A few church and diocese leaders have come out against his stunt. 

It depends.

You keep going on about being open to debate but take a flat earther as an example (i choose them as an obviously wrong conspiracy theory but I could have said many others).

It is honestly pointless debating that or giving it ANY oxygen and while it's a relatively harmless theory (besides certain idiots killing themselves) there are just as many pointless debates where giving air time to obviously wrong theories and views can be extremely dangerous to individuals and society as a whole.

Not interviewing a lunatic saying the earth is flat and bill gates wants to mind control you with vaccines when you have a panel of experts somewhere is not censorship. It's not even a question that needs to be asked.

You don't need a dissenting voice just because they are a dissenting voice.
That's not a debate worth having and it can harm vulnerable minds more than it can do good.

Expressed better than I could have done.

Cheers.

What about when you have a panel of not only experts but doctors, coming out and saying that the flu vaccine isn't good?

You do realise that there are experts on both sides don't you?

My point was that if someone comes up with a stupid theory that doesn't incite violence, then as a community we're much better off learning from the debate that'll come out and crash that theory.

Even if you don't put an end to it, you can safely say it'll reduce the number of people believing in it dramatically. 

If on the other hand you refuse to debate a theory that's wrong and delete that video, it actually gets more people believing in it because they think it is true. 

The best way of ending and theory, topic, whether controversial or not is to have an open debate with experts involved in that topic on both sides. 

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying videos encouraging violence or abuse should be accepted, that I'm okay with as everyone should be. 

Please share the established, peer reviewed evidence against the safety of flu vaccinations. 

Will you watch the video if I share it, or totally ignore it because it goes against your views?

I will.  Will you accept peer reviewed debunkings of fallacious claims?

ffs of course it's a youtube video.

Go for it.

I do accept debunkings. That's the best way to prove a theory incorrect. 

Why is it so hard to accept something so simple? I'm not the one calling or supporting censorship. 

 Are you seriously going to pretend to be that stupid that you think it'll be a clip off CNN or any other major mainstream network?

Will you watch a documentary in full if I send a link, and then make a judgment, or will you refuse to watch because it isn't on mainstream?

Because I'm not going to waste my time finding links if you'll straight out refuse. 

Why is it so hard to post some links?

Because all the good ones are deleted so I'm not going to waste my time trying to find them off another platform if no one will bother watching. 

Explain to me why there's plenty of stupid clips on YouTube against vaccines where they go way overboard with their theories, yet the ones that are less dramatic have been deleted?

If one video against vaccines is deleted, then shouldn't they all be deleted?

Twice in one day we've gotten the "I'm not doing your research for you."

You don't need a video.  Just quote a claim and we can at least see if it is valid.

Or stick your video up.  I already said I'll watch it.  I will be looking at it with a skeptical eye and fact checking anything that seems dodgy as fuck.

I never said I won't, I asked for someone to give me their word that they'll watch it regardless of it being on YouTube or any other platform. 

Like I said all the good ones are deleted so I'm try to find the video I saw. 

I highly doubt you'll watch it when I post it tomorrow once I find it, but considering you said you'll watch it with a skeptical eye that's good enough for me. 

I can't find the actual clip I really wanted some of you guys to watch which had doctors called to the stand in a few different inquests to answer questions. 

This is what sucks about censorship. It isn't morally right to take down informative videos but anyways I found one that is okay but nowhere near as good.

It's funny though how some are taken down, yet the one I send is still acceptable. Make of that what you want. 

https://youtu.be/cHWeJ0f_o3A

https://commonwealthofaustralia.org/world-health-organization-vaccine-safety-summit-for-lawmakers/

https://realimmunity.org/about-hp/

The first two are documentaries, and the last one is a website on alternatives. 

Let's see if you give it 2 hours to hear it all guys, or will you do the usual and disregard before watching a minute of it. 

Anyways if you do happen to watch it all I have only one question to ask. I'm not expecting to change anyone's opinion on the topic, my whole point of this is why should videos like these, and these doctors talking be censored?

