5 ms·

there is an old principle of debate, that first you should be able to state your opponent's argument in a way that your opponent will not disagree with, and the

there is an old principle of debate, that first you should be able to state your opponent's argument in a way that your opponent will not disagree with, and then you argue against what you just stated. Start now, I want to hear that you understand what RFK thinks. Go.

mrtksn 1y ago
I like the suggestion, but this is not a debate really, this is action. Kennedy isn’t debating anyone.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- somenameforme 1y ago
  His decisions are not arbitrary. He lays out his logic, rationale, and evidence, but people seemingly are either unaware or uninterested in such, instead preferring to create strawmen to fight against. For instance another post here claims he doesn't "believe" in germ theory. That should immediately be a red flag of something taken out of context or misrepresented, and indeed it was. Here [1] is a blog which is highly critical of RFK's view on germ theory yet, unlike most media sources, it also lays out what he said in a vaguely reasonable way. He obviously does not reject germ theory in the least, but believes that having an overall healthier lifestyle and avoiding environmental toxins is a more effective means of ensuring your body can fight off infection than by focusing solely on specific germs. The article offers a quote that seems reasonable: "When a starving African child succumbs to measles, the miasmist attributes the death to malnutrition; germ theory proponents (a.k.a. virologists) blame the virus. The miasmist approach to public health is to boost individual immune response." Of course one can engage with modern medicine and live a healthy life, but I think his entire schtick is that the whole live a healthy life aspect of healthcare has been largely neglected over the past half century. Just reducing the obesity rate, for instance, would probably have a dramatically greater impact on health outcomes than any new medical discovery over the next 50 years - as we seem to have entered well into the domain of diminishing returns. But yet there will be many trillions of dollars pumped into those discoveries, with little to no meaningful effort made to curb obesity, unless it can be done with a drug - because that's where the $$$ is. [1] - https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-a-new-form-of-germ-theory https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-a...
  - mrtksn 1y ago
    Nothing is arbitrary, this doesn't make it a debate though. You can have a statement at best if he states the reasons. About the healthy life stuff, yes most of the rest of the world already practice this without wedging war on modern science and have plenty of regulations in place to protect the citizens. Additionally, a lot of countries have some form of centralized healthcare structure that has has preventive healthcare. Maybe RFK wants to make USA like EU using BS to avoid being called socialist. Also, I previously said that I like the spirit of it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44134479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44134479
    - somenameforme 1y ago
      Something I find extremely interesting is life expectancy. If you look back to the upper classes of old their life expectancy was extremely similar to those of today. So for instance in modern history, of the 15 key Founding Fathers, 7 lived to at least 80 years old: John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Samuel Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, John Jay. John Adams himself lived to 90. The youngest to die were Hamilton who died in a duel, and John Hancock who died of gout of an undocumented cause - it can be caused by excessive alcohol consumption. All the others lived into their 60s and 70s. So their overall life expectancy was pretty much the same as we have today. And this was long before vaccines or even us knowing that surgeons washing their hands before surgery was a good thing to do. It's the same as you go back further into history. A study [1] of all men of renown in Ancient Greece was 71.3, and that was from thousands of years ago! The most primitive medical technology, antibiotics in particular, could have likely expanded these lives well beyond current day. So the idea here is not to just add more regulations to medicine or have people go to the hospital even more for preventative care but to start living healthier lives in general. Less crap food, more time outdoors, more exercise, less obesity, and so on. And these are things that the government should have been pushing all along. [1] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18359748/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18359748/
      - mrtksn 1y ago
        Regulations are usually about the absolute minimum, if you look at EU you can see that there are large discrepancies between countries despite being under the same regulations. You can't regulate your way into prosperity. IMHO it's the culture that matters and distrust into science and institutions breeds bad culture.
hobs 1y ago
It's hard to even say what he fully believes in, but I think he would agree if I say he doesn't believe in germ theory, vaccines, and general public health measures as they exist today. So with that in mind, we can now say he's a complete and utter buffoonish idiot whose opinion is not worth a fart.
- fsckboy 1y ago
  he absolutely does not agree with what you've stated, and he does believe in germ theory, and he does believe the original vaccines worked and were effective. Did the original vaccines have mercury in them? Why was mercury added to vaccines? Do you understand any of that? You have no basis to disagree with him as you don't know what you are talking about. my point is not that he is right, I have no idea if he's right but I know what the argument is. my point is that this HN discussion and all others like it is full of useless whining.
