How to Beat Someone Who's "Just Asking Questions"

[00:00:00]Excess deaths in Europe are up about 20% and they have been since the end of the COVID par pandemic.

[00:00:06]>> Sounds really high to me. 20%.

[00:00:09]>> Are you implying that you think it's because of vaccines?

[00:00:11]>> I'm not implying anything. I'm what the excess deaths are.

[00:00:16]>> A statistic with no source repeated for confidence with homework assigned. Go look, Bucko.

[00:00:22]>> Don't bring your damn problems to me, Bucko.

[00:00:25]>> Then the obvious follow-up arrives.

[00:00:27]Well, what do you think is causing it?

[00:00:30]And suddenly, the man who raised the number was never suggesting anything at all. He's just asking questions.

[00:00:37]>> I'm just asking questions.

[00:00:38]>> I'm not implying anything.

[00:00:39]>> I'M ASKING QUESTIONS.

[00:00:41]>> OH, WELL, that's quite the disclaimer coming from a man who built an empire 12 rules at a time on telling men to stand up straight and take responsibility for their words.

[00:00:51]>> Well, you're leaving out responsibility.

[00:00:52]And then the question is, well, what are you leaving out if you're leaving out responsibility? And the answer might be, well, maybe you're leaving out the meaning of life. That's what it looks like to me.

[00:01:02]>> Why hello, my fellow apes. I hope you are well. Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist who no longer sees patients, a professor emeritus who no longer has students, and more recently, the Daily Wire's in-house profit of civilizational decline.

[00:01:16]>> DW Plus is not woke, is Netflix, >> has spent the better part of a decade perfecting his signature move. The explosive claim delivered from one step behind. Close enough to bask in the heat far enough to disown the blast. He raises questions, floats possibilities, just states the data, and leaves the conclusion hanging in the air for his audience to finish for him.

[00:01:38]>> I'm not implying anything.

[00:01:40]>> It's smart. It's very smart. A thought you can never complete is a thought you can never be held to. The setting is his own show. Episode 433 of the Jordan B.

[00:01:49]Peterson podcast. Recorded in person in March of 2024. No clock, home advantage entirely his, and yet none of it will help him. And if this matchup rings a bell, it should. I've already dissected another stretch of this very conversation in how to expose a closet fascist. Link in the description below.

[00:02:07]>> Well, I also think it's an open question still to what degree Hitler's policies were right-wing versus leftwing, and no one's done the analysis properly yet to determine that. What?

[00:02:17]What the?

[00:02:18]>> At this point, the two of them have already been at climate policy for a stretch with Peterson arguing that the green energy movement is communism smuggled in under a guise of compassion.

[00:02:28]>> It has this guise of compassion. Oh, we're going to save the poor in the future. It's like that's what the bloody communists said and they killed a lot of people doing it and we're walking down that same road now. And the trouble starts of all places at the point of maximal agreement, nuclear power, because his guest offers a symmetry there. The left fears reactors the same way the right fears vaccines. And both fears are overblown. And Peterson cannot, absolutely cannot let that second half stand.

[00:02:57]>> That guest is Steven Bennell, Destiny to the internet at large. A streamer with well over a decade of live, often inerson argument behind him. much of it conducted in venues that wanted him to lose and the owner of the one reflex that implication pedalling can't survive. When a claim arrives with its deniability built in, he asks the author to state it plainly. Sure, it's not a sophisticated technique, but neither is a crowbar. The point is that it works.

[00:03:24]He's also, as you'll see, playing scrupulously fair throughout. He conceds an awkward Biden quote. He offers a maybe our check afterwards on a figure he doubts. And that good faith is what makes the stonewalling from Petersonen so egregiously obvious. The lesson today then is Jordan Peterson's favorite trick. Innuendo, advancing a conclusion by implication so that it never has to be defended as a claim.

[00:03:47]>> Something is causing it.

[00:03:48]>> Well, that obviously >> something is causing it or or some combination of factors.

[00:03:53]>> You don't say.

[00:03:54]>> You've already seen the finished product. What follows is the assembly piece by piece and the one question that takes it apart. So that the turn lands with its full weight. We're join the conversation a moment early. With Destiny making what he clearly assumes is the least controversial case in the world, that nuclear power is fine.

