Robert F. Kennedy Jr. running for POTUS

[mmKay]

 

[VoidJumper]

If RFK is truly such a dishonest person, then his claims shouldn't be able to hold up in a proper debate. It should be very easy to bring an end to his ideas once and for all. Yet, everybody seems to run away from a debate, making every excuse under the sun. 

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, VoidJumper said:

If RFK is truly such a dishonest person, then his claims shouldn't be able to hold up in a proper debate. It should be very easy to bring an end to his ideas once and for all. Yet, everybody seems to run away from a debate, making every excuse under the sun. 

1) Its clear that you have never had a debate with a person who has completely different epistemic standards  and axioms compared to you.

Lets see you debunk a claim like this: Lizard people are running the world from behind the scenes. Good luck having an easy debunk!

2) Many people have offered to debate RFK, but Joe is yet to choose from one of them.

[VoidJumper]

@zurew 1) What claims has RFK made that are comparable to this? The things he is saying are very concrete and he claims to have the facts to back it up. 

2) Let's hope it happens!

[Yimpa]

38 minutes ago, zurew said:

1) Its clear that you have never had a debate with a person who has completely different epistemic standards  and axioms compared to you.

Let’s see you debunk a claim like this: Lizard people are running the world from behind the scenes. Good luck having an easy debunk!

That’s not much different than any human issues that you perceive as normal. It’s simply the case that you have a bias towards surviving as a human in society, which makes sense if you enjoy this game (for whatever reason). 

When you stop caring about survival too rigidly, you can play the game while not taking any of this stuff too seriously. Paradoxically, you’ll have the potential to contribute to society in more meaningful ways. 

[zurew]

53 minutes ago, VoidJumper said:

1) What claims has RFK made that are comparable to this? The things he is saying are very concrete and he claims to have the facts to back it up. 

I don't know if he has a claim that hits that level (maybe his claims about 5G ), the point was to demonsrate how hard it is to debate people, who have different epistemic standards compared to you and he in fact  has and had  a different epistemic standard comapred to the scientific consensus based on the claims he provided for instance:

Quote

Mass shootings are linked to prescription drugs: Kennedy Jr. blamed school shootings on drugs like the antidepressant Prozac in Monday's Twitter discussion, telling owner Elon Musk, “Prior to the introduction of Prozac, we had almost none of these events" (there's no scientifically established correlation between psychiatric drugs and mass violence)
 

Gun ownership in Switzerland is similar to the United States: While vowing not to “take away anyone’s guns,” if elected president, Kennedy Jr. made the debunked claim, despite data that shows U.S. civilians possess an average of 120.5 firearms per 100 people, the highest per-capita rate in the world, compared to 27.6 in Switzerland, according to the Small Arms Survey by the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, Switzerland.

Vaccines can cause autism: For years, Kennedy Jr. has promoted the theory that the preservative, thimerosal, which has largely been phased out of modern vaccine formulas, appears to be responsible for a rise in autism diagnoses and that the government knew but “knowingly allowed the pharmaceutical industry to poison an entire generation of American children,” he wrote in Rolling Stone and Salon in 2006, despite consensus among a number of certified health organizations, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization and more that have found no credible link between vaccines and autism.

5G:

+ of course his claims about covid19 vaccines

If you read those through above you will find claims, that are contradictory to the scientific consensus and conspiratiorial or at the very best is not suggested to be true by the scientific consensus - which means he used an epistemic method that doesn't involve the scientific consensus to reach his  conclusions - which also means that you can't convince him using scientific studies, therefore the debate is either impossible because you can't use studies to move his position on those matters or you will be debating with anecdotes which is a waste of time.

When you check one of his claims about covid19 vaccines that "the vaccine clearly killed x thousand number of people" and if you investigate what epistemic process he used to make that claim,  you will see how dishonest he is: He used the VAERS database to make that claim, and if you look up the VAERS database, there they will tell you that the reports there shouldn't be taken as fact.