They could be right or wrong. But either way they're not inciting violence, or racially abusing anyone so I see no reason for them not to have a voice.

I can't watch these right this minute but your logic is flawed.  You say 'I see no reason for them not to have a voice.'

There's a perfectly good reason.  If people take their advice and DIE they probably shouldn't be allowed a platform.

Just look at all the deaths from bloody measles in  the Solomon islands last year due to 'a voice' and a misinformation campaign.

Utterly disgraceful.  That's what happens when you allow unfettered free reign to any fuckwit.

James Mattis Denounces President Trump, Describes Him as a Threat to the Constitution
In an extraordinary condemnation, the former defense secretary backs protesters and says the president is trying to turn Americans against one another.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG
6:00 PM ET
Enjoy unlimited access to The Atlantic for less than $1 per week.
Sign in
Subscribe Now
James Mattis
CHRISTIE HEMM KLOK
Link Copied
James Mattis, the esteemed Marine general who resigned as secretary of defense in December 2018 to protest Donald Trump’s Syria policy, has, ever since, kept studiously silent about Trump’s performance as president. But he has now broken his silence, writing an extraordinary broadside in which he denounces the president for dividing the nation, and accuses him of ordering the U.S. military to violate the constitutional rights of American citizens.

“I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled,” Mattis writes. “The words ‘Equal Justice Under Law’ are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation.” He goes on, “We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.”

Mike Mullen: I cannot remain silent

In his j’accuse, Mattis excoriates the president for setting Americans against one another.

MORE STORIES

History Will Judge the Complicit
ANNE APPLEBAUM

The Prophecies of Q
ADRIENNE LAFRANCE

The American Nightmare
IBRAM X. KENDI
“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us,” Mattis writes. “We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.”

He goes on to contrast the American ethos of unity with Nazi ideology. “Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that ‘The Nazi slogan for destroying us … was “Divide and Conquer.” Our American answer is “In Union there is Strength.”’ We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis—confident that we are better than our politics.”

Adam Serwer: America’s racial contract is showing

Mattis’s dissatisfaction with Trump was no secret inside the Pentagon. But after his resignation, he argued publicly—and to great criticism—that it would be inappropriate and counterproductive for a former general, and a former Cabinet official, to criticize a sitting president. Doing so, he said, would threaten the apolitical nature of the military. When I interviewed him last year on this subject, he said, “When you leave an administration over clear policy differences, you need to give the people who are still there as much opportunity as possible to defend the country. They still have the responsibility of protecting this great big experiment of ours.” He did add, however: “There is a period in which I owe my silence. It’s not eternal. It’s not going to be forever.”

That period is now definitively over. Mattis reached the conclusion this past weekend that the American experiment is directly threatened by the actions of the president he once served. In his statement, Mattis makes it clear that the president’s response to the police killing of George Floyd, and the ensuing protests, triggered this public condemnation.

Read: The Christians who loved Trump’s stunt

“When I joined the military, some 50 years ago,” he writes, “I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.”

He goes on to implicitly criticize the current secretary of defense, Mark Esper, and other senior officials as well. “We must reject any thinking of our cities as a ‘battlespace’ that our uniformed military is called upon to ‘dominate.’ At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict—between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.

Adam Serwer: Trump gave police permission to be brutal

Here is the text of the complete statement.

IN UNION THERE IS STRENGTH
I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words “Equal Justice Under Law” are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation.

When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.

From the July/August 2020 issue: History will judge the complicit

We must reject any thinking of our cities as a “battlespace” that our uniformed military is called upon to “dominate.” At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict—between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.

James Madison wrote in Federalist 14 that “America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat.” We do not need to militarize our response to protests. We need to unite around a common purpose. And it starts by guaranteeing that all of us are equal before the law.

Eliot A. Cohen: America’s generals must stand up to Trump

Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that “The Nazi slogan for destroying us…was ‘Divide and Conquer.’ Our American answer is ‘In Union there is Strength.’” We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis—confident that we are better than our politics.

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.

