The Living God of The Bible is real...Jesus is Who He claims to be in God. The evidence is here.
Be doubting Thomas.
If you need to see to believe...So Be It.
Watch the playlist above...101 videos.
They always do show up eventually.
Hi Igor, As a woman I find that it is usually men who choose to debate an issue, not necessarily to "prove" their position but to perform for their audience. An audience who probably already believes the position they are espousing. Kirsch for one is always challenging people to debate, yes he is bright but he displays limited emotional intelligence, always seeking to be the brightest pencil in the box and compete with the big boys. Debating is an exercise in an effort to dominate......warfare via verbiage when the war has already been won by the bad guys, the "vaccine" bio-weapon cabal. They have all the power the issue is not debatable as to how we shift their power and we know it. We need to repeal the laws that have created this monster. But bright, well thought of leaders continue to debate their legitimacy via the cause or outcome of laws many of which are imposed on us via corrupt Constitutional laws. Let's move on to encouraging all of the populace to stand up for truth to demand change and to resist coercion. Meanwhile why are we not debating how to change the laws that entrap us in an endless war waged against us by our own government? See Katherine Watt at Bailiwick News and Sasah Latypova of Due Diligence and Art...These are brave women who post the truth with multiple references and do not seek to debate but clearly state the truth about the situation we are in without resorting to egotistical posturing. Thanks for providing a forum for me to state my position.
"Debating is an exercise in an effort to dominate"
Y'all are STILL trying to see the offer to debate as the POINT! None of these "safe-and-effective" (S&E) "scientists" will ever agree to debate -- for any number of reasons, among them: not "giving validity" to the challenger, not risking the chance of a loss and looking a fool, not allowed to by their paymasters, and so on... Likely, none of them is "emotionally wedded" to their side; they believe what they believe and won't accept a challenge to look at it.
The CHALLENGER's point is: "hey everyone LOOK! I've just offered $123,465.00 to this guy and he ran away!" THAT catches the eye -- even IF it's an S&E eye. Either to roll said eye with derision or pity; or to raise an eyebrow at such a large amount. *IF* any of the S&E proponents ever DID agree to debate, and even if they WON -- primates ALWAYS love to watch a fight -- and SOME of the audience -- the unaligned, the uneducated, the "I only watch hockey for the fights!" audience members -- will have HEARD the NOT-S&E side's points. A 'heard bell' cannot be unheard.
Igor wrote correctly, I'm paraphrasing: NO ONE wins a debate...
Me: Winning's not the point!
Some of the audience will (not might -- WILL!) be startled or baffled or even just slightly interested in "something wrong" they heard and were not expecting. HOW did our side manage to pull together so many studies -- and by REAL docs in REAL journals? -- that say things never before seen in MSM?! Some will say: "oh, that number HAS to be a lie!" and will go look it up to prove us wrong. (oops.) Some may just want to validate or verify -- or more often debunk -- something they heard. "Winning' the debate is NOT the point! Getting people INTO the hall (metaphorical or other) where the debate is held is the point.
The point is getting people who would not "willingly" listen to us, to STILL hear us, while listening to (and providing/showing support for) "their defender"! I'm sure Steve Kirsch knows for an absolute FACT that the S&E paid puppets will not EVER debate him. If one ever DID agree to debate, it STILL doesn't matter if Steve "wins" or not! (Well, it does to his wallet, but since none of the S&Es will EVER agree, not a big worry.) Igor is right -- "winning" will change nothing.
Karla how do you envision us "encouraging all of the populace to stand up for truth to demand change and to resist coercion" (is that not what we here are all doing all the time)? What steps do you think we take that we are not already taking? Do you USE the stats Steve and our other mathy guys provide in your attempts to REACH the "populace" you know?
Do you think Steve's time would be better served writing ... I dunno, public relations releases? Oh wait, he already DOES that. Should he call and write the CDC/FDA and try to get someone there to provide dat... oh wait, he already does that. Oh! Maybe a BILLBOARD or two outside the CDC here in ATL? Oh, yeah, already done -- how many THOUSANDS of ATL-ans drove by those billboard every single day? Maybe he should go try to deliver the israeli not-safety data TO the US FED who is SUPPOSED to be gathering dat... oh wait, nope, he did that AND posted for us when the cops came to shoo him away...
I once had a brief forum chat with Sasha, because she said the people WERE (are) smart enough to understand her deep medical info We disagreed, because it doesn't MATTER, wrote I, HOW intelligent anyone is if they have a guaranteed 100% DIS-interest in reading or learning! HER audience is *us* -- the deeply involved, the ones reading and following the data... the ones TRYING to get 'normal folks' to understand the danger, if not the science! Because WE want to know, want to learn, want to scream to everyone to "wake the hell up!!" we follow our NOT-S&E folks and try to spread the news...
Sasha et al. are making dents and causing movement AMONGST US -- she's NOT reaching, nor likely TO reach the normal folks. THEY don't read; THEY "keep believing my doctor, thanks anyway"; they have neither interest nor desire to BECOME us.