Now if your own source tells you how unreliable the data is and you still use that for your arguments - that shows either that you haven't done any serious reading on the subject and haven't even read even on a surface level your own data (which also shows a lack of commitment and standard to try to be as true as possbile) or it shows that you are dishonest or it shows that you are so far removed epistemically from reality that you need to paint  big pictures in order to hold up your delusional reality.

If you look at the LondonReal video that I sent you above you will see that he hits almost all the points that a conspiratorial nut says and how a conspiratorial nut thinks - always assuming some mass conspiracy and malice towards people.

Now the question becomes how the fuck can you even start having a conversation let alone a debate with a person like that?

Edited June 24, 2023 by zurew

[VoidJumper]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

if you look up the VAERS database, there they will tell you that the reports there shouldn't be taken as fact.

VAERS data shouldn't be taken as fact because it relies on voluntary report by physicians, and it is actually quite underreported

2 hours ago, zurew said:

maybe his claims about 5G 

Interesting example. From my own experience as a human I can tell you that I am very sensitive to EMF. For example if I hold one of the newer iphones, I get a strong pressure sensation in my stomach and start to feel sick after just a couple of minutes. It's always just been obvious to me that these things have serious negative consequences, but when I look at the "scientific consensus" (I feel a little sick just using that term), EMF is nothing to worry about. What am I supposed to do with this?

I have encountered these sorts of things enough in my life, that any faith towards these institutions has been completely destroyed.

You may not think this. You may think that, while faulty at times, overall the institutions are good and do what they are intended to do. 

The problem is that we have a large part of the population that thinks that our institutions are rotten to the core and probably not salvageable unless there is a complete overhaul. 

Whether you like it or not, we are split up into these two camps, and whatever you might believe about the other side, we cannot, as a society, move forward like this. 

If we are to keep progressing, we must find a way to rectify this giant chasm dividing us. We just must. And the only way to do that is conversation conversation conversation. We must press this issue as long as it takes until it is resolved. We have to.

 

 

Edited June 24, 2023 by VoidJumper

[zurew]

If you seriously think that institutions are corrupt to the core (like there is a mass scale maliciousness towards people and or you can't trust any data that comes from any institution lets be it scientific or anything else), then I have no idea how to begin to have a productive conversation with you or how to ground any conversation with you or how to move you even a little from that position.

Edited June 24, 2023 by zurew

[Jodistrict]

13 minutes ago, zurew said:

If you seriously think that institutions are corrupt to the core (like there is a mass scale maliciousness towards people and or you can't trust any data that comes from any institution lets be it scientific or anything else), then I have no idea how to begin to have a productive conversation with you or how to ground any conversation with you or how to move you even a little from that position.

There is a solution.  We have regulatory agencies that are suppose to serve the best interests of the public.  But over time industries can capture control of the agencies that are suppose to be controlling them.  Robert Kennedy, Jr knows how to solve this problem and get the regulatory agencies working for the people again. 

[zurew]

28 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

There is a solution.

No way.

Starting from a position where there is a mass scale conspiracy against people ,where all institutions on a multinational scale can collaborate in an organized, mallicious way - thats a position where its impossible to move that person even 1mm - its like saying you are in a matrix where everyone is against you.

Edited June 24, 2023 by zurew

[VoidJumper]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

If you seriously think that institutions are corrupt to the core (like there is a mass scale maliciousness towards people and or you can't trust any data that comes from any institution lets be it scientific or anything else), then I have no idea how to begin to have a productive conversation with you or how to ground any conversation with you or how to move you even a little from that position.

Likewise. This is why we have a problem

[VoidJumper]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Starting from a position where there is a mass scale conspiracy against people ,where all institutions on a multinational scale can collaborate in an organized, mallicious way - thats a position where its impossible to move that person even 1mm - its like saying you are in a matrix where everyone is against you.

