I think political debate and debates generally need to be evaluated separately. Political debates ostensibly serve the purpose of showcasing differences between candidates and their suitability for public office. Underscoring character issues (with evidence) or inconsistencies (with evidence) has a place in political discourse. Where we have gotten off the track is that evidence is not needed or respected, and debate forums are ideologically infected, subverting open dialogue.
That's one of the main points of this post (political debate vs debate as in discourse). I think my concern is that the debate over vaccines and science is one that leans towards the debate we associate with politics where it tends to lack substance or evidence. It becomes more about who yells the loudest and who appears the most "intelligent" or has the most "expertise". It's one of the concerns I have right now where more people are concerned with these debates and shouting matches than looking at the information and seeing what they can find.
We really need to separate out science from politics/cultural phenomena because there's a dangerous cross-pollination that can occur where science seems to be undermined to a severe degree.
Hmmm, interesting idea of just presenting the evidence and not an actual debate. Of course, that brings up the issue of validity of the evidence. Hotez can present papers that conclude no relation between autism and vaccines and RFKjr. can present papers showing otherwise. Wouldn't they then have to defend their evidence? Perhaps a debate with evidence presented followed by a 10 minute "rebuttal" and that's it. With rules forbidding ad hominem attacks, etc.
I have thought that political campaigns should be based on something similar; just list out 100 possible issues and their general stance on each. And if, after elected, they change their stance, we get to recall them after 3 strikes. Yippeee.
So I should have emphasized that "debate" is used really broadly, and as I see it the perception over vaccine debates we are having is puffed out chest, "debate me, bro!" style of debate rather than a focus on the substance. Just looking on the outside it seems as if these debates are being made out to be some bloodsport rather than an avenue for a discussion to take place and for people to see different viewpoints. I think discussions allow for people to defend their evidence, but I don't think we'll earn much if the debate or talk dissolves into ad hominems and mudslinging. This is sort of what we are already seeing on both sides.
I use the term discussion as a way of having the conversation freely flow back and forth, which would include rebuttals, but again I think what I perceive as a debate more akin to long-form discussion is different than people wanting people getting into a ring and duking it out by any means necessary.
Note that most political debates don't even focus on the topic. I just keep thinking about Will Smith and that politicians need to keep the name of their opponent out of their mouths. If a politician can't provide an explanation for their position without referring to their opponent are they really genuine, or are they just being reactionary?
Also, it can't explain abiogenesis: the origin of life without the first spark of life given by God. No life will be ever artificially created.
For Christians there's a third way, but God created the first sparks of life in different body blueprints (e.g. Cambrian explosion, another evidence against evolution).
For a full understanding think platypus: half mammal, half bird... an impossible hybrid. Who was tweaking with DNA with Intelligent Design?: Evolutionary Creation
2. You seem completely unaware that vaccines were weaponized by masons to reduce the population at least since the 90s, for example, adding hCG to infertilize women in more than 30 countries.
Start here:
there's a plan to murder 95% of the global population by 2050… written on the mason Georgia guidestones:
- Both Churchill and Roosevelt were masons and plotted to get the reluctant USA into the war by provoking the Japs and letting Pearl Harbor (left the whole fleet defenseless and concentrated there as an easy candy to be taken from a kid, no radar warning from outer islands, etc.)
- 9-11: 2 "planes", yet all 7 World Trade Center towers destroyed, not the closer towers not belonging to World Trade Center, and the owner with his 2 grown up siblings failed to show up for work (never skipped work before)...
- J6: The fake riot was mason-planned, incited and guided by FBI agents, who broke into the Capitol !!!
- At least since the 90s, vaccines were weaponized to reduce the population, for example:
1. Adding hCG to infertilize women: lab detected in 30 countries
2. Overpassing the FDA 10 ng limit to human DNA “contamination” by 2000%, thus causing neuro-damage (autism, asperger, tics, dyslexia in 29% of kids, etc.) and childhood cancer epidemic (n.b. leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas)
- It’s the masons, who create counterfeited currencies (trillions of dollars and EUROS) and bought the listed corporations, media, healthcare, universities, parties and political careers:
PS I'm sorry I'm linking to my own substack. It’s not self-promotion: I couldn’t find better links but if you find anything better, I'd be glad to replace.
I think political debate and debates generally need to be evaluated separately. Political debates ostensibly serve the purpose of showcasing differences between candidates and their suitability for public office. Underscoring character issues (with evidence) or inconsistencies (with evidence) has a place in political discourse. Where we have gotten off the track is that evidence is not needed or respected, and debate forums are ideologically infected, subverting open dialogue.
That's one of the main points of this post (political debate vs debate as in discourse). I think my concern is that the debate over vaccines and science is one that leans towards the debate we associate with politics where it tends to lack substance or evidence. It becomes more about who yells the loudest and who appears the most "intelligent" or has the most "expertise". It's one of the concerns I have right now where more people are concerned with these debates and shouting matches than looking at the information and seeing what they can find.