[00:04:13]>> People don't want nuclear energy because they think of nukes and they think of nuclear meltdowns and they think of Chernobyl and they think of Fukushima and they think of atomic bombs and that's it and that's stupid and I agree with you. But nuclear energy is a totally viable alternative to other forms of >> then why does the radical left oppose it?

[00:04:29]>> So Destiny's opened with a gift. The two of them agree here. Nuclear power is safe. The fear of it is irrational. The left should get over it. Common ground freely offered. Yet Peterson's first instinct is to reach past the agreement for a single word, radical.

[00:04:45]>> Why does the radical left oppose it?

[00:04:47]>> Why, he asks, does the radical left oppose it? And here's why he does this.

[00:04:52]Because a merely mistaken opposition needs no explaining. People are wrong about things constantly. No story required. A radical opposition though that's opposition with an agenda behind it. Something concealed. Something you can make sound sinister. One sentence into the exchange and of all the available explanations, he's gone straight for the one with a villain in it.

[00:05:13]>> Why does the radical left oppose it? You think it's just this M see you >> for the for the for the same reason the right opposes vaccines because it sounds scary and it's a big thing and they don't trust it.

[00:05:21]>> And here's an olive branch. Destiny's answering the question by reaching for the fear the left is prone to and holding it up as a mirror image. The left flinches at reactors, the right flinches at vaccines. And both flinches are equivalent. A flinch at a big, scary, poorly understood technology handed down by an institution that you don't trust.

[00:05:40]>> Cuz it sounds scary if it's a big thing and they don't trust it.

[00:05:42]>> That's about as generous as an analogy gets in political conversation. Nobody's being scored on. The offer is we're all human. Every tribe has a dumb reflex.

[00:05:51]Let's agree that both of them are dumb.

[00:05:53]So the expected response, the reasonable response would be some version of yes and both fears are equally silly. Let's see if we get that.

[00:06:02]>> For the same reason the right opposes vaccines because it sounds scary. It's a big thing and they don't trust it. It comes >> well. The right has a reason to distrust vaccines in the aftermath of the co debacle >> because they were imposed by force.

[00:06:14]>> There it is. The left's fear of reactors is irrational. He signed off on that premise without a fight. The rights sphere of vaccines though, well that has and itself a reason. One side is superstition. The other side is considered a response to events. And the ground he's chosen is worth clocking force. He hasn't said a word about the vaccines being dangerous. That comes later. The objection here is that they were imposed. A civil liberties complaint wheeled in to answer a question about whether a fear of the technology itself is rational, which is about to cost him. Because if force is the standard, destiny has a symmetry ready for that, too. Here's a story where you would expect the facts to just speak for themselves. Trump threatens to cut off all US trade with Spain over refusal to use military bases in Iran war. You see, Spain declined US military use of its bases for strikes on Iran.

[00:07:11]Trump threatened a full trade embargo.

[00:07:13]>> So, we we're going to cut off all trade with Spain. We don't want anything to do with Spain. And so, Prime Minister Shanzes responded with three words. No to war. Simple, right? And yet, Brown News shows 442 sources covering this story. 61 left, 62 right, and 109 centrist with framing so different you'd be forgiven for thinking that they were reporting from separate planets. This level of insight is only possible thanks to Ground News, a website and app designed to make reading the news easier and more datadriven. Every day they gather thousands of news articles from all across the world and organize them by story with each coming with visual breakdowns of reporting bias, reliability, and ownership to give you a cleaner sense of how the news is being framed. Let's return to our story and you can follow along at ground.news/rationality.

[00:08:06]The Hamilton spectator, leaning left with high factuality, leads with Sanchez as the protagonist. Spain's Sanchez stands firm on opposition to war in Iran despite Trump's trade threat, warning the conflict risks playing Russian roulette with millions. One courageous leader holding the line against Washington. Then there's WLT report. Far right with low factuality breaking President Trump cuts off all trade with Spain. Trump is tired of being treated unfairly and Spain's PM is of course dismissed as their leftist PM. No geopolitics, no alliance considerations, no nuance, just a victory lap. And Euro News centrist with very high factuality simply reports no to war. Sanchez reaffirms Spain's stance on Trump's Iran campaign. No heroes, no villains, just what happened. Same event, three completely different stories. And without Ground News, most people would only ever see one of them. If you want to start seeing the full picture for yourself right now, you can get 40% off Ground News's Vantage plan at ground.news/rationality or scan the QR code on screen now.