It's not that there are evil puppet masters, but simply that over time institutions degrade and are consumed up by corruption and special interest to the point where they seize to be what they started out as. 

[zurew]

 

1 hour ago, VoidJumper said:

It's not that there are evil puppet masters, but simply that over time institutions degrade and are consumed up by corruption and special interest to the point where they seize to be what they started out as. 

Institutions don't  exist in a vacuum - they are in a system where there are parts and other institutions that are incentivised to expose if other institutions are doing something fishy especially if we start to talk about an international scale.

Just only from a market perspective, if they can shit on other companies or institutions they will be able to dominate the market more and earn more trust from people, so they have all the incentive to do so.

The idea that institutions will collaborate on an international scale (where they hide things or mislead with things) is unlikely based on how incapable people are at keeping secrets and doing their job without leaks and mistakes. Have to understand here, that there are a bunch of regular people working at institutions and in the government who are not special and they are very prone to make mistakes and to leak stuff (just look at the bar what you need to become a president or just talk to people who have a job inside an insititution or inside the government), so the idea that none of these people would actually expose any mass scale lie or collaboration is basically impossible.

Suggesting that certain parts of the government or certain institutions that can lie or hide things for some time is one thing, suggesting that it is likely that it has been happening on a multinational scale (especially if you add a timeline that is multiple year long) is a completely different claim that requires insane level of work, collaboration, expertise without anyone leaking anything tangible about the collaborative process.

So for you to distrust the studies and the data about the vaccines you would have to suggest that there has been happening a mass scale conspiracy against people where all nations are collaborating and injecting people with vaccines just to earn money, and not even one country or institutions will expose the others with a well conducted study.

If you don't think that there is a mass scale conspiracy and or collaboration when it comes to covid vaccines ,then how do you explain why haven't China or Russia exposed the extreme dangers of the vaccines that came from the US?

 

and also besides all of that, pointing out that someone or something has certain incentives to do something is very far from proving how they are lieing when it comes to specific questions or claims. There are others things that just surface level incentives that drive human decisionmaking and behaviour (ie politics, morals, ideology). So making an analysis or decision just purely looking at the incentives imo is not wise, you have to look at whatever claim or suggestion is made and deeply investigate independently each and every one of them.

You need to provide evidence for the specific lies or dishonesty or specific corruption regarding specific questions and claims, you can't just assume that what they suggest or say is automatically wrong or dishonest.

 

Edited June 24, 2023 by zurew

[Ima Freeman]

@zurewKennedy is focusing on controversial topics involving massive injustice and corruption. Of course he gets paradigm locked into conspiracies, because they happen.

They  involve mighty industries using their massive capital to fund tabbacco science and to bribe said institutions. 
That's a win-win situation. The agencies are stuffed with corporate money and the corporations are spared from regulation and liability. 
This got even worse with revolving doors - industry bureaucrats go into the regulatory agencies and change things from the inside and useful employees of the agencies get well payed positions in industry after they retire. 

That is one of the main problems of our times - Lobbying

Now pair this with the typical human phenomenon of the inert paradigm. The medical, economic, etc. mainstream worldview is challenged, which leads the current establishment to get dogmatic and over-conservative.

 

3 hours ago, zurew said:

If you seriously think that institutions are corrupt to the core (like there is a mass scale maliciousness towards people and or you can't trust any data that comes from any institution lets be it scientific or anything else), then I have no idea how to begin to have a productive conversation with you or how to ground any conversation with you or how to move you even a little from that position.

When it comes to certain topics, where institutions have financial entanglements or corruption happened, whose uncovering they are trying to prevent, things turn ridiculous. 

Damage from vaccines constituents for example, endangers the health agency (for being uncareful) and the massive profit and reputation pharma corporation - what do you think will happen if there is too little transparency ?

2 hours ago, zurew said:

No way.

