Blood sport or debate?

Blood sport or debate?

Dr Kevin McCairn recently hosted a debate with Eric from Hot Topikz. Eric placed a a clipped version of the debate on his own website (https://youtu.be/m9cbs_7cwfs) with the following write up:

... I had to cut over an hour out of it from the beginning middle portions and end, otherwise youtube would have taken it down, but you will see its bad enough as is. They hated Jews Blacks, gays, and pretty much all religions and suspected them of "stalking his family" causing them to become "transhumanist"... and of course they pretty much implied that "the Jews" are the only ones in banking lol, and the only ones powerful enough to destroy the world... Paranoia and ignorance at its finest... After I left them thumped and sore and embarrassed, this is what one of them left for me in my discord account.... And I quote... "..and u should learn to act your boomer age raised in communism you children of the 60's I bet you didn't even go to school be it primary or even high school with blacks you Jew lover blinded by Marxism on race at least I can say I have spent 100000000% more time with blacks colored Indians Chinese (lol) Eric may you rot in the soil and be greatly disappointed concerning your beliefs" 

Now Eric is misrepresenting the views of Dr McCairn and Boergle but then again they are misrepresenting his views.  The debate generated a lot of heat but very little light.  What does point scoring and name calling achieve?  I thought we were better than that.   Everybody approached the debate with preconceived prejudices and had them confirmed (golf clap).    It is truly a wondrous experience to behold  Boergle in full flow mounting an expletive driven assault with his withering condescension and delicious accent……but it also makes him so easy to dismiss.   And that is the problem…people would love to label Boergle (and people like him) as a racist and dismiss them. But it is not a simple black and white issue (pun intended). The Boers shed sweat and blood in a land they believe was covenanted to them and the history  of that troubled period is not what is currently portrayed (which is why Boergle is archiving it before it is sanitized). Suffice to say that Marxism and Jewish agitation and activism was a driving force on one side balanced by Zionist support for apartheid with clandestine  biological, chemical and nuclear weapons on the other side.  Hegelian dialectic anyone?  Neither  is it antisemitic to note the fact that our current woes are beholden to Jewish ideology pursued by Jewish institutions, whether they be media, pharma or banking.  Living in denial because you are afraid to be labeled a racist is not an option.   We no longer have the luxury of self-indulgence, fictive realities and virtue signalling.  Here then is the full uncensored debate (nearly five hours).  I hope that someone on the Dojo will get around to time stamping the video.

My response to the debate is below. I think it is fair to ask questions regarding hermeneutics because methodology is very important.  In the previous stream Dr McCairn analyzed a scientific paper showing shared immune responses when comparing Covid and HIV infections (at 01:45) Kevin had methodological questions such as “How long did the patients have HIV?”  and at one point suggested that other influenza or coronavirus infections should have been used as control by way of comparison.  That seems like a sensible idea when comparing overlap.  Scientific methodology is like hermeneutics. You have to establish a credible framework otherwise you are building sand castles.

Context is Everything (1:17)