RFK - Make America Healthy? again?

That'd be like putting "literally" back in the Words Have Meaning bottle. Sorry, that ship has sailed.

RFK is likely talking about low-functioning autism, and the reason he's getting shat upon is because autism has lost nearly all meaning. The threshold for autism online seems to be anyone who enjoys eating Cinnamon Toast Crunch for dinner, or has ever sat awkwardly against the wall at a 6th grade dance. That reality is how we get to these outlandish claims on the number of autistic people and allow people like RFK to spout off about how many autistic people seem to be showing up now that we have these evil vaccines.

The people who aren't big on eye contact or have trouble expressing gratitude or whatever used to just be called strange. Now, everyone is autistic.

Autism is now a spectrum of disorders rather than a specific, tightly defined disorder. It hasn't lost all meaning, its meaning has changed.

Why?

Luciom - i wanna ask if you'd be willing to engage in a fun cool experiment here: Do you think you can come up with a hypothetical situation that could necessitate the government to mandate things like a vaccine for specific situations or even general?

Im just wondering if perhaps you might want to try approaching the argument not form the side you already keep repeating but from one that argues against yourself - it might be a neat way to bolster your own points in some ways as well.

its like shadow boxing but with ideas.

Also: i dont really see how a mandate by government that is a contingent for job security is a flood gate for some future monster if the mandate is specifically set in parameter and scope.

Correct me if im wrong, but is your "this is force" argument asserted by some future hypothetical where the government mandates everyone with an L in their name to some hellish existence of continued subordination in some unfair system that is inescapable? Because that just isnt equivocal to the vaccine situation in any shape or form.

Any vaccine/medical product that doesn't have a long term safety record, such as the mRNA vaccines, should absolutely never be mandated under any circumstances.

Imagine if they had mandated thalidomide. It was considered "safe and effective" for years until it was discovered that it wasn't.

Of course. That's the whole strategy of the pharmaceutical/medical industry. Keep your customers sick so the cash registers keep turning over.

It's a never ending conveyor belt of repeat customers.

thodomide is a very good exmaple of a failure of the systems in place.

but it doesnt follow thag everhthing is then a misreprentation or failure.

im using failure here but can and would extend to something kore damning. it was entirely ****ed up for sure.

but the problem inherent in the case of thalidomide is that there is no such thing as clinical trials with pregnant women as the participating group.

this isnt an example of science as an overarching institution or methodology being wrong, its an example of individuals pushing something perhaps because profit motive

that said, the comparison to mRNA vaccine studies only demonstrates a severe lack of a global understanding of the entirety of what goes into the process, methodology itself, as well as what constitutes rigorous analysis for approval of something.

By your logic, nothing would ever be released or approved - and more individuals would suffer or die. This isnt a presentation of a bargain or middle ground either.

There are necessary uses of government violence, many of them, but there aren't necessary uses of paternalism in general.

I use necessary meaning "absent state force society collapses in a state of permanent warfare and destruction".

Necessary as in actually necessary to avoid the total annihilation of society.

I can't think of any such case for a vaccine mandate at all (nor for any other paternalist intervention).

You need sci fi to make the case, like there is the zombie apocalypse and we mandate a vaccine against becoming a zombie if they bite you or something like that.

But even in that case the number of people refusing to take the vaccine would be vanishingly small so the mandate wouldn't actually be needed.

I think with the way you frame the question the problem is with the "necessary". You probably think government has a duty to intervene if "on net" it can clearly do good (according to your definition of what good is).

I don't, i think government force should only be used when it's absolutely indispensable to do so, meaning when not using it would necessarily cause the collapse of society.

So yes it means 95-99% of current government violence uses are over reaches for me.

For example any law or regulation that does NOT exist in any civilized country should be illegal to introduce (the existence of another civilized country without that rule proves it is not indispensable). That as a very minimum floor.