  - aceazzameen 1y ago
    Do you know the difference between Methylmercury and Ethylmercury? Your comment suggests you don't.
    - fsckboy 1y ago
      [flagged]
  - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
    > Since the 1930s, it has been widely used as a preservative in a number of biological and drug products, including many vaccines, to prevent the growth of harmful microbes inadvertently introduced into the vaccine during use. In case anybody wondered. He had said that he thinks no vaccines are safe and effective. These quotes are easy to find, I'm not sure how you could have missed them.
  - hobs 1y ago
    "It's important to note here that our understanding of Kennedy's disbelief in germ theory isn't based on speculation or deduction; it's based on Kennedy's own words. He wrote an entire section on it in his 2021 book vilifying Fauci, titled The Real Anthony Fauci. The section is titled "Miasma vs. Germ Theory," in the chapter "The White Man's Burden."" https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/04/rfk-jr-s-anti-vaccine-stance-is-rooted-in-a-disbelief-in-germ-theory/ https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/04/rfk-jr-s-anti-vaccine... You don't even know what you are talking about when it comes to your own guy. "In all, the chapter provides a clear explanation of why Kennedy relentlessly attacks evidence-based medicines; vilifies the pharmaceutical industry; suggests HIV doesn't cause AIDS and antidepressants are behind mass shootings; believes that vaccines are harmful, not protective; claims 5G wireless networks cause cancer; suggests chemicals in water are changing children's gender identities; and is quick to promote supplements to prevent and treat diseases, such as recently recommending vitamin A for measles and falsely claiming children who die from the viral infection are malnourished."
giardini 1y ago
That is a useful suggestion and I wish it were the practice here. But a request of "what RFK thinks" is honestly too broad to be useful. I read his book(1) and just that alone covers far, farm more than could be encompassed in an HN discussion. Better to state what you argue or what you believe an opponent is arguing, so that a reasonable discussion can then ensue. IOW I agree with you that each of RFK's contentions could be discussed dispassionately here; however, in contrast mrtksn 55 minutes ago wrote: +I like the suggestion, but this is not a debate really, this is action." which, to me, sounds like some sort of (insurrectionist/Marxist/something I'm unfamiliar with) "call to action" rather than a consideration of further discussion. If so, then my imagined discussion would be likely impossible. Instead I see two possible alternatives depending on what your state laws are: I. You live in a state where firearms are heavily regulated and there is no "stand-your-ground" law or "castle doctrine". Result: possible burnings, lootings and days of general lawlessness, or II. You live in a state like Texas where one can possess firearms and use them to "stand your ground". Result: a few possible deaths, some wounded burners, looters and rioters after 15 minutes of clarification. (1) "The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health" https://www.amazon.com/Real-Anthony-Fauci-Pharma-Democracy/dp/B09LVYYTJJ https://www.amazon.com/Real-Anthony-Fauci-Pharma-Democracy/d...
8note 1y ago
he is the guy in power making changes, shouldnt this be flipped on its head? if you want to make changes, you should make a convincing argument to do so
daleswanson 1y ago
RFK Jr believes: 1. That Wifi causes cancer. 2. That there is no vaccine which is "safe and effective". 3. It's unknown if the Polio vaccine prevented more deaths than it caused. This quote from him seems to summarize his view on vaccines: "I see somebody on a hiking trail carrying a little baby and I say to him, 'Better not get him vaccinated.'"
- FireBeyond 1y ago
  He also believes DARPA is responsible for chemtrails, and is hiring people to investigate this as their fulltime job. > This quote from him seems to summarize his view on vaccines: "I see somebody on a hiking trail carrying a little baby and I say to him, 'Better not get him vaccinated.'" Unless of course the baby is his son, or grandson, then absolutely they should be vaccinated.
827a 1y ago
A significant portion of the US population believes there are safety and efficacy concerns with, at least, the COVID vaccine. America is a democracy whose leaders, at every level, are elected or appointed by those elected with the contract of executing on the will of the people to the best of their understanding. That's it. Nowhere in there does it matter that anyone is "right". Democracy doesn't care. See, the problem with everyone in these comments is that you're focusing on the wrong problem. RFK, Trump, they're all just symptoms of that larger problem. Getting mad at this news is like watching a tornado tear your house off the foundations then yelling in anger at the storm.
- MathMonkeyMan 1y ago
  No, it's more like watching a mob poison the town well, and then yelling at the mob. It's not a meteorological problem, it's a social one.
eximius 1y ago
And what do you do when your opponent is engaging in bad faith or lacks a coherent position for them to agree with any characterization? I don't believe you're engaging in good faith either.
mrkeen 1y ago
Ok. "We will get rid of those positions to make room for Trump loyalists. It's not as bad as it sounds because some of those Biden loyalists were only appointed recently."