[00:09:16]You'll be supporting independent media and indeed this channel at the same time. Thanks.

[00:09:22]>> Because they were imposed by force and that was a very >> You get to choose if you have a nuclear power plant. That's imposed by force, too. No, you don't get to choose where your energy comes from. If you live in a country, you just you turn the light switch and hopefully you don't have a Chernobyl that melts down in your particular town, right?

[00:09:36]>> Well, you get to choose it because you can buy it or not.

[00:09:40]>> Well, choice.

[00:09:41]>> It does, but the >> Nobody had a choice with the vaccines.

[00:09:44]>> Nobody had a choice whether or not they lived near Chernobyl or not. Nobody's a choice.

[00:09:49]>> What we have here is a case of special pleading applying a standard to every case except the one you care about with no principled reason for the exemption.

[00:09:57]The standard on the table is choice.

[00:09:59]Peterson introduced it. Force is bad.

[00:10:02]Choice is good. That's his frame >> because they were imposed by force.

[00:10:07]>> So, Destiny tests it. Do you choose whether a reactor is built near your town? And the standard crumbles on contact.

[00:10:15]>> You get to choose if you have a nuclear power plant. That's imposed by force, too. No.

[00:10:18]>> For the vaccine, Peterson assures us choice carries its strict meaning, the real one. Bodily and personal. The kind he says nobody had. For nuclear, however, choice means you can buy the electricity or not. A definition where pretty much nothing is ever counted as force because you could always go without.

[00:10:36]>> Well, you get to choose it because you can buy it or not.

[00:10:39]>> Now, to be clear, Peterson does offer reasons for treating the two differently. You can buy his argument or not. They could move away. Of course, assuming that they are financially stable.

[00:10:49]>> Nobody had a choice whether or not they lived near Chernobyl or not. Nobody has a choice. There's a nuclear move away.

[00:10:54]What an odd thing to say.

[00:10:55]>> But a reason is not a principle. A principle survives being pointed at your own side. His reasons, as Destiny is about to show, do not. Same word, two definitions. And the definition he reaches for each time is the one that hands his side the wind.

[00:11:10]>> Nobody had a choice whether or not they lived near Chernobyl or not. Nobody has a choice. There's a nuclear power.

[00:11:14]>> Well, how realistic is it to move like 500 miles? That's like telling conservatives when uh Biden tried to do the OSHA mandate for vaccines like, "Well, you just get a different job."

[00:11:22]Another immediate symmetry from destiny.

[00:11:25]Just get another job is the very line conservatives spent 2021 furious about when the Biden administration pushed vaccine or test requirements onto large employers. Well, you can always quit.

[00:11:36]Was the brush off the right called out correctly as no real choice at all. So Destiny's taken the move away handwave and shown that it's the same brushoff pointed the other way. He's caught the double standard and the evidence he's produced is Peterson's own side's grievance. That's like telling conservatives when uh Biden tried to do the OSHA mandate for vaccines like well you just get a different job right >> I don't want to debate about whether or not large nuclear power plants are frightening. They are and there are technologies now where that's not a problem.

[00:12:04]>> He faults not wanting to debate whether the plants are frightening. The question critically nobody has put to him. The actual question is why one irrational fear gets a pass while the other gets a lecture and every answer to that costs him something. So the exchange simply gets abandoned. One exchange in and the pattern of the conversation is set. A symmetry is offered. Peterson conjures a supposed asymmetry which then gets exposed. And then rather than defend it, he changes the subject. A tidy system, huh? Provided that nobody's keeping score. That merrygoround is going to repeat. And when it does, the stakes climb from reactors to body count. Mind you, it technically takes some time to come back around. The two of them wander off. climate policy. Hitler. Yes.

[00:12:51]>> I don't think you compare like Hitler to people that are worried about climate change. The worry that I HAVE HERE IS >> HEY, I know you.

[00:12:57]>> There's no comparison between Mau and a trans activist, is there?

[00:13:02]>> Why not? And now back to your regularly scheduled program.

[00:13:05]>> And we spare you all of it. We rejoin right as the ride returns. Destiny doing some housekeeping on recent history.

[00:13:11]>> So, we can pretend now that the conservative argument was just compulsory vaccines are bad because they infringe my freedom. That wasn't the conservative argument. The conservative argument was that mass deaths were going to happen. Mass side effects were going to happen. Uh there was going to be all this corruption and stuff related to vaccine distribution to the crazier theories where microchips and blah blah blah. None of that came true. Absolutely none of the conservative fear-mongering related to the mRNA vaccines came to fruition. But now that's all forgotten.