Dr Peter Sandman has a GREAT 'division' of the publics, with a great synopsis here:
https://www.psandman.com/articles/risk.htm
Risk Communication: Notes from a class taught by Dr. Peter M. Sandman
From which:
There are four levels of public interest (on any particular topic):
Level 1 Fanatics to whom it’s one of their top 2–3 issues and who learn all they can.
Level 2 Attentives to whom it’s one of their top 10 or so issues, and who will read an entire newspaper article on the subject.
Level 3 Browsers to whom it’s one of their top 100–200 issues and who will read the first couple of paragraphs of a newspaper story on the issue.
Level 4 Inattentives who are not interested and are willing to rely on the fanatics and attentives to call their attention to it if warranted.
Four rules:
Rule 1 Forget the inattentives. You cannot reach them.
Rule 2 To reach browsers, and to some extent the attentives, use the media. The media are a one-way communication. You must keep repeating the basics over and over because the browsers only catch bits at a time. Even when you think EVERYONE must know the basics by now, keep repeating them. Browsers are the principle target of the media.
Rule 3 Your most important public are the fanatics. You cannot make them browsers. You cannot turn their interest. You must deal with them as they are.
Rule 4 The key to public involvement is the permeability of the boundaries between the four types. A good public involvement program helps people cross the boundaries. If you can mollify the fanatics, by involving them as watchdogs and respectfully and carefully addressing their outrage, you may drop their level of mistrust to that of an attentive. However, by mistreating the attentives, you may drive them over into your loyal group of fanatics (this is NOT to be desired!).
...
Do not agree! if you refuse debates this means you are not willing to put your statements to scrutiny. It means you are not seeking the truth, but ultimately trying to win an argument and those two things are very different. For example RFK Jr is openly saying - show me the convincing arguments why the vaccines are safe and effective, and if those arguments are solid then I am willing to accept it. It's how it should work! We have certain believes and ideas, but we can update them when presented with new information. That's the opposite of being an ideological shill.
Debating is not one and done either: you lose a debate and then you are either convinced by the argument of the other side or make a new case and put it forward. Next time you'll try to do it better. Refusing to debate is an absolute no go - you lose credibility altogether. it's like proclaiming you are the fastest man in the world but refuse to run in a competition.
Hotez sold his soul to the devil a long time ago. And he's far from the only one.
Ironically, it seems like Vox may have reached the same conclusion with similar reasoning.
https://www.vox.com/2023/6/22/23768539/rogan-rfk-hotez-debate-vaccine-deniers-better
They don't want to publicize misinformation spreaders in a performance that will not change anyone's mind. Of course, they also deny any arguments that contradict the scientific consensus could possibly be true and should not be allowed.
Truly unfortunately, I'm going to a funeral this weekend, previously healthy man seemed to have a sudden heart attack or stroke. I don't know their medical history, but the wife had a stroke, Feb 2021 as I recall, also seemed to be sudden and unexpected.
If future historians come close to telling the true, human story of Covid, it will be in large part because of the heroic work of an anonymous writer known as “Transcriber B” on Substack. My Q & A with this unsung hero explains why she’s doing what she’s doing and identifies some of the most heart-wrenching transcripts she’s preserved for posterity.
https://billricejr.substack.com/p/q-and-a-with-transcriber-b
I wholeheartedly agree, Bill. I eagerly read every transcription Transcriber B posts and have made a particular point of replying to her with great appreciation for her memorializing the first-person experiences of everyday people harmed by covid, covid shots, and covid politics over the past 3+ years.
Thank you for giving her this well-deserved recognition. I look forward to reading your interview with her.
Thanks, Taylor. That's also how I first "met" Transcriber B. I just thanked her for all her important work.
I enjoyed your interview. You performed a meaningful service by giving her work a platform on your substack/newsletter.
Thank you.
Do not negotiate with terrorist(s).
i agree that debates can backfire. i also agree kirsch may lose even truth on his side. he looks childish with his wagers. he is smart and well intentioned. i disagree on vax and autism, cdc suppressed real science
Just Kidding??
I was about to prepare my skills to debate you for the money.
Whatever the topic! (^_ ^ Hahaha
PS: You are correct, there are many problems with debates. The problem is this, "the general intellectual unpreparedness of the public for identifying sophistry in life. This ignorance of sophistry is further exacerbated by the confusion between the well reputed dialectics and the notorious sophistry." It's a quote from [How to Distinguish Dialectics from Sophistry?] https://fairlifebook.wordpress.com/2019/10/12/how-to-distinguish-dialectics-from-sophistry/
It's a good reading: "dialecticians and sophists assume the same guise as the philosopher, for sophistic is Wisdom which exists only in semblance, and dialecticians embrace all things in their dialectic".
Thank you for sharing!
Have fun!
Politicians debate.
I want blood.