From the June 2020 issue: We are living in a failed state

We can come through this trying time stronger, and with a renewed sense of purpose and respect for one another. The pandemic has shown us that it is not only our troops who are willing to offer the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of the community. Americans in hospitals, grocery stores, post offices, and elsewhere have put their lives on the line in order to serve their fellow citizens and their country. We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution. At the same time, we must remember Lincoln’s “better angels,” and listen to them, as we work to unite.

Only by adopting a new path—which means, in truth, returning to the original path of our founding ideals—will we again be a country admired and respected at home and abroad.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/james-mattis-denounces-trump-protests-militarization/612640/?fbclid=IwAR0rQzJIY7gt5ck8PeV87Eq0fxOCXhX7x_uR1cKo6KG2inBVa9xE1o5q_8c

-PB

I’ll watch these videos during the course of the weekend. I won’t dismiss them out of hand and hear what they have to say.

Amazing

My thoughts exactly.  Trump's all class response?



'Probably the only thing Barack Obama and I have in common is that we both had the honor of firing Jim Mattis, the world’s most overrated General," Trump wrote. "I asked for his letter of resignation, & felt great about it. His nickname was 'Chaos', which I didn’t like, & changed it to 'Mad Dog.' His primary strength was not military, but rather personal public relations. I gave him a new life, things to do, and battles to win, but he seldom 'brought home the bacon'. I didn’t like his 'leadership' style or much else about him, and many others agree. Glad he is gone!"

I will too.  Just read the crib notes on the 2nd link.  I'm not confident.  The doctor (Larsen) (sp?) talking about vaccines has a double doctorate in immunology and virology.

Just kidding.  It's actually a doctorate in anthropology. 

Let's start with this. I'll look at the others later. 

Heidi Larrson appears to be an anthropologist first and foremost who's job is to undertake research and collate data on vaccine confidence in different social settings. This has little to do with vaccine safety per se.  If anyone like her is calling for a summit it has to do with declining confidence in vaccines because some people get their medial facts from wellness bloggers and instagram influencers instead of actual experts.

Literally nothing else in the notable excerpts section below the video points to evidence of any kind suggesting any type of vaccine could be dangerous.

I don't expect any of you to change your mind on the topics of vaccines. 

All I'm saying I'm against is the fact certain people think these people shouldn't have a voice. 

Okay fair enough when you have someone like a David Icke talking about vaccines being bad, but not so much when it is a doctor or someone very well experienced in that field. Anyone in that field should have a voice.

Personally I'd much rather take advice from a doctor over someone like Bill Gates, just like I would rather take advice from. Bill Gates on IT instead of from a doctor. 

And last but not least the mum's and dad's who have had their own kids affected because of the vaccine. 

Like I said they could be wrong, but they should be proven wrong instead of silenced. 

Okay so I'm guessing you've watched it. Although you don't agree with it ( that's fine ), don't you think that information like this shouldn't be censored on platforms like YouTube?

And I totally understand as a private company they have the right, but I'm just asking you from a moral point of view wouldn't you be okay with that clip or any similar not being banned?

When did I advocate censorship? 

You originally suggested an open debate. In my opinion that is a waste of time unless we start to see peer reviewed arguments based on proper data that vaccines are dangerous. 

No I never said you did, I just thought you were in favour of it, and wanted to ask you the question to know for certain.  

I totally agree with you about peer reviewed arguments. I would much rather have that over anything else. It really is the best way to get the truth in any topic. 

Thanks Burztur, I know the interview is close to two hours, and therefore could be a time waster for you but atleast you're open to hear it atleast. 

I agree about the peer review. 

I'm not going to watch it, because I'm pretty sure I'll disagree with it. But it all goes back to that old saying that I think came from a lawyer somewhere.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

It would be nice if they came out against the fact that their church was burned down. 

Did Trump Say ‘This Is a Great Day’ for George Floyd?

The president's comments came during a press conference about employment statistics on June 5, 2020.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-george-floyd-great-day/

Why yes.  Yes he did.