[00:13:37]>> This is sharp history keeping and it's easy to miss what it's just done.

[00:13:41]Destiny spotted that Peterson is frankly grossly downplaying the objection. In 2021, the conservative case against vaccines was a full set of empirical predictions. Mass deaths, mass side effects, corruption in the distribution, and out on the fringe, microchips. These are falsifiable claims about the future.

[00:14:00]Every one of them. Yet, the future arrived and demolished the lot. But now that the dust has settled, the case has been folded into one clean concern that no evidence can ever touch. It was about freedom all along. That's all. because they were imposed by force.

[00:14:15]>> This is a rewrite that Destiny is refusing to cosign.

[00:14:19]>> Absolutely none of the conservative fearongering related to the mRNA vaccines came to fruition, but now that's all forgotten and that was >> none of it. What do you make of the excess death?

[00:14:27]>> All righty. This is the pivot that the rest of the conversation turns on.

[00:14:31]Destiny's point is that the predictions didn't come true. Peterson's answer reaches for excess deaths, a different quantity altogether. It's also an instance of equivocation, letting a single word slide between two meanings mid- argument so that what's true of one meaning gets treated as true of the other. He's already run this once today with choice. The word this time is deaths. Destiny's talking about deaths caused by the vaccine. Peterson's talking about excess deaths, an all cause figure. Every death above the expected baseline from any source whatsoever. Cancer, heart disease, misdiagnosis, everything. They are not the same number and they aren't measuring the same thing. But if the word is allowed to carry you from one to the other without stopping, a spooky unexplained allcore statistic starts doing the work of evidence that the vaccine is terminating people with nobody ever having to say so. Destiny first answers the question at face value.

[00:15:27]>> What do you mean none of what do you make of the excess deaths >> there that for related to vaccines?

[00:15:32]There are almost none. This the mRNA vaccines have been administered to excess related to vaccines.

[00:15:37]>> We don't know. No, we don't know.

[00:15:39]>> Now, Destiny's right on the substance.

[00:15:41]Verified deaths caused by the mRNA vaccine are against a backdrop of billions of doses vanishingly rare.

[00:15:48]Being scrupulous about it, his we absolutely know runs a touch more confident than it should. And Peterson pounces on that overstatement and nothing else.

[00:15:57]>> We don't know. No.

[00:15:58]>> But the pouncing is the same flat denial carrying nothing behind it. Not a source, not a figure. It's a shrug as if it's a reputation. This is special pleading again. And the standard being bent this time is proof itself. When Destiny makes the well-ec claim that vaccine attributed deaths are near zero, the standard becomes we can't really know anything. Meanwhile, the unstated claim humming away underneath Peterson's own position that the vaccines are behind those excess deaths stays exempt from that same skepticism. Doubt in his hands is out for the other man's evidence. Nowhere to be seen for his own.

[00:16:35]>> We don't know. No. We don't absolutely know. We absolutely like settled.

[00:16:39]>> What do we know >> in terms of vaccine related?

[00:16:41]>> No. No. No. That's not my question.

[00:16:44]>> Destiny reasonably tries to nail the terms down. Vaccine related deaths.

[00:16:49]That's the subject, right?

[00:16:50]>> No.

[00:16:52]No. No. No. No. No.

[00:16:53]>> And the answer is an avalanche of nos because it can't be his question. Why?

[00:16:59]The moment the topic gets pinned to vaccine caused deaths, the number is near zero and the point evaporates. So he needs the term floating free. He needs excess deaths, big, unattributed, frightening, precisely because nobody's attributed them. The refusal to let destiny define the term is the whole mechanism. A quantity kept vague can imply anything you like.

[00:17:21]>> In terms of vaccine related >> No, no, no, no, no. That's not my question.

[00:17:25]Excess deaths in Europe are up about 20% and they have been since the end of the co paric >> really high to me 20%.

[00:17:34]>> Peterson has produced a number up about 20% and holding ever since the pandemic ended. It's specific. It's enormous and it arrives with no source whatsoever.

[00:17:45]What it arrives with instead is an instruction. Go look. And that instruction is the entire supporting apparatus. This is a straight reversal of the burden of proof. The rule that whoever makes a claim carries the job of backing it. The 20% is his number. The looking was his to have done ideally before asserting it to his opposition.