Starting from a position where there is a mass scale conspiracy against people ,where all institutions on a multinational scale can collaborate in an organized, mallicious way - thats a position where its impossible to move that person even 1mm - its like saying you are in a matrix where everyone is against you.

We are living in an ever more globalized world. Conflicts of worldview and over new paradigms are carried out on an ever more globalized stage.
Be careful not to use a conspiracy theorist straw man.

[zurew]

29 minutes ago, Ima Freeman said:

Kennedy is focusing on controversial topics involving massive injustice and corruption.

Kennedy is making a bunch of claims without any sign of serious investigation. Its embarassing how much info he pulls out of his ass that he is overly confident about, without proving any of his big claims.

He has an overly confident conspiratorial attitude and that makes him not a good candidate to do any kind of investigation or thinking about any kind of problem.

53 minutes ago, Ima Freeman said:

Damage from vaccines constituents for example, endangers the health agency (for being uncareful) and the massive profit and reputation pharma corporation - what do you think will happen if there is too little transparency ?

Again we are talking about multinational scale, why arent any institution or country expose anything?

We have literally seen in front of our eyes the vaccine race to develop the best vaccine in order to take over the whole market and to earn billions of dollars. Why is that certain vaccines ended up proven to be less effective or to be more dangerous than other ones? - that is proof that there is incentive in the system to expose each other , so why didn't they expose the level of danger or harm that the antivaxx people or what Kennedy is suggesting?

23 minutes ago, Ima Freeman said:

Of course he gets paradigm locked into conspiracies, because they happen.

*Sometimes they happen and in most cases just assumed to be true, because that way it seems to be a lot easier to simplify the whole world down to the bad guys.

16 minutes ago, Ima Freeman said:

We are living in an ever more globalized world

Yeah with a bunch of different countries with different agenda and plans.

Why do you think is most cases the best point an anti establishment person can bring is just to talk about the incentives without actually showing any tangible evidence that would prove a very specific claim that they try to make? 

Why is it so hard to make an actual strong case for a specific claim without always only referring to vague points? 

Why do you think that most people need to use the fucking VAERS database as one of their main arguments against the vaccines? Why is it so impossible to show a causal chain that proves how incredibly dangerous these vaccines are without referring to a system that only collect reports without any further investigation to prove any relational connection let alone a causal chain? 

20 minutes ago, Ima Freeman said:

Be careful not to use a conspiracy theorist straw man.

Be careful not to be tangled up in specific thoughts that you have not verified yet and just only project malice behind it.

Again this talk about incentives is very far from proving any specific point, you guys will have to work more than to just stay on that level of abstraction. Also again the idea or the implication that people who are working at these institutions will just shut their mouth and will do anything and everything as long as they paid  is start to get more and more ridiculous if we start to increase the scale and if we mention the fact that money is only one motivatior of human decisionmaking and behaviour and once we start to talk about the incompetency of humans (how we will unintentionall leak stuff or say stuff that we shouldn't) then we realize how mass scale any collaboration is just ridiculous.

[Ima Freeman]

9 hours ago, zurew said:

Kennedy is making a bunch of claims without any sign of serious investigation. Its embarassing how much info he pulls out of his ass that he is overly confident about, without proving any of his big claims.

Why is it so hard to make an actual strong case for a specific claim without always only referring to vague points? 

I agree that he talks too much, but he cites very specific sources. That's what you overlook. 

 

9 hours ago, zurew said:

We have literally seen in front of our eyes the vaccine race to develop the best vaccine in order to take over the whole market and to earn billions of dollars. Why is that certain vaccines ended up proven to be less effective or to be more dangerous than other ones? - that is proof that there is incentive in the system to expose each other , so why didn't they expose the level of danger or harm that the antivaxx people or what Kennedy is suggesting?