If that's so, then you are NOT my audience (oops... but: emphasized!) If I had to convince my aging anyone, I would use whichever or both of rhetoric and dialectic, depending on knowing the person I was speaking with. Since I do not know my "audience" around on the web, I try to mix: I expect more folks here at Igor's are open to facts and stats -- thus I will offer links and vids and so on -- but I also am aware that 'new' folks (see? quote marks and single quote marks are just not useful as emphasis; because quote marks imply quoting, ands single quote marks imply paraphrasing) may need so emotional flavor to get them to consider the facts.
In my example used somewhere here: I started trying to 'hook' my sister by getting her to identify her (shotshotboosted) son as (I was guessing) a member of the Millennial class -- which allowed insertion of the 61k excess deaths in that age cohort. So, emotion-hook followed by dialectic facts.
And I push Ed Dowd's book and Mark Crispin Miller's substack because they are testimonials (but also data!) from multiple everyday people! Mixed with stats and dialectic.
Nah, it's colloquial writing... I write what I hear in my head, how I'd say it in person. Alas, there is no 'less annoying' way to show emphasis; no italics, no bold... And yes, written words generally do not have sufficient power; hence my habit of trying to express emphasis with the only tools provided. (Even knowing it annoys, I often don't have/take the time to go back and replace all the capitalization...)
Yes, I agree that if they accepted the challenge the outcome would be probably chaotic and the world then needs a debate about who won the debate. But I don't think a real debate was ever the goal. Kirsch came up with the idea to offer money and it created great puIlicity.
Isn't the idea to make them look like cowards running from the debate? And that works, I think. Because they don't accept many The 1.5 million was a great publicity stunt.
And one reason they don't accept is that they do not have the same pasdionate fan club as us anti-vaxxers. Outspoken private pro-vaxer are rare. The pro vax mob is mostly propaganda and industry driven. No grass root fans in there. Even most of those who willingly got vaxed don't run around pushing for it. But us anti-vaxxers do. So the debate fan crowd would be 90% anti. A home game, so to speak. And they know that, so they refuse. Which makes them look weak and wrong with the bystanders. Therefore I still think it is a great strategy. Let's just hope they never accept.
You are correct and make great points. But sometimes like trying to undo a tight knot or tangle you don’t know which angle or piece is going to help. You just pick and pull with great care.
It would be great to have an online forum where people hammered out the terms of their adversarial collaboration and presented and rebutted arguments for and against their positions. Maybe written submissions would be better than a live debate as not everyone thinks on their feet so well and sometimes rhetorical tricks are used which don't further the search for robust conclusions. Anyone reading likely to host a forum for such adversarial collaborations?
please don't get too hung up on the word debate. i think Rogan just said debate without meaning an organized contest.
Hotez has been on Rogan several times; i get the feeling Rogan had some affection for the bumbling little professor. the now infamous episode where Rogan "scolded" him for not exercising and eating junk food also had some other choice moments that are maybe not as well known.
Hotez, as is his MO, complained about the "anti-vaxx" lobby and how all their slick, well produced documentaries funded by the russians were drowning out his "real" science. his book on vaccines was only #20 on amazon because there were 19 anti-vaxx books ahead of him and amazon should stop selling them and only sell his to indulge his persecution complex.
joe asked why he didn't have a talk (a debate) with someone like RFKjr to get his message out there and Hotez came up with every excuse in the book (he's a clever lawyer and i'm just a mere scientist with no verbal skills, i don't want to give him an legitimacy, i just want him censored so i don't have to work as hard, etc).
i've heard guests ask Rogan before why he'd never had RFKjr on and he gave some excuses (he has a weak voice) but i suspect he was a bit afraid of stirring up a hornet's nest and as he graciously said by way of apology at the beginning of their talk, he bought the MSM messaging around RFK and when he finally met him, was forced to rethink.
had Hotez not tweeted his criticism of spotify for "allowing" Rogan to choose a guest without Hotez's approval, this wouldn't have become a big deal. oh sure, it was great exposure for RFKjr but all these people willing to throw in big bucks to hear the two men converse? it's become crazy!
but it shows you how hungry people are for conversations across the divide.
my fear is not that RFK wouldn't "win;" it's that Hotez would take all that money and give out more vaccines with it. Rogan's offer of $100K was fair and appropriate but anything over that should go to RFK's campaign chest. giving it to Hotez would be a gigantic waste. and there ought to be a deadline on it. Hotez can't come back in a year when he's hard up and expect the deal to still be on the table.
or with that pool of money, have RFK talk to Hotez, then to Fauci and finally to Biden. maybe one with Vinay Prasad (who is becoming more of a fan of RFK's everyday even though he disagrees with him on some points). since they aren't really debates in the classic sense, there aren't really winners; unless you count the american people who listen in. i trust they'll hear who makes more sense to them.
i agree that steve should not debate. you gotta love him but he gets too emotional and hyper. remember that long Darkhorse podcast Bret Weinstein hosted with Malone and Kirsch? no one could make a point without him interrupting