[mint2]

> What's wrong with debating ideas with a 50/50 weighting of left/right topics for discussion

it’s not left/right issues. It’s non-quackery versus quackery. You’re actually asking What wrong with giving snake oil and consensus backed science equal time?

[l-_l-_l-_lo_ol]

Galileo was a quack in his time. Most great scientists were quacks who were opposed by orthodoxy. There is nothing wrong with having Robert Malone on to counter government approved science in a podcast. He's not giving him equal time. He's giving them a modicum of time in the face of overwhelming government approved virological perspective.

[mint2]

It’s arguing with half truths to defend actual quacks being called out for purveying views that lack evidence to prior events when people with actual supporting evidence backing their work got pushback. Despite the church, Galileos work got support from a significant number of people when they were able to see and test reproduce his observations, something that quacks can’t stand up to.

The roles here are being mixed up. The quackery equal time supporters are like the church, wanting something to be true and heard simply because they like the way it sounds. The anti-quacks are simply saying look “here are the facts as to why that’s not true and show that’s snake oil”.

[l-_l-_l-_lo_ol]

Did Dr. Malone not have facts and studies at his disposal?

[mint2]

If Rogan had reviewed and assessed the claims and any support before hand, checking how they stand up to scrutiny, and only then conducted the interview then this would all be a non issue.

That way he’d call out garbage facts like his guests recently have had instead of making them seem legitimate by giving them equal coverage to real facts and he’s also be able to highlight a Galileo should those facts line up.

[l-_l-_l-_lo_ol]

I'm curious: what garbage fact or facts can you remember from the Malone podcast?