mrtksn 1y ago

I like the suggestion, but this is not a debate really, this is action. Kennedy isn’t debating anyone.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
somenameforme 1y ago
His decisions are not arbitrary. He lays out his logic, rationale, and evidence, but people seemingly are either unaware or uninterested in such, instead preferring to create strawmen to fight against. For instance another post here claims he doesn't "believe" in germ theory. That should immediately be a red flag of something taken out of context or misrepresented, and indeed it was. Here [1] is a blog which is highly critical of RFK's view on germ theory yet, unlike most media sources, it also lays out what he said in a vaguely reasonable way. He obviously does not reject germ theory in the least, but believes that having an overall healthier lifestyle and avoiding environmental toxins is a more effective means of ensuring your body can fight off infection than by focusing solely on specific germs. The article offers a quote that seems reasonable: "When a starving African child succumbs to measles, the miasmist attributes the death to malnutrition; germ theory proponents (a.k.a. virologists) blame the virus. The miasmist approach to public health is to boost individual immune response." Of course one can engage with modern medicine and live a healthy life, but I think his entire schtick is that the whole live a healthy life aspect of healthcare has been largely neglected over the past half century. Just reducing the obesity rate, for instance, would probably have a dramatically greater impact on health outcomes than any new medical discovery over the next 50 years - as we seem to have entered well into the domain of diminishing returns. But yet there will be many trillions of dollars pumped into those discoveries, with little to no meaningful effort made to curb obesity, unless it can be done with a drug - because that's where the $$$ is. [1] - https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-a-new-form-of-germ-theory https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-a...
- mrtksn 1y ago
  Nothing is arbitrary, this doesn't make it a debate though. You can have a statement at best if he states the reasons. About the healthy life stuff, yes most of the rest of the world already practice this without wedging war on modern science and have plenty of regulations in place to protect the citizens. Additionally, a lot of countries have some form of centralized healthcare structure that has has preventive healthcare. Maybe RFK wants to make USA like EU using BS to avoid being called socialist. Also, I previously said that I like the spirit of it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44134479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44134479
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    Something I find extremely interesting is life expectancy. If you look back to the upper classes of old their life expectancy was extremely similar to those of today. So for instance in modern history, of the 15 key Founding Fathers, 7 lived to at least 80 years old: John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Samuel Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, John Jay. John Adams himself lived to 90. The youngest to die were Hamilton who died in a duel, and John Hancock who died of gout of an undocumented cause - it can be caused by excessive alcohol consumption. All the others lived into their 60s and 70s. So their overall life expectancy was pretty much the same as we have today. And this was long before vaccines or even us knowing that surgeons washing their hands before surgery was a good thing to do. It's the same as you go back further into history. A study [1] of all men of renown in Ancient Greece was 71.3, and that was from thousands of years ago! The most primitive medical technology, antibiotics in particular, could have likely expanded these lives well beyond current day. So the idea here is not to just add more regulations to medicine or have people go to the hospital even more for preventative care but to start living healthier lives in general. Less crap food, more time outdoors, more exercise, less obesity, and so on. And these are things that the government should have been pushing all along. [1] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18359748/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18359748/
    - mrtksn 1y ago
      Regulations are usually about the absolute minimum, if you look at EU you can see that there are large discrepancies between countries despite being under the same regulations. You can't regulate your way into prosperity. IMHO it's the culture that matters and distrust into science and institutions breeds bad culture.

hobs 1y ago

It's hard to even say what he fully believes in, but I think he would agree if I say he doesn't believe in germ theory, vaccines, and general public health measures as they exist today. So with that in mind, we can now say he's a complete and utter buffoonish idiot whose opinion is not worth a fart.