[00:18:05]>> Go look.

[00:18:06]>> Handing the verification to Destiny and to you at home only works because of what go look assumes that nobody in the middle of a live conversation can and nobody at home ever will. It's why Peterson performs this with the confidence of a man who has checked without the inconvenience of the checking. So, I did the homework and the number we've been dared to verify turns out to be a particular kind of number.

[00:18:31]You see, Europe's excess mortality really was brutal during the pandemic waves. No quarrel. I experienced it myself. In fact, I watched my dad die of the disease. But 20% sustained since the pandemic ended is a different claim. and the data flatly declines to support it.

[00:18:48]By the first quarter of 2023, EUwide excess mortality had fallen to roughly 1% above baseline. It jumped around after that. The worst hit countries, your Luxembourgs and Finlands, spiked into the low to mid- teens in their worst months, while the EU average stayed far below. By late 2024, it sat near 5%. So that 20% that Peterson is pushing is a crisis era number, pandemic wave territory, nothing like the years since. quoting it as the ongoing rate is reporting last year's flood as today's water level. Now, we have the fortune of looking this up, but none of this data is available to the man actually sitting opposite him. In that chair, all destiny can do is take the number on trust and start proddding it for confounds. His first prod is the obvious one.

[00:19:34]>> Excess deaths in Europe are up about 20% and they have been since the end of the co >> sounds really high to me. 20%. I mean, I'll check afterwards, but um is this including like the Ukrainian war with Russia?

[00:19:47]>> No. No, it's not including the Ukrainian war.

[00:19:49]>> Okay. No.

[00:19:50]>> What are you implying that you think it's because of vaccines?

[00:19:52]>> I'm not implying anything. I'm seeing what the excess deaths are.

[00:19:56]>> And this right here is the innuendo.

[00:19:59]Persuasion by implications.

[00:20:01]>> I'm not implying anything.

[00:20:02]>> Advancing a claim by insinuation so that you collect the full persuasive force of having said it while carrying none of the responsibility of defending it. The sequence he's just run is worth laying out end to end. Destiny is defending the mRNA vaccine. Peterson lowers a huge unexplained death figure, one that he confirms doesn't include the war in Ukraine, which strips out the most obvious innocent explanation on offer.

[00:20:26]And here's the problem with just stating the data. Why would excess deaths enter a conversation about vaccine safety at all if not to link the two? The link is the entire reason the number is relevant. And the instant Destiny explicitly says the link, "Are you implying it's the vaccine?" Peterson drops it like it's scolding.

[00:20:45]>> I'm not implying anything.

[00:20:47]>> The escape route has a name, too. Mott and Bailey advance a bold exposed claim, the Bailey. Then the moment it draws fire, retreat to a modest, easily defendable one, the Mott. As though the safe claim were the whole of what you meant. The Bailey here is that the vaccines are causing mass death in Europe. That's the claim with the punch and it's the one that every viewer is meant to walk away carrying. The m is that he's merely citing a statistic and nobody can prosecute a man for reading out a number. He lives in the bailey. He raised the death toll mid- vaccine defense and declined every innocent attribution offered. But the second he's challenged, he sprints for the mott and pulls the drawbridge up behind him. I am telling you, Innuendo and Mott and Bailey are and always have been Peterson's bread and butter. Well, along with deliberate offiscation and equivocation.

[00:21:37]>> It depends on how you define your benefit. It depends on what you mean by valid. It depends on what you mean by happy. Depends on what you mean by belief.

[00:21:43]>> What do you mean do? What do you mean you? What do you mean believe?

[00:21:47]>> Is he okay?

[00:21:48]>> Am I okay? First, we must define okay.

[00:21:51]>> So, Destiny's next move is the counter.

[00:21:54]And it's almost embarrassingly simple.

[00:21:57]>> Are you implying that you think it's because of vaccines?

[00:21:59]>> I'm not implying anything. I'm still what the excess deaths are.

[00:22:02]>> But what is your take on what's causing it?

[00:22:05]>> You said that and you said that in a counter to me describing mRNA vaccines, you said, "Well, the excess are 20%.

[00:22:10]That makes the implication that the vaccines are causing it."

[00:22:13]>> Okay, first of all, something is causing it.

[00:22:16]>> Well, that obviously >> something is causing it or or some combination of factors.

