Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "Joe Rogan says tons of people "died suddenly" from COVID vaccine" video.

@Coconautify The school system is not responsible for the refusal to learn.
10
We're waiting for that study to be produced.
9
It begins as irresponsibility, but it immediately becomes destructive.
5
When did he go off the deep end? Or was he always there? Isn't he a wannabe sports jock?
3
"Jokes" are funny -- and those who hear them recognize that they are jokes because the "joke" contains a "tell" alerting the listener that it is a joke. Nothing Rogan says at all reveals that he is "joking"; angry people listen to him as if he is serious and they believe he is telling them facts. Rogan is a meathead with no conception of "humor," ethics, or morality as required of individuals who live in a society with others.
3
@paulamant8511 Can you back up that empty allegation with, you know, EVIDENCE?
3
@dufud Where is the EVIDENCE that it's true? Don't those who make assertions and claim they are "fact" have the RESPONSIBILITY to PROVE they are fact? Or are we still in the elementary schoolyard pretending to be truth-telling philosophers?
3
@NopeUghUghAbsolutelyNot If one is in error, in thought or speech, one has the RESPONSIBILITY to correct the error, not to continue to repeat it.
2
EVERY right, including freedom of speech, is inextricably entwined with RESPONSIBILITY. But the Republicans and reich-wing have been trashing responsibility since at latest Nixon and Roger Stone, and Reagan.
1
Rogan calling others "liars"?
1
There's always an audience for bullshitting snake-oil. See Trump.
1
@davidmcbrine4527 You can't tell the difference? I consider sources. If I want to know law, I listen to experts in law. If I want science, I listen to SCIENTISTS. If I want bullshit, I'll listen those who have no expertise in anything except BULLSHITTING ofr MONEY from those who have no sense about how to distinguish between fact and hogwash.
1
@Eric_4D And not all "opinions" are equal: some are informed, some are false. And "opinion" has a chance of being true. If false, then they are not "opinion"; they are falsehoods. Just as "thinking" and "believing" are not the same: the thinking person critically evaluates their beliefs, because beliefs can be false. The purpose is pursuit of truth -- not latching onto alternatives to truth because one's "opinions" are "offended" and refuted by truth.
1
He's a meathead. He has his fake "opinion," and it's his "right" to have his own "opinion". Facts are another matter entirely.
1
@backalleycqc4790 He's an immoral meathead.
1
@koi--- "not right to force injections on people in my opinion". You OMIT the fact that there is another side to the issue: the FIRST obligation of gov't and rule of law is to protect public health and safety from threats thereto. There is a long history, going back to at latest George Washington MANDATING that his troops be vaccinated. And in civilian life a long history of MANDATES to protect public health and safety. In Massachusetts, as example, those who contracted infectious diseases were quarantined on an island in Boston Harbor. That was not to "punish" them but to PROTECT the MAJORITY FROM being infected. READ Jacobson v. Massachusetts -- easily found by Google -- which explains in simple, clear language WHY the majority in a democracy has the RIGHT to be protected from threats by numerical minorities such as anti-vaxxers. And THAT mandate didn't include "exceptions" -- it was ENFORCED. As for the anti-mask lunacy and lies in "defense" of it: I have multiple lung issues; but wearing a mask has no effect whatsoever on my breathing. Add to that fact that no one has the "right" to infect others with their diseases. Science always looks at the downsides, the side effects, of every sort of medication including vaccines. But what is a vaccine? it is simply a trigger of the normal biological immune response but to a new pathogen. That is all vaccines do. You are ignoring all the POSITIVE results of the vaccine in order to spread ONLY a statistically insignificant number as your entire argument, as if that were the whole story. It is an unclever and transparently obvious distortion straight from the anti-vaxxer looney bin. So of course there is data on the miniscule number of negative reactions to any given vaccine. That is not a condemnation of any or all vaccines. And note that Rogan didn't provide ANY EVIDENCE to back up his nonsense claim that young healthy people "suddenly died" because they were vaccinated against COVID. Why is he not making the same claim about ALL vaccines -- I mean, why NOT? Because he is full of shit -- he is not a scientist; he is a meathead disinformation propagandist targeting a particular ignorant segment of the population in a way intended to cause them to part with their money. And YOUR comment is more of the same anti-vaxxer disinformation based on cherry-picking from the actual FULL data: I am elderly and have had every COVIC shot and booster. NO adverse effects, and not dead.