Because if one pharma corporation drags the vaccine of another into the mud, their business will suffer to, because more people will see what limitations and dangers vaccines have, you see 

9 hours ago, zurew said:

*Sometimes they happen and in most cases just assumed to be true, because that way it seems to be a lot easier to simplify the whole world down to the bad guys.

Kennedy is a lawyer so his job is to expose injustice. As I said he's quite paradigm locked. Of course there is no big global conspiracy, at least on the relative level not

10 hours ago, zurew said:

Be careful not to be tangled up in specific thoughts that you have not verified yet and just only project malice behind it.

I agree that that's important, but where does skepticism stop. You can be skeptible about everything. With enough evidence, for example concerning thimerosal as a cause of autism, more than enough evidence is there to accept it as knowledge that it causes damage.

 

10 hours ago, zurew said:

Again this talk about incentives is very far from proving any specific point, you guys will have to work more than to just stay on that level of abstraction. Also again the idea or the implication that people who are working at these institutions will just shut their mouth and will do anything and everything as long as they paid  is start to get more and more ridiculous...

Ever heard of whistle-blowers? Ever heard of leaks? 

The CDC-whistleblower William Thompson for example concerning vaccines
Edward Snowden concerning mass surveillance 
Julian Assange had his sources, for example Chalsea Manning
The Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu, who leaked information of Israeli nuclear weapons

10 hours ago, zurew said:

once we start to talk about the incompetency of humans (how we will unintentionall leak stuff or say stuff that we shouldn't) then we realize how mass scale any collaboration is just ridiculous.

Off course you are right, but who is saying, that the wordl is run by a secret cabal? That is what I mean by "conspiracy theorist straw man"



Your points are valid, as are the points of Kennedy as well as others who posted in this topic. The problem is, that when such debates happen everyone jumps to extremes in order to protect their opinion. It gets inflammatory and people cut of part of the truth.

A better option would be if one synthesizes  the good and valid points of the "corruption fighters", of the people subscribing to scientism, of people arguing for the importance of the pharmaceutical industry or the transparency of regulatory agencies, of truthers, of skepticists, of liberals, of conservatives and so on.

 

[VoidJumper]

9 hours ago, zurew said:

Also again the idea or the implication that people who are working at these institutions will just shut their mouth and will do anything and everything as long as they paid  is start to get more and more ridiculous if we start to increase the scale and if we mention the fact that money is only one motivatior of human decisionmaking and behaviour and once we start to talk about the incompetency of humans (how we will unintentionall leak stuff or say stuff that we shouldn't) then we realize how mass scale any collaboration is just ridiculous.

Ever heard of the ash experiment? People will go along with anything, even the most blatantly ridiculous, obviously untrue assertions in order not to stand out, and especially not stand out in a negative way. Don't you remember what it was like at the height of covid hysteria? Going against the grain basically amounted to heresy of the highest order. It would have required outstanding moral character to resist the temptation to abdicate your critical thinking and remain unbiased while examining the evidence. It is rare for people to be able to do that

The number one motivator of people is to preserve their egoic structures, not truth. Scientists aren't any different, in fact they might be worse. It is 100 times easier to just go along with the status quo than to truly think for yourself. This is how mass formations happen and no one is immune. In fact the more "educated" the more susceptible people usually are.

If your only argument is that it is impossible for a lie to propagate itself on this scale, and therefore you ignore all of the evidence because it would go against this one belief of yours, then there is nothing I can show you to convince you otherwise. No matter how well I lay out my argument, no matter how founded, not mater how much proof, you will dismiss it all because your mind has been closed to the possibility from the very beginning. 

 

[zurew]

 

1 hour ago, VoidJumper said:

If your only argument is that it is impossible for a lie to propagate itself on this scale, and therefore you ignore all of the evidence because it would go against this one belief of yours, then there is nothing I can show you to convince you otherwise. No matter how well I lay out my argument, no matter how founded, not mater how much proof, you will dismiss it all because your mind has been closed to the possibility from the very beginning. 