[00:22:20]>> He doesn't take the bait. There's no point wrestling the vaccine insinuation because you can't argue with a claim its author won't make. Instead, he does the one thing the technique can't survive.

[00:22:30]He asks Peterson to state it plainly.

[00:22:33]What in your view is doing the killing?

[00:22:36]Say the thing. Own the damn sentence.

[00:22:39]And with no vague number left to hide behind with a position finally demanded off him. This is what comes out.

[00:22:46]>> Something is causing it.

[00:22:48]>> Well, that obviously >> something is causing it or or some combination of factors. Sure.

[00:22:52]>> Now, one possibility is that the health care systems were so disrupted by our insane focus on the COVID epidemic that we're still mopping up as a consequence of that.

[00:23:02]>> Wait, are these exit desks tracing back through CO as well?

[00:23:05]>> Postco >> just postco and this clarification from Peterson is vital. Postco on the record. That is the exact version of the claim we already checked. The one the data doesn't support. He's not done selling it either.

[00:23:22]>> Postco.

[00:23:23]>> Just postco.

[00:23:24]>> Postco. Okay.

[00:23:25]>> Right. They're terrifying. Right.

[00:23:27]They're terrifying and and they're not well publicized. And >> I think excess trust are the fact that you're speaking to them right now seems like >> Yeah, but I f it down a lot of rabbit holes. It's not like it's front bloody page news on the New York Times.

[00:23:42]>> Sure. But I think excess death does death is that that's a metric that you can Google and I'm pretty sure there are like three different huge organizations that track excess deaths around the world.

[00:23:49]>> Many more than three. Yes. In every single European country.

[00:23:52]>> Peterson's been selling these deaths as suppressed horror. Terrifying and crucially kept from you. Destiny points out that the excess deaths are a metric you can Google tracked by several major organizations.

[00:24:04]>> Excess death is a that's a metric that you can Google and I'm pretty sure there are like three different huge organizations that track excess deaths around the world. And Peterson, rather than disputing a word off it, roused the count up for him, refuting his own suppression story on the spot.

[00:24:18]>> Many more than three. Yes. In every single European country, >> data monitored by more than three organizations in every European country, one search away, is the opposite of hidden, isn't it? The not well publicized framing earns its keep emotionally, though. A number feels far more sinister when you believe it's being kept from you when you know that it's on a public dashboard. methodology.

[00:24:39]No. And all >> many more than three. Yes. In every single European country. Right. Okay.

[00:24:45]Well, so one relatively straightforward hypothesis is that it's a consequence of the disruption of the health care system, the staving off of cancer treatment, etc. The increase in depression, anxiety, suicidality, and alcoholism that was a consequence of the lockdowns, the economic disruption. And there's plenty of reason to believe that some of that is the case. But the other obviously glaring possibility is that injecting billions of people with a vaccine that was not tested by any stretch of the imagination with a thoroughess that it should have before it was forced upon people also might be a contributing factor.

[00:25:25]>> Two hypotheses and two completely different vocabularies. The lockdown option arrives in relatively straightforward. A consequence of the disruption. plenty of reason to believe.

[00:25:35]Measured, clinical, borderline soothing.

[00:25:38]The vaccine option arrives in injecting billions of people, not tested by any stretch of the imagination. Forced upon people >> before it was forced upon people.

[00:25:48]>> This is known as loaded language.

[00:25:50]Persuasion carried not by evidence, but by the emotional charge of the words wielded. And notice once again that formally both options are still only possibilities. Might be a contributing factor, the glaring possibility. But the other obviously glaring possibility.

[00:26:06]>> So nothing has been asserted and there's nothing to swing at. Before moving on though, one more thing.

[00:26:12]>> Injecting billions of people with a vaccine that was not tested by any stretch of the imagination.

[00:26:19]>> This simply is not true. The mRNA phase 3 trials enrolled tens of thousands of participants a piece. Fisers ran past 40,000 before any authorization. That said, there is an honest version of the point he's reaching for. Long-term data, by definition, doesn't exist on the day a new medicine rolls out, and that's been true of every new medicine ever launched. But the honest version indictes nobody, which is presumably why we got this one instead. The trials happened and they were enormous.

[00:26:50]>> That was not tested by any stretch of the imagination with the thoroughess that it should have before it was forced upon people. also might be a contributing factor. Partly we because we know that it led to a rise in myocarditis among young men. And we also know that there was absolutely no reason whatsoever to ever recommend that that vaccine was delivered to young children whose risk of death at COVID was so close to zero that it might as well have been zero.