1
@40 Yes -- school systems can be bad -- usually in poor neighborhoods only -- but there are people in good school systems who REFUSE to learn. I didn't have to study the sciences in 8th grade and got straight "As" because I'd studied them at home during the 7th grade. Those who want to learn won't let bad schools stop them. And those who REFUSE to learn can't be taught.
1
@loki2240 Nope" I look at history -- see school segregation -- and the under-resourcing of schools in poor neighborhoods, while schools in wealthy neighborhoods have abundant resources. Massachusetts had a long history of school segregation -- Roberts v. City of Boston 59 Mass. (5 Cush.) 198 (1850. That case became the precedent on which the US Supreme Court established "separate but equal" -- see Plessy v. Ferguson --thus enforcing segregation nationally. It was only in 1954 that that doctrine was overturned. Meanwhile, Massachusetts went through repeated segregation and then integration -- Black students were subjected to racism and abuse -- and resegregation of its schools, especially in Boston. Even into the 1970s, with the schools integrated, schools in poor neighborhoods were starved for resources. I went to schools on the poor side of my city. The worst of it was students who didn't want to be thee and made it miserable for everyone else. But I loved school, and engaged in unassigned studies at home that were self-chosen. And being poor we didn't have TV when most others did, so I read books. Parents too are a problem -- especially those who taught their kids that education was no more necessary for them than it was for the parents. You can bring a student to education but can't make them learn. The person must be willing to learn in order for the person to learn.
1
@costidisa I'm 75. The strategic disinvestment in education -- the Republican plan to dumb down the population so they can be bamboozled -- began in the very late 1970s, but accelerated with Reagan. And we are seeing the consequences with how easy it is to bamboozle 20-25 per cent of the population. The psychology was to talk endlessly about "freedom" and the alleged "attacks" on it -- and avoid EVER speaking of RESPONSIBILITY. I saw the equivalent growing up among my age group; but it wasn't then mainstreamed by irresponsible buffoons who are only in it for the money. Rogan, though, may actually believe some of the tripe that he guzzles and makes up.
1
@loki2240 Nope: I happen to know the history of RACIAL SEGREGATION in public schools, which ALWAYS resulted in lack of resources in poor neighborhoods. For where it "began" see Roberts v. City of Boston -- on which was subsequently based US Supreme Court decision Plessy v. Ferguson . Some of us actually know what we're talking about. My stance is PRO-EDUCATION -- and that is also based on my having attended public schools with others who not only didn't want to be there, but also made it miserable for those of us who did want to be. Blame their anti-education parents, who taught them that education is a waste of time.
1
@loki2240 One of the problems with US public schools is "social investment" by people morons and bigots who know nothing about education. Those who claim it is "indoctrination" object because they don't indoctrinate as they would have them do. One faction of those bigots want prayer put back in public schools -- the objection that not all students in public schools are "Christian" -- some are Jewish, some are Muslim, etc. -- and their response is from ignoring those facts to engaging in dishonest bullshit in effort to get around them. The idea that 'everyone has the right to express their opinion" ignores the fact that not all opinions are equal. Some are informed, most are not. Legitimate opinion has a chance of being true. Falsehoods elevated to "opinion" are, because false and therefore not true, cannot be legitimate opinion. So the dumbest tend to be the loudest about what is and isn't and should and should be "education". We see it going on with universities at present: alleged anti-Semitism on campus is getting attacked by people outside the universities who have no idea what "university" means. And it is virtually never pointed out that Palestinians are also Semites, and that they are also subjected to anti-Semitism. Add in that the goals of the Republican Party for more than forty years have included eliminating civics education -- they succeeded -- and forcing "history" onto the schools with which white racists are comfortable. So we get Florida's DeSantis asserting that slavery was actually "job training" and therefore positive.
1
@loki2240 Nope. I'm talking about racism, and inequalities based on relative poverty and wealth of communities. Nothing to do with "districts". There is still a legacy from slavery when slaves were prohibited learning to read -- and because they couldn't read they were called stupid. The same deprivations occur today in poor communities due to unequal resources provided by the powers that be.
1
@loki2240 You're still blaming the schools, instead of putting the primary responsibility where it belongs: on the ELECTORATE. And on the powers that be that favor the wealthy because the wealthy can afford paid lobbyists.
1
@eoin401 Not all "opinions" are equal. Some are uninformed, Mr. Accuser. And some are false.
1
@eoin401 Perhaps instead of touting your "different thinking" you should compare and contrast it with FACTS and then correct your errors. Instead of pretending your errors are legitimate, even though the facts refute them. Having "different ideas" isn't necessarily the same as actual THOUGHT. Nor are "belief" and "thought" the same thing. And spewing is a waste of everyone's time.
