Make America Healthy Again is a joke.

[Thought Art]

8 minutes ago, How to be wise said:

You’ve basically admitted that the only reason RFK changed from “a good, decent person” to “a deceptive snake” is because he supported Trump. 

He said he was against him until it served his political goals. Notably trump is corrupt. 

[Leo Gura]

28 minutes ago, How to be wise said:

You’ve basically admitted that the only reason RFK changed from “a good, decent person” to “a deceptive snake” is because he supported Trump. 

No. I said I did deeper research to uncover his deceptive, lying, and delusional nature.

He comes off as a nice guy in interviews. But when you actually research his past, his conduct with women, his drug abuse, his delusional conspiracy theories -- and how he lies about all that -- you realize how deluded he is.

Of course he's doing it all with good intentions from his POV, but that doesn't make it good.

His support for Trump is just the final nail in the coffin of his character, in case you missed the deep research.

Edited 8 hours ago by Leo Gura

[cistanche_enjoyer]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

If RFK has any integrity he would never have joined Trump's depraved campaign.

What if he had a vision that he as an independent had no chances of winning, and thus had the insight that the only way to bring his changes in the healthcare system (which is deeply corrupt) is by joining Trump’s team. 

Maybe he doesn’t even agree with his ideas, but since he was about to win anyway, the means would justify the end (bring more health to Americans).

[Leo Gura]

33 minutes ago, cistanche_enjoyer said:

What if he had a vision that he as an independent had no chances of winning, and thus had the insight that the only way to bring his changes in the healthcare system (which is deeply corrupt) is by joining Trump’s team. 

Of course he thinks that.

When the Devil offers you a position by his throne, he who rationalizes it to himself as, "Well, maybe I can do some good there", is corrupt.

Do you understand what it means to make a deal with the Devil? Everyone who makes a deal with the Devil thinks its for some good. You are treating the Devil like some kind of idiot. The Devil makes you think you are doing good by joining him.

In the end RFK wanted power. He joined a campaign of liars, perverts, and authoritarians to get his power.

Imagine if Trump offered me the position of Minister of Education, and I was dumb enough to convince myself that I will use that opportunity to benefit mankind by spreading Actualized.org through the school system. If I did that, you should call me out as corrupt. Because obviously the Devil will never allow me to spread truth in his presence.

The Trump administration cannot give you health because every mind who participates in it is sick. The prerequisite for health is truth.

Edited 7 hours ago by Leo Gura

[FourCrossedWands]

People who think the health system will change are naive. Just look at the stock market. The big pharma and junk food companies only dropped by about 10-15% this month. And most analytics think it's an overreaction. Nobody actually believes RFK will make big changes.

[Joshe]

4 hours ago, What Am I said:

Yes, but it's an example where exposure to new ideas produces a productive, self-fueled obsession. It was the same for me when I first started actively caring about my own health beyond the base level of merely staying alive. As you can imagine, my quality of life has been transformed now for many years. Similar to an RPG video game, the act of continuous self-improvement becomes gamified, and the desire to keep pushing flows naturally and easily.

If the right starts spreading this same mentality to the masses, that alone will account for radical changes in the nation's health. It'd be tough to knock them on that form of propaganda.

I understand the idea and it is good that something made them start thinking about health and what they're putting in their bodies, but there's a problem.

Biochemistry and human health is complex. Dealing with complexity requires sound epistemics and without it, tinkering with the body is dangerous. 

My sister’s now looking up ingredients in vaccines and jumping to bad conclusions. Her kid has health issues and was recommended the Prevnar 20 vaccine, but she found out it has aluminum phosphate and is now against it. She’s furious that the healthcare system approves injecting “heavy metals” into kids. 

She thinks statins are a net negative (big pharma/FDA are poisoning people to line their pockets). She lets her kids drink Coke but not Coke Zero (thinks aspartame is worse than sugar). 

So, it's good they're thinking about health, but also problematic. They often end up doing harm to themselves and their children. They end up drinking blue silver their preachman sold them and taking supplements that are a complete waste or damaging. 

They call healthy, unhealthy. Like how many currently don't believe high serum cholesterol is bad and they're against statins, so those folks will see an early grave. 

There won't be a huge health initiative on the right. They might get healthy from the working out at the gym, because appearances matter more to them than anything, but they don't care about cholesterol, free radicals, etc. This applies to most Americans, but the right is more likely to reject science, seek magic pills, and rely on poor information sources. 

Case in point: RFK thinks AIDS is fake and vaccines cause autism.

Sound epistemics are needed if health is to be pursued. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Joshe

[What Am I]

@Joshe It's funny how even something as fundamental as the meaning of good health has become divided into separate camps of thought, with each being fully convinced by their own philosophy and having no interest in trying to square the circle. The more I consider it, the more it seems like some major form of conflict is inevitable. Both in the US and abroad. What a mess.

[Joshe]

52 minutes ago, What Am I said:

It's funny how even something as fundamental as the meaning of good health has become divided into separate camps of thought, with each being fully convinced by their own philosophy and having no interest in trying to square the circle. The more I consider it, the more it seems like some major form of conflict is inevitable. Both in the US and abroad. What a mess.

@What Am I If truth is the guide, there's no need for ideology or camps.

I've watched my low conscious family members try to be healthy and they fail miserably at it—largely due to the information they seek, which is usually a magic pill, and YouTuber who tells them what they want to hear. Then, they call truth false, no matter how vetted or compelling the evidence.

This is the problem. Low consciousness, bad epistemics, willful ignorance, and stubborn refusal to accept what is true, which seems to stem from an unconscious emotional bias. It's the same problem we find ourselves in when we discuss politics or any other topic of consequence.

I'm sorry to tell you, but some things are detrimental and others are beneficial. If someone tells you cyanide is all natural and organic and a little drop here and there is good for you, they're right that it's natural and organic, which might make them think it's good for you, but that's false. There is no squaring that circle.

Truth is what it is, no matter how much people want it to be otherwise. How do you suggest this problem be dealt with? 

Edited 3 hours ago by Joshe

[Raze]

3 hours ago, FourCrossedWands said:

People who think the health system will change are naive. Just look at the stock market. The big pharma and junk food companies only dropped by about 10-15% this month. And most analytics think it's an overreaction. Nobody actually believes RFK will make big changes.

Why? He truly believes many of the things he says and he’s advocated for the changes long before ever running 

[What Am I]

1 hour ago, Joshe said:

How do you suggest this problem be dealt with?

It's a tough one, for sure. As you say, there's really no squaring the circle. The philosophies are too fundamentally different and are, in fact, usually opposites.

I suppose something that could help though would be to always offer a good-faith interpretation of the other side's best ideas. It's often so easy to do otherwise. Also, the idea of believing one is the rightful owner of truth seems very dangerous. Everything is relative and complex, and those beliefs that you hold as certainties now are subject to change drastically as time goes on. It's fine to think you're most likely correct on any given subject, but it becomes a little toxic when it's pushed into religious zones of absolutes. That type of thing can slam closed a door, while humility has the power to open it.

Really though, the best way to deal with the problem (or to at least protect yourself) may end up being to get a gun.

Edited 2 hours ago by What Am I