[00:27:18]>> All right, fair. He finally reaches for some actual facts and they absolutely deserve attention. The mRNA vaccine did indeed produce a measured rise in myocarditis in young men. The figures land somewhere around 10 to 11 cases per 100,000 in the highest risk male age brackets. That happened, it's documented, and Destiny doesn't get to wave it away. And to his credit, he won't even try to. But a true fact told with only half of its context is its own kind of distortion. And this is cherry-picking. presenting the genuine evidence that suits your case or leaving out the equally genuine evidence sitting right beside it. You see, catching COVID also causes myocarditis and at a materially higher rate than the vaccine does. For adolescent boys, the infection carries several times the risk of the shot. And the vaccine associated cases have mostly been mild with symptoms resolving quickly. So, you see the trick here, right? You see what he's doing?

[00:28:14]There was absolutely no reason whatsoever to ever recommend that that vaccine was delivered to young children.

[00:28:20]>> As for the children point, it's his strongest and it gets granted outright.

[00:28:24]Whether to vaccinate very young, healthy children against COVID is a legitimate contested risk benefit question and several sensible countries declined to recommend it universally. He's standing on defensible ground here. But the framing underneath it is sneakier than it sounds. The question has been defined by risk of death as if dying were the only thing a disease can do to you. It's not.

[00:28:47]>> Risk of death at CO was so close to zero that it might as well have been zero.

[00:28:52]>> When you're talking about a disease, the risk of death isn't the only thing that you worry about for the dislo.

[00:28:55]>> So you're talking about transmission because that was another thing that the push Yeah. But it didn't do anything to transition.

[00:29:03]>> There's a rare thing inside that answer.

[00:29:05]A flat falsifiable claim. The vaccine, he says, did nothing to transmission.

[00:29:11]And that means the world finally gets a vote on one of his sentences. It's false. The vaccines did reduce transmission substantially and especially early on. Before the Delta variant, the FISA vaccine cut household transmission by upward of 90%. Waning immunity and new variants pulled that protection down as the months went on.

[00:29:31]No argument. But faded from a high number is a very different sentence to did nothing. The honest summary is a decline. A large reduction at first, progressively less as the virus shifted.

[00:29:43]Peterson has flattened the curve to zero.

[00:29:46]>> Yeah, but it didn't do anything to it.

[00:29:48]>> Absolutely did because it decreased your chance of getting affected. It didn't destroy, it didn't get rid of transmission, but it reduced transmission.

[00:29:53]>> Claimed that it would get rid of the instant destiny states the accurate version reduced never eliminated.

[00:30:00]Peterson runs two separate moves. The first is the Nana fallacy, judging a thing against perfection rather than against the realistic alternative. So that anything short of flawless gets filed as failure. Destiny says the vaccine reduced transmission >> because it decreased chance of getting affected.

[00:30:15]>> But Peterson will only accept this if the benchmark is total elimination. A massive reduction is in his accounting irrelevant. It's strange logic, right? I mean a seat belt that cuts your risk death without zeroing it isn't a fraud.

[00:30:29]and a vaccine that cuts transmission without ending it isn't one either. The second move is a straw man and it's doing the heavier lifting. The claim in front of him is it reduced transmission, but rather than engage with the reduced transmission, he swaps in a claim that exists only in his retelling that it would abolish transmission outright because the substitute is the only version he can actually be.

[00:30:52]>> But claimed that it would get rid of >> only if you take one reading of one single quote. I think that Biden said one time where he said, "No, come on."

[00:31:01]I've heard so many times because every say, "Oh, you can't take anything Trump says seriously." Biden one time on the news says, "If you get the vaccine, you won't transfer the news."

[00:31:08]>> If you're keeping the good faith scoreboard, this certainly belongs on it. Destiny volunteers the overstatement. Biden at a town hall in 2021 said almost exactly that.

[00:31:18]>> You're not going to get CO if you have these vaccinations.

[00:31:21]>> And it was fact checked as an exaggeration at the time by the usual outlets. We can verify no, the vaccine will not prevent you from getting CO.

[00:31:31]That is false.

[00:31:32]>> Destiny knows all of this. He produces it himself and frames it tightly. One overstatement on one occasion. He's conceding the true thing in order to hold the line on the false thing. That's what arguing in good faith looks like.