My argument that it is extremely unlikely to have a global scale case where everyone is willingly participating in the lie and can hold back info at such an extent that nothing tangible leaks out (especially given that there are colliding incentives on a multinational scale). When it comes to other subjects leaks have already happened (where the information hiding have happened on a much smaller case), and in those cases hiding information is much much easier because a lot less people is involved, so why is it that in this case there are no big leaks (or if there are such leaks, I would like to see them) even though we are talking about global scale.

But ,lets start with you clarifiying what is the claim that you are trying to make and then go ahead and back that claim up with evidence.

If your claim is that you know with a high confidence that these vaccines are much more dangerous than what the mainstream made them out to be , then show me what evidence you have for that.

If your claim is the above, then you have to know that by taking that position you have to imply that all the dozen amount of papers that proves the safetiness and efficacy of these vaccines are have to be either made up or simply wrong compared to the bombshell document or paper that you have.

1 hour ago, VoidJumper said:

People will go along with anything, even the most blatantly ridiculous, obviously untrue assertions in order not to stand out, and especially not stand out in a negative way.

You know that this is applicable to both provaxx and antivaxx people? If you are in an antivaxx crowd you suggesting or defending information about the vaccines will end up in you getting a massive backlash from the group or you will even end up getting dropped from the group.

2 hours ago, Ima Freeman said:

ecause if one pharma corporation drags the vaccine of another into the mud, their business will suffer to, because more people will see what limitations and dangers vaccines have, you see 

They have already dragged each others vaccine down to the mud: what do you think what happened with Astrazeneca or with the Sinopharm vaccine? 

So what is the reason for those companies to still hold back bombshell information about other vaccines, if their company have already lost the vaccine competition and if the credit and prestige of some of these companies have already been dragged to the mud? 

2 hours ago, Ima Freeman said:

Ever heard of whistle-blowers? Ever heard of leaks? 

Yes I have, but I haven't seen any big leaks about the vaccine that would prove the point that they are as dangerous as some of these claim them to be.

If there is a big hiding of information of the vaccines I would expect that information to be leaked. If you would try to make the claim that it is indeed possbile to hide that information without any leaks on a global scale, then I would like you to walk me through all the steps how is that possible, when leaks are happenning on a much smaller scale when it comes to others stuff, wherethe hiding of the information should have been much easier.

But none of these arguments are productive because it won't move anyone anywhere, the only relevant thing here is for you guys to bring those bombshell leaks regarding the dangerousness of the vaccines.

Edited June 25, 2023 by zurew

[VoidJumper]

6 hours ago, zurew said:

You know that this is applicable to both provaxx and antivaxx people? If you are in an antivaxx crowd you suggesting or defending information about the vaccines will end up in you getting a massive backlash from the group or you will even end up getting dropped from the group.

Those are not comparable at all. One is regular ass in-group bias and the other is a military grade psy-op.

6 hours ago, zurew said:

But ,lets start with you clarifiying what is the claim that you are trying to make and then go ahead and back that claim up with evidence.

If your claim is that you know with a high confidence that these vaccines are much more dangerous than what the mainstream made them out to be , then show me what evidence you have for that.

I am not that guy. But RFK Jr. is lol

What is needed is something like an unbiased investigative committee working through everything that happened in these last few years and exposing the darkness. 

RFK Jr. is the one to do the job. 

[zurew]

7 minutes ago, VoidJumper said:

Those are not comparable at all.

Ohh yeah it is comparable for sure and I think the antivaxx side is even more concerning, because thats one thing that on the blind provaxx side people will take any kind of vaccine without any look at the data,  but on the antivaxx side people are willing to eat shit ,drink urine , even drink cum or do literally whatever they are told by an alternative media source.

@VoidJumper

What is your exact position on the vaccines and what process did you use to reach your conclusion on the matter?

I will also ask for the evidence that you have mentioned that will back up your position/claims.