fsckboy 1y ago
he absolutely does not agree with what you've stated, and he does believe in germ theory, and he does believe the original vaccines worked and were effective. Did the original vaccines have mercury in them? Why was mercury added to vaccines? Do you understand any of that? You have no basis to disagree with him as you don't know what you are talking about. my point is not that he is right, I have no idea if he's right but I know what the argument is. my point is that this HN discussion and all others like it is full of useless whining.
- aceazzameen 1y ago
  Do you know the difference between Methylmercury and Ethylmercury? Your comment suggests you don't.
  - fsckboy 1y ago
    [flagged]
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  > Since the 1930s, it has been widely used as a preservative in a number of biological and drug products, including many vaccines, to prevent the growth of harmful microbes inadvertently introduced into the vaccine during use. In case anybody wondered. He had said that he thinks no vaccines are safe and effective. These quotes are easy to find, I'm not sure how you could have missed them.
- hobs 1y ago
  "It's important to note here that our understanding of Kennedy's disbelief in germ theory isn't based on speculation or deduction; it's based on Kennedy's own words. He wrote an entire section on it in his 2021 book vilifying Fauci, titled The Real Anthony Fauci. The section is titled "Miasma vs. Germ Theory," in the chapter "The White Man's Burden."" https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/04/rfk-jr-s-anti-vaccine-stance-is-rooted-in-a-disbelief-in-germ-theory/ https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/04/rfk-jr-s-anti-vaccine... You don't even know what you are talking about when it comes to your own guy. "In all, the chapter provides a clear explanation of why Kennedy relentlessly attacks evidence-based medicines; vilifies the pharmaceutical industry; suggests HIV doesn't cause AIDS and antidepressants are behind mass shootings; believes that vaccines are harmful, not protective; claims 5G wireless networks cause cancer; suggests chemicals in water are changing children's gender identities; and is quick to promote supplements to prevent and treat diseases, such as recently recommending vitamin A for measles and falsely claiming children who die from the viral infection are malnourished."

giardini 1y ago

That is a useful suggestion and I wish it were the practice here. But a request of "what RFK thinks" is honestly too broad to be useful. I read his book(1) and just that alone covers far, farm more than could be encompassed in an HN discussion. Better to state what you argue or what you believe an opponent is arguing, so that a reasonable discussion can then ensue. IOW I agree with you that each of RFK's contentions could be discussed dispassionately here; however, in contrast mrtksn 55 minutes ago wrote: +I like the suggestion, but this is not a debate really, this is action." which, to me, sounds like some sort of (insurrectionist/Marxist/something I'm unfamiliar with) "call to action" rather than a consideration of further discussion. If so, then my imagined discussion would be likely impossible. Instead I see two possible alternatives depending on what your state laws are: I. You live in a state where firearms are heavily regulated and there is no "stand-your-ground" law or "castle doctrine". Result: possible burnings, lootings and days of general lawlessness, or II. You live in a state like Texas where one can possess firearms and use them to "stand your ground". Result: a few possible deaths, some wounded burners, looters and rioters after 15 minutes of clarification. (1) "The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health" https://www.amazon.com/Real-Anthony-Fauci-Pharma-Democracy/dp/B09LVYYTJJ https://www.amazon.com/Real-Anthony-Fauci-Pharma-Democracy/d...

8note 1y ago

he is the guy in power making changes, shouldnt this be flipped on its head? if you want to make changes, you should make a convincing argument to do so

daleswanson 1y ago

RFK Jr believes: 1. That Wifi causes cancer. 2. That there is no vaccine which is "safe and effective". 3. It's unknown if the Polio vaccine prevented more deaths than it caused. This quote from him seems to summarize his view on vaccines: "I see somebody on a hiking trail carrying a little baby and I say to him, 'Better not get him vaccinated.'"

FireBeyond 1y ago
He also believes DARPA is responsible for chemtrails, and is hiring people to investigate this as their fulltime job. > This quote from him seems to summarize his view on vaccines: "I see somebody on a hiking trail carrying a little baby and I say to him, 'Better not get him vaccinated.'" Unless of course the baby is his son, or grandson, then absolutely they should be vaccinated.

827a 1y ago

A significant portion of the US population believes there are safety and efficacy concerns with, at least, the COVID vaccine. America is a democracy whose leaders, at every level, are elected or appointed by those elected with the contract of executing on the will of the people to the best of their understanding. That's it. Nowhere in there does it matter that anyone is "right". Democracy doesn't care. See, the problem with everyone in these comments is that you're focusing on the wrong problem. RFK, Trump, they're all just symptoms of that larger problem. Getting mad at this news is like watching a tornado tear your house off the foundations then yelling in anger at the storm.

MathMonkeyMan 1y ago
No, it's more like watching a mob poison the town well, and then yelling at the mob. It's not a meteorological problem, it's a social one.

eximius 1y ago

And what do you do when your opponent is engaging in bad faith or lacks a coherent position for them to agree with any characterization? I don't believe you're engaging in good faith either.

mrkeen 1y ago

Ok. "We will get rid of those positions to make room for Trump loyalists. It's not as bad as it sounds because some of those Biden loyalists were only appointed recently."