We really need to separate out science from politics/cultural phenomena because there's a dangerous cross-pollination that can occur where science seems to be undermined to a severe degree.
Hmmm, interesting idea of just presenting the evidence and not an actual debate. Of course, that brings up the issue of validity of the evidence. Hotez can present papers that conclude no relation between autism and vaccines and RFKjr. can present papers showing otherwise. Wouldn't they then have to defend their evidence? Perhaps a debate with evidence presented followed by a 10 minute "rebuttal" and that's it. With rules forbidding ad hominem attacks, etc.
I have thought that political campaigns should be based on something similar; just list out 100 possible issues and their general stance on each. And if, after elected, they change their stance, we get to recall them after 3 strikes. Yippeee.
So I should have emphasized that "debate" is used really broadly, and as I see it the perception over vaccine debates we are having is puffed out chest, "debate me, bro!" style of debate rather than a focus on the substance. Just looking on the outside it seems as if these debates are being made out to be some bloodsport rather than an avenue for a discussion to take place and for people to see different viewpoints. I think discussions allow for people to defend their evidence, but I don't think we'll earn much if the debate or talk dissolves into ad hominems and mudslinging. This is sort of what we are already seeing on both sides.
I use the term discussion as a way of having the conversation freely flow back and forth, which would include rebuttals, but again I think what I perceive as a debate more akin to long-form discussion is different than people wanting people getting into a ring and duking it out by any means necessary.
Note that most political debates don't even focus on the topic. I just keep thinking about Will Smith and that politicians need to keep the name of their opponent out of their mouths. If a politician can't provide an explanation for their position without referring to their opponent are they really genuine, or are they just being reactionary?
1. Evolution theory from RANDOM mutation has been scientifically proven false by microbiology
check Discovery.org
Also, it can't explain abiogenesis: the origin of life without the first spark of life given by God. No life will be ever artificially created.
For Christians there's a third way, but God created the first sparks of life in different body blueprints (e.g. Cambrian explosion, another evidence against evolution).
For a full understanding think platypus: half mammal, half bird... an impossible hybrid. Who was tweaking with DNA with Intelligent Design?: Evolutionary Creation
https://www.catholic365.com/article/14280/on-the-origin-of-species-by-means-of-artificial-selection.html
2. You seem completely unaware that vaccines were weaponized by masons to reduce the population at least since the 90s, for example, adding hCG to infertilize women in more than 30 countries.
Start here:
there's a plan to murder 95% of the global population by 2050… written on the mason Georgia guidestones:
- Both Churchill and Roosevelt were masons and plotted to get the reluctant USA into the war by provoking the Japs and letting Pearl Harbor (left the whole fleet defenseless and concentrated there as an easy candy to be taken from a kid, no radar warning from outer islands, etc.)
- 9-11: 2 "planes", yet all 7 World Trade Center towers destroyed, not the closer towers not belonging to World Trade Center, and the owner with his 2 grown up siblings failed to show up for work (never skipped work before)...
- J6: The fake riot was mason-planned, incited and guided by FBI agents, who broke into the Capitol !!!
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/j6-what-you-need-to-know
It's such a mason manual that they organized the same play in Brazil when it was proven that the voting machines owned by mason Soros, were rigged:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-2020-american-coup
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/dominion-over-us
- At least since the 90s, vaccines were weaponized to reduce the population, for example:
1. Adding hCG to infertilize women: lab detected in 30 countries
2. Overpassing the FDA 10 ng limit to human DNA “contamination” by 2000%, thus causing neuro-damage (autism, asperger, tics, dyslexia in 29% of kids, etc.) and childhood cancer epidemic (n.b. leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas)
Check soundchoice.org or videos at bottom after this page:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/wake-up-videos
- COVID was designed as a primer for lethal COVID haccines:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-real-covid-timeline
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/not-vaccine-not-gene-therapy-just
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/what-do-bioweapons-have-to-do-with
- Wake up videos:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/wake-up-videos
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/2050-youll-go-nowhere-and-youll-be
- It's genocide for depopulation:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/depop-vaccines-no-myth
- It’s the masons, who create counterfeited currencies (trillions of dollars and EUROS) and bought the listed corporations, media, healthcare, universities, parties and political careers:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/david-rockefeller-illuminati
ex-illuminati Ronald Bernard's confessions:
http://youtu.be/JAhnCdXqPww
Now, are you really ready for this?:
The full PLAN exposed:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-plan-revealed
16 laws we need to exit Prison Planet
Politics got us in, politics is the way out ... after prayers!
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/laws-to-exit-planet-prison
PS I'm sorry I'm linking to my own substack. It’s not self-promotion: I couldn’t find better links but if you find anything better, I'd be glad to replace.