[00:31:44]But what the concession earns him is a mere scoff.

[00:31:48]>> Biden one time on the news says, "If you get the vaccine, you won't trans."

[00:31:52]Do you know that our prime minister in Canada deprived Canadians of the right to travel for 6 months because the unvaccinated were going to transmit COVID with more likelihood than the than the vaccinated.

[00:32:03]>> So this wasn't one bloody statement.

[00:32:05]This was what I'm saying is there wasn't a statement given that if you get vaccinated there is a 0% chance of transmitting the disease. The idea is that vaccines were supposed to help because it reduces it reduces your hospitalization, it reduces death, and it reduces transmission hopefully by making it so that people don't get sick or don't get sick for as long. All three of those things, the vaccines did exceedingly well. They continue to do that to this day, but especially for the first variant. Um, and then the Delta variant, the vaccines helped immensely here. So, fair enough. A government policy is better evidence than a Biden blunder. And the policy was real. Canada did restrict travel for the unvaccinated. Now, if it did so on the promise that vaccines eliminate transition, then it was never just one overstatement and Destiny's position collapses. Except that isn't the policy that Peterson just described, is it? His own words were >> because the unvaccinated were going to transmit COVID with more likelihood than the than the vaccinated.

[00:33:01]>> More likely. That's the reduce claim, the true one, the one Destiny is defending. The eliminate claim is Biden's line already conceded, not in the policy Petersonen himself is citing.

[00:33:12]So the escalation backfires. The best evidence he can produce for the grand broken promise is a policy built on the modest kept one, which is what Destiny's answer nails down. No 0% promise ever existed. The vaccines were sold on reduce and reduce is what they successfully did.

[00:33:31]>> The normal rat is like this. That's the normal rat. Well, that was indeed intense. Where does all that leave the exchange? The merrygoround from nuclear stretch going around again. Asymmetry offered an asymmetry conjured. The exposure, the subject changed with the body count now aboard. On the facts, Peterson was never shy. He committed again and again. And every claim of his that could be tested failed. Excess deaths in Europe are up about 20% and they have been since the end of the co paric closer to five.

[00:34:04]>> Yeah, but it didn't do anything to >> a 90% cut in its first year >> cuz the book says no lying. Do you still lie?

[00:34:14]>> Everybody lies, but I'm pretty damn careful about it.

[00:34:17]>> But the narrative underneath those facts, the big frightening story every one of those numbers was pointing at that he would not say. And that's the split that defines the whole performance. Silent on the conclusion, leaving the audience to finish the sentence for him. This is the anatomy of innuendo. Peterson's favorite technique, and it's why it survives everything thrown at it. A conclusion that is only ever implied, can never be refuted because its author will disown it the second anyone reaches for it. It is the ultimate weapon of the I'm just asking questions archetype.

[00:34:50]>> I'm not implying anything. I'm saying what the excess deaths are. That line is the entire game, the punch and the alibi in a single sentence. And it's where the innuendo and the morta lock together. A classic Morton Bailey at least has a retreat. The bold claim was said, so walking it back costs something.

[00:35:07]Inuendo, however, never pays that price because the bold claim was never truly said at all. Its owner collects the Bailey's full harvest. So, how do you diffuse it? Destiny shown us the whole way through and his way is the only way that works. You don't wrestle the phantom. Arguing with a claim its author won't make burns exactly as much time as the author hopes it will. You ask instead, and you keep asking, "What exactly are you claiming?" Say the sentence out loud. Because a full declarative sentence has nowhere to hide. Either it becomes a real claim and we checked those and they all failed or it collapses into the other thing.

[00:35:45]>> Something is causing it. Well, that obviously >> something is causing it or or some combination of factors.

[00:35:51]>> And everybody laughs. That's the defense. All of it. Make them say it.

[00:35:55]>> Are you implying that you think it's because of vaccines?

[00:35:57]>> I'm not implying anything. I'm saying what the excess deaths are.

[00:36:01]>> Wendy spends her time as president on her knees or on her back taking the old inn out for hours on end. You didn't read the rest, dude.

[00:36:08]>> Or does she?

[00:36:10]>> See, that's a question I'm asking questions. Anyhow, as always, thank you kindly for the view and an extra special thank you to everyone who supports the channel, including today's sponsor, Ground News.