3 ms·

Presumably the vaccine stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#Anti-vaccine_advocacy_and_conspiracy_theories_on_public_health https://en.wik

Presumably the vaccine stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#Anti-vaccine_advocacy_and_conspiracy_theories_on_public_health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#Anti-vac...

keepamovin 3y ago
Alt account? What about the vaccine stuff presumably? He has a few books on the subject. Seems scholarly and scientific in conversation with Joe Rogan and others. https://www.thriftbooks.com/a/robert-f-kennedy-jr/3558232/ https://www.thriftbooks.com/a/robert-f-kennedy-jr/3558232/
- chad_c 3y ago
  "in conversation with Joe Rogan" Yikes.
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    Well, it's better than "in conversation" with you. Hahahahahaha! :) Yikes. Micro-comment. So you're suggesting that a conversation with Rogan is something you should be afraid of? Or not trusted? You do realize that Rogan doesn't affect the truth of falsity of what he's saying, right? Hahahaha! :)
- dkarl 3y ago
  > Seems scholarly and scientific in conversation with Joe Rogan I doubt that's a hard thing to achieve for someone used to speaking in public. Joe Rogan is not known for challenging his guests intellectually.
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    Hahah! :) In this case it doesn't matter, because Rogan does not affect the truth or falsity of what he's saying. But regarding JR, do you have any evidence to support that about Rogan? You suggest that you can't tell whether he's rational in conversation with Rogan because Rogan doesn't challenge, but you don't need another to challenge, you merely need to listen to him talk and decide yourself. Rogan is merely helpfully providing a platform where the guy is talking. Hahaha! :)
- vidarh 3y ago
  He has continued pushing long disproven stuff like the MMR autism link. That alone is sufficient to consider him a nutter. And given the size of his platform he is a wildly dangerous one causing immense harm.
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    > That alone is sufficient to consider him a nutter. This feels like an extreme position to me. Just because you have one or 10 nutty beliefs, that doesn’t make you a nutter. I don’t know where the threshold lie, but as an example, didn’t Newton believe in alchemy?
    - krapp 3y ago
      Newton believed in alchemy during a time when the metaphysical assumptions behind alchemy were considered reasonable and axiomatic by everyone - the concept of a natural world being separate from a supernatural world simply did not exist. That's a lot less nutty, relatively speaking, than believing in something like adrenochrome harvesting or Jewish space lasers or flat earth or reptilians today. Or even alchemy.
      - keepamovin 3y ago
        Right, and none of your "more nutty" examples have any overtures to JFK. I mean "Jewish space lasers" hahah where are you even getting this? Hahahah great material by the way. Can you upload a YT vid, I want to see your comedy bit! :) hahaah
    - vidarh 3y ago
      When someone continues to push a disproven "theory" despite no evidence in favour of it and despite the extensive and long-standing harm the reduction in vaccinations, I consider it extreme to treat RFKjr as anything but a dangerous charlatan with psychopathic tendencies. Plenty can be said about Newton, but his belief in alchemy given the time was far more reasonable than RFKjr's insistence on continuing to do harm by pushing those false claims.
vasdae 3y ago
Seems very unbiased!
cat_plus_plus 3y ago
Well, RFK has his nutcasery, Republican and Democratic candidates have their own nutcasery (elections, 50 genders and so on). 2020 elections still managed to give us a president who may be a bit senile but is not super deranged. Provide protection to all viable candidates, hopefully citizens will do the right thing again.
- keepamovin 3y ago
  I agree on the protection, but not on the nutcasery of JFK. Do you have any evidence to support that? It has not been conclusively proven. Instead he has the cojones to take on the big issues, and fight them. That shows bravery and a willingness to engage on the hard stuff. I'm not saying he's a good man or would make a great prez, but you can't dismiss it as "nutcasery"

keepamovin 3y ago

Alt account? What about the vaccine stuff presumably? He has a few books on the subject. Seems scholarly and scientific in conversation with Joe Rogan and others. https://www.thriftbooks.com/a/robert-f-kennedy-jr/3558232/ https://www.thriftbooks.com/a/robert-f-kennedy-jr/3558232/

chad_c 3y ago
"in conversation with Joe Rogan" Yikes.
- keepamovin 3y ago
  Well, it's better than "in conversation" with you. Hahahahahaha! :) Yikes. Micro-comment. So you're suggesting that a conversation with Rogan is something you should be afraid of? Or not trusted? You do realize that Rogan doesn't affect the truth of falsity of what he's saying, right? Hahahaha! :)
dkarl 3y ago
> Seems scholarly and scientific in conversation with Joe Rogan I doubt that's a hard thing to achieve for someone used to speaking in public. Joe Rogan is not known for challenging his guests intellectually.
- keepamovin 3y ago
  Hahah! :) In this case it doesn't matter, because Rogan does not affect the truth or falsity of what he's saying. But regarding JR, do you have any evidence to support that about Rogan? You suggest that you can't tell whether he's rational in conversation with Rogan because Rogan doesn't challenge, but you don't need another to challenge, you merely need to listen to him talk and decide yourself. Rogan is merely helpfully providing a platform where the guy is talking. Hahaha! :)
vidarh 3y ago
He has continued pushing long disproven stuff like the MMR autism link. That alone is sufficient to consider him a nutter. And given the size of his platform he is a wildly dangerous one causing immense harm.
- andsoitis 3y ago
  > That alone is sufficient to consider him a nutter. This feels like an extreme position to me. Just because you have one or 10 nutty beliefs, that doesn’t make you a nutter. I don’t know where the threshold lie, but as an example, didn’t Newton believe in alchemy?
  - krapp 3y ago
    Newton believed in alchemy during a time when the metaphysical assumptions behind alchemy were considered reasonable and axiomatic by everyone - the concept of a natural world being separate from a supernatural world simply did not exist. That's a lot less nutty, relatively speaking, than believing in something like adrenochrome harvesting or Jewish space lasers or flat earth or reptilians today. Or even alchemy.
    - keepamovin 3y ago
      Right, and none of your "more nutty" examples have any overtures to JFK. I mean "Jewish space lasers" hahah where are you even getting this? Hahahah great material by the way. Can you upload a YT vid, I want to see your comedy bit! :) hahaah
  - vidarh 3y ago
    When someone continues to push a disproven "theory" despite no evidence in favour of it and despite the extensive and long-standing harm the reduction in vaccinations, I consider it extreme to treat RFKjr as anything but a dangerous charlatan with psychopathic tendencies. Plenty can be said about Newton, but his belief in alchemy given the time was far more reasonable than RFKjr's insistence on continuing to do harm by pushing those false claims.

vasdae 3y ago

Seems very unbiased!

cat_plus_plus 3y ago

Well, RFK has his nutcasery, Republican and Democratic candidates have their own nutcasery (elections, 50 genders and so on). 2020 elections still managed to give us a president who may be a bit senile but is not super deranged. Provide protection to all viable candidates, hopefully citizens will do the right thing again.

keepamovin 3y ago
I agree on the protection, but not on the nutcasery of JFK. Do you have any evidence to support that? It has not been conclusively proven. Instead he has the cojones to take on the big issues, and fight them. That shows bravery and a willingness to engage on the hard stuff. I'm not saying he's a good man or would make a great prez, but you can't dismiss it as "nutcasery"