Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 57 posts

Re: You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe

#31

Post by coldbrewed »

bonzaidrinkingb wrote: post #16
vidarh wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You should revisit that with a fresh perspective. Look into the indirect connection between vaccines causing gastro-intestinal problems, and autists with gut/biome problems. You can not scientifically state "there is no connection between autism and vaccines". Not even legally (look at vaccine court cases). Only from a "public health" and big pharma perspective is such a statement defensible.

Autism-related dietary preferences mediate autism-gut microbiome associations

> Overall, microbiome differences in ASD may reflect dietary preferences that relate to diagnostic features, and we caution against claims that the microbiome has a driving role in ASD.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34767757/

A casual skim of the research literature indicates the opposite correlation - ASD itself may influence the gut biome. If you have specific literature indicating otherwise I'd love to see it but arguing that ASD is caused by the gut microbiome bears the burden of proof.

In the wider topic regarding RFK, claims about the cause of autism is absolutely flooded with bad research and has a tendency to be related with acceptance of really bad research.

> You can not scientifically state "there is no connection between autism and vaccines".

I absolutely can. There is no high quality, widely accepted research that indicates that indicates causation of autism by vaccines. The original research was deeply fraudulent and has not been superceded by good research. If you disagree then shoot over a link to a study on pubmed.

Re: You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe

#32

Post by vidarh »

andsoitis wrote: post #12
vidarh wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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?

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.

Re: You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe

#33

Post by bandyaboot »

krapp wrote: post #28
bandyaboot wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does this even mean?

The purpose of the Second Amendment (as currently interpreted by SCOTUS and much of American culture) is to ensure the presence of a well-armed populace willing and capable of committing violence against the government if need be - this threat of populist violence is a necessity for a free state. Therefore, any state in which politicians are entirely safe cannot be considered free. And honestly, if I'm forced to put…

I highly doubt that killing politicians would lead to a more free state. Back when the second amendment was written, sure. But now, the government has much better violence at its disposal than even the most well armed “patriots”.

Re: You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe

#34

Post by vidarh »

stcroixx wrote: post #13
vidarh wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What specific immense harm has he caused?

Spreading the claims has reduced vaccine uptake. The fallout of the reduce MMR vaccine uptake has been an increase in outbreaks of dangerous diseases. In my eyes the man is worse than a murderer.

Re: You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe

#35

Post by krapp »

Ajay-p wrote: post #29
krapp wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of the Second Amendment (as currently interpreted by SCOTUS and much of American culture) is to ensure the presence of a well-armed populace willing and capable of committing violence against the government if need be - this threat of populist violence is a necessity for a free state. Therefore, any state in which politicians are entirely safe cannot be considered free. And honestly, if I'm forced to put…

This may not be appropriate in polite company but my neighbor told me that "The second amendment is there in case the first does not work out"

Ironically, the second amendment is also the most effective way of stifling the first.

Re: You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe

#37

Post by vidarh »

bonzaidrinkingb wrote: post #16
vidarh wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You should revisit that with a fresh perspective. Look into the indirect connection between vaccines causing gastro-intestinal problems, and autists with gut/biome problems. You can not scientifically state "there is no connection between autism and vaccines". Not even legally (look at vaccine court cases). Only from a "public health" and big pharma perspective is such a statement defensible.

You're setting up a strawman. I have not made the claim you ascribe to me - it's a dishonest debating tactic.

I can state categorically that no evidence has been provided linking the MMR vaccine with autism, despite RFKjrs claims otherwise, and that the total amount of claims of harms of all types from the MMR vaccine makes it a wildly extraordinary claim to suggest there such a link and that even if there were, given the amount of reported claim it'd even them be morally reprehensible and massively harmful to stir up fear about it.

Anyone parroting his claims really ought to look at the rates of claims made vs. deaths pre-vaccines and consider the morality of amplifying his bullshit.

Re: You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe

#38

Post by sneak »

Ajay-p wrote: post #29
krapp wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of the Second Amendment (as currently interpreted by SCOTUS and much of American culture) is to ensure the presence of a well-armed populace willing and capable of committing violence against the government if need be - this threat of populist violence is a necessity for a free state. Therefore, any state in which politicians are entirely safe cannot be considered free. And honestly, if I'm forced to put…

This may not be appropriate in polite company but my neighbor told me that "The second amendment is there in case the first does not work out"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty

Re: You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe

#39

Post by rsynnott »

keepamovin wrote: post #3
tomohawk wrote: post #2

This guy's a nutter, but he has a point. His polling numbers make him a contender. Not providing protection is ridiculous.

What makes you say he's a nutter?

I mean, fill your boots: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.

He's into a wide variety of nonsense, though he's certainly best-known for anti vax nonsense (he was into it since before it was cool; on the whole MMR conspiracy theory train and so on).

Re: You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe

#40

Post by rsynnott »

andsoitis wrote: post #12
vidarh wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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?

> Just because you have one or 10 nutty beliefs, that doesn’t make you a nutter.

It _does_.

> I don’t know where the threshold lie, but as an example, didn’t Newton believe in alchemy?

Yes; particularly in his later years, Newton was a nutter, though not in a particularly harmful way. (It was a lot more _forgivable_ back then; pretty much everyone was.)

Post reply on HN