It should be constitutionally mandatory to push for the absolute minimum amount of state force use in all sectors of society, using real life examples as proof of concepts.

And in any case of doubt always err on the "no force" solution, so only incredible super majorities should be allowed to introduce any new use of force (meanjng any rule or law limiting freedom).

Then the same applies to your own country in the past (so basically almost never any new rule about anything that existed before).

Because autistic people that can live in society by themselves and are self sufficient should not be a focus of politics like any non conforming person or group shouldn't, as we dont need to "fix" anything.

There are people who strongly prefer to wake up far later than most others for biological reasons (so called "owls"), but we don't shape society or discourse around them even if they are more common than self sufficient autistic people and if many societal arrangements are very damaging to them.

Ok so the take here kinda tracks with a bit of a dated philosophical treatise by Hobbes, which i'm pretty sure relies on an absurd premise that the necessity of "god" and "religion" is the only thing that supplies any moral system onto society.

yet there are tons of examples of societies that do not adhere to the god/religion hobbes invokes that did not collapse into chaos due to this lack of moral imperative supplied therein.

the god religion argument boils down to: if the threat of eternity burning in hell didnt exist, society would not have any moral guardrails or morals at all.

Which leads me to want to ask you - does the existential threat of eternal damnation fuel your argument as well? And if not, what is the support for your conclusion for this descent into chaos because this statement isnt the only time you've brought this up as if it were objectively true.

I disagree, but as you are the person asserting it, I'm asking for clarification if you can.

This statement precludes that society is a rigid structure that is not subject to change even within pockets of that society itself.

Did you know there are cities with 24 hour economies globally? Not that the bank stays open all night but that entire pockets of people who also participate in the same society form structures that allow for this to exist - in other words: society is not a rigid structure imposed upon everyone tethered to a rule set established by powerful or majority.

The statement you present comes across like "because I dont experience it directly, it cant exist" which i'm sure you know to be demonstrably false.

you've never talked to doctors or scientists ever have you?

even if i am to try to find some manner of common ground, it would be one where capitalist forces by those who cannot create (in this case, they are not organic chemists, or scientists, they are middle men in a chain of transactions and nothing more) are the root cause of your conclusion.

sorry - wanted to expand on this.

Lets take a simple situation - you and I are on an island and alone. We can form a kind of social contract wherein we contribute to our mutual survival OR we can live on opposite sides and attempt to sabotage each others existence. Which of these options do you think you'd intuitively gravitate towards? Sure the example in of itself relies upon our notion that society can exist (bound by your rule set or one im proposing) but given the constraints placed upon us by the hypothetical, the option to alter that also exists. If we truly would devolve into chaos/annihilation, wouldnt the latter of the two become more enticing as it is would be our 'natural state' in accordance with your pov?

if im absolutely misrepresenting your point, please let me know how and where as well. im trying to approach in good faith as much as i can but I am subject to misinterpretation of the written word/lack of enough context to understand scope of entirety of argument etc

Yeah, most self identified autists are just socially stunted misanthropes who justify their poor social standing by claiming autism

Not sure what the conundrum is here?

Not sure what you mean with your objection here , j am certainly not defending theocracy or any form of religious intrusion into state power at all and I do agree that the existence of countries with no state religion proves that you shouldn't be allowed to force any religious tenet with the state.

Not sure where you got the vibe that I was a theocrat (???), I am actually a militant atheist.

The descent into chaos definition of necessity comes from the need to protect private property (and bodies) as a fundamental just use of state force, ie I am not an anarchist.

That we shouldn't have physicians going around giving them certificates which let then get covered for "healthcare" paid by us, or have more time to take exams and so on.

And it shouldn't in general be the healthcare system who decides what is medical, otherwise everything becomes medical as they gain from making it medical ffs.

You don't see a problem with the medicalization of non medical characteristics?

Reminder that there were plenty of long term effects studies for the covid vaccines, as long term for vaccines is about 6 months. Long term is defined differently