re: QT on Joe Rogan: 'If anybody has a problem with the Bruce Lee portrayal, go suck a d*ck'

Okay, let's go into how illogical this is hypothetically...

Let's say someone comes in the thread and claims that Rogan supports UBI, but only if people eat ham sandwiches every day.
How are you going to prove that doesn't exist? How many videos of him not saying it would be sufficient proof?

quote:

---

Random opinions of people who make stuff up are not.

---

Your statements are also opinions not facts like you’re acting like

quote:

---

I can start linking videos of Rogan talking about UBI, but not saying what you claim, and then how many would be sufficient????????

---

Here you go
Here’s Rogan talking about how socialism can work and it’s obvious he feels very strongly about socialized healthcare and education.

Now let me guess. You’re going to say that’s not welfare right? But the whole point of UBI while taking out other forms of welfare, is to be able to pay for your health and education among other things.

Or you’re going to say he didn’t mention UBI. But considering how strongly he feels about this, what makes you think he would want this all to go away just by implementing UBI. The guy is arguing for hybrid socialist world. Which isn’t just UBI and everything else non-welfare. His whole thing for UBI is because people don’t or won’t have many jobs anymore. So it’s just replacing the lost job aspect not the takeover all other forms of welfare aspect.

quote:

---

It's incredible that people are like this in an era of information.

---

It’s amazing people like you can’t come to a conclusion unless it’s laid out for you word for word.

Connect the pieces. Rogan has said before he’s for certain aspects of socialism besides just UBI. And he’s a Bernie guy. Seems very likely he’s for expanding the welfare state and not just in the UBI aspect.

I know he supported Sanders.
That and other views are not what is in dispute. You and this other guy want to make this about anything but the one specific claim in contention.
So, if you want your association to Sanders to mean anything relative to that point, you need to link Sanders saying he supports UBI + all other means of welfare. I have not heard him say that he would favor UBI with no adjustment to other programs.

...

...

Let's not gloss over specifics. What we're talking about relates to the claim you made. All these other generalities are just getting away from that.

To the general point where you attenpt to tie it in, which you did not, supporting a candidate does not necessarily mean someone would support every single policy position of that candidate.
All of this is utter absurdity.

quote:

---

That video is essentially meaningless to the point in contention.

---

Entirely your opinion

quote:

---

You can find ZERO evidence for that claim

---

By now you know your claim is BS.

But I’m going to keep this thing to one comment.

It is pointless to link him talking about programs outside the context of UBI.
UBI is at the center of what we're talking about.

There's really nothing to talk about, though. You should have some character and just say you overeached and misrepresented him and there's zero evidence for your claim. Done.

quote:

---

What we're talking about relates to the claim you made. All these other generalities are just getting away from that.

---

It’s not my fault you need something spelled out word for word for you. But I don’t think you’re stupid, because if you were to use your critical thinking skills your initial argument would fall apart.

quote:

---

So, if you want your association to Sanders to mean anything relative to that point, you need to link Sanders saying he supports UBI + all other means of welfare.

---

I actually don’t. Rogan supports UBI. Rogan also supports Bernie because of Bernie’s polices. So obviously he supports both.

quote:

---

so you're making all these illogical attempts

---

You didn’t knew that video existed didn’t you?

Do you have any idea what illogical means? Again do think you do, you just don’t want to admit defeat. My argument is following a very clear logic here. He clearly supports socialized polices.

He’s stated in videos that UBI is not enough to solve everything. He has said “we” need to do more. Not go to other countries to start wars, but use that time and resources here to help people. Yet you act like Rogan is all for eliminating welfare outside UBI. The guy who practically called himself a semi socialist thinks UBI is enough according to your opinion.

quote:

---

The video contains zero evidence for your claim. That's a fact.

---

You don’t need word for word something said to reach a conclusion. You claiming it’s fact is just your opinion


Can I ask what overall point you were trying to get at here? Because I started off saying Rogan is a hypocrite with his “taxes bad but socialism” good talking points. That’s still what I’m getting at.

As you said, some people who promote UBI do so because they are greatly against the idea of numerous welfare programs. They’re not the “either UBI or all other social welfare programs”. If even hypothetically Rogan was for UBI plus nothing else, he would fall into the 2nd category not the first case. He thinks many aspects of socialism are needed in our society.

quote:

---

There's really nothing to talk about, though. You should have some character and just say you overeached and misrepresented him and there's zero evidence for your claim. Done.

---

Are you concerned about his honor?

Regardless I did no such thing. Keep crying about it

quote:

---

1BamaRTR

---

What is your age and how do you self-describe politically?

quote:

---

seems to have worked

---

Definitely not.

quote:

---

follow up

---

Yeah, I want to know if you fit the mold of the typical encounter like this I've had. I also want to know if you're religious. But as far as your idiocy and misrepresenting, that should have been over.

I know this game. It's a very stupid one. Part of it is to never "admit" or back off of an unreasonable claim (despite no evidence to support it or contrary evidence). It's a deep character flaw.

And this thread turned into a trainwreck

quote:

---

Definitely not.

---

Don’t worry, no need to embarrass yourself, I know

quote:

---

Yeah, I want to know if you fit the mold of the typical encounter like this I've had. I also want to know if you're religious.

---

Gets onto me for being supposedly off topic but now wants to go in a completely different direction.

quote:

---

But as far as your idiocy and misrepresenting, that should have been over.

---

You entire argument was non-existent

quote:

---

Part of it is to never "admit" or back off of an unreasonable claim (despite no evidence to support it or contrary evidence). It's a deep character flaw.

---

I’ve given you evidence, but you refuse to admit it as evidence. It’s like refusing to add camera footage that a murderer was at the scene of a crime because it doesn’t directly capture the crime happening. It’s the collections of evidence together that builds the case. Hard to do when you dismiss all of it.

quote:

---

I know this game. It's a very stupid one.

---

I know, with you playing the stupid role and all. Again I don’t think you’re stupid, you’re just playing the role of an idiot.

I'm capable of deduction. In your world of things having to be exactly and neatly laid out (because that’s exactly what you want right?), we would have never accomplished anything in society. Because the world isn’t that way. Imagine a scientist rejecting an experiment because the results were just barely off from the expected value.

Rogan is a semi-socialist (as admitted by himself), is a fan of Bernie’s many welfare policies, and is also a fan of UBI. He said nothing to suggest he wants one over the other.