1
@ghernandez2263 So you reject the science and the fact that those killed by COVID were unvaccinated because, you claim, none of your family is vaccinated and none of them died? Do you know anything at all beyond stubborn ignorance?
1
@colleenshea2293 Do you not know who Isaac Asimov and Albert Einstein were? If one can't say it as well as another said it, then one quotes the other. That is a standard among those who don't simply reject reason because they have a "right" -- they in fact do not -- to be stone ignorant, and to inflict the consequences onto everyone else. Simply put, simpleton: anyone can believe anything they want; that does not make the belief TRUE. To the contrary, what matters, above all else, is not to prove one can be a permanent moron, but TRUTH.
1
@Satans_lil_helper Did we ask for YOUR alleged "opinion"?
1
@denofpigs2575 A nation of sleepwalkers, not thinkers.
1
@loki2240 That's essentially what I'm saying. The "best "schools" according to ratings are in the wealthy communities. And currently in the face of an affordable housing crisis those same communities are opposing the building of affordable housing -- because those communities are also racist; they imagine that "affordable" means "non-white". So they too are miseducated.
1
@eoin401 How about you learn basic written literacy? And how about you quoting whatever it is in my comments that you need clarified? In short: how about you stop being an unserious troll?
1
@eoin401 I said several things in response to your comment: Learn to be literate. Quote whatever I posted that you want clarified. Instead of doing either you yet again engage in personal attack -- because that's all you are here to do: troll. Show us you know how to go away.
1
@eoin401 Here's an opportunity to inform yourself of that you most loath -- rule of law, beginning with the Constitution: ___ From the North Carolina constitution adopted on December 18, 1776: "XXXI. That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral function. . . . . "XXXIV. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any pretence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, or has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform; but all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship:--_Provided_, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonous or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment." ___ From the constitution of Georgia adopted on February 5, 1777: "Art. LVI. All persons whatever shall have the free exercise of their religion; provided it be not repugnant to the peace and safety of the State; and shall not, unless by consent, support any teacher or teachers except those of their own profession." "Art. LXII. No clergyman of any denomination shall be allowed a seat in the legislature." ___ From New York constitution adopted on April 20. 1777: XXXIX. And whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function; therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under any pretence or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place within this State. ___ Those eventuated in the First Amendment separation of "religion" and gov't. And Christ instructed his followers to keep their "religious" practice PRIVATE -- because the public display of it so easily turns into ego trip, and then to hucksterism for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
1
@eoin401 in view of the fact that you don't respond to ISSUES, but instead continue to define yourself as a troll by continuing to sling bullshit, I'll conclude, based on that EVIDENCE, that you are too stupid to know how to respond to issues. That you are illiterate. And that you are only talking to yourself because totally lacking in the ethics, the manners, of actually dealing with issues. I gave you LAW in your face, and you totally ignore it -- either because you're too stupid to understand it, or -- more likely -- because my conclusion that you reject the rule of law is the fact. And that is no different than any other unimpressive run-of-the-mill criminal. So enjoy talking to yourself. I've attempted to engage you in discussion, but all you're about is shitting on the rug. If you can't show us you know how to go away then bye-bye and good riddance.
1
He's simply immoral and stupid. He doesn't consider consequences of his words because he's all and only about 'freedom of speech" without the maturity of circumspection and responsibility. He'd probably not restrict the "freedom" of a toddler wanting to cross the street into traffic.
1
@baxtronx5972 By cynically and destructively abusing freedom of speech.
1
@Randyy111 He's still a dumb-assed meathead whose out of his lack of depth.
1
@harrykadaras9459 The guy is just so obviously stupid -- how can anyone listen to him, let alone believe anything he said? The prices of microphones need to be raised above the ability of gym and street-corner bullshitters to afford them.
1
@rebellucy6200 Information isn't necessarily fact, let alone news. Trump claims the election was stolen -- but has produced ZERO EVIDENCE that it was. ALL the ACTUAL EVIDENCE proves he is LYING. Can YOU afford even one lawyer? Trump has a stadium full of them -- he is NOT a victim.
1
For MONEY. No different than third-generation New York con-man and career felon Trump.
1
@jonknestrick5219 But who do his VIEWERS believe -- the fact-checker, when they tune in to hear HIM?
1
@breadyegg Is that what the meathead is -- ex-MMA? No wonder the stupidity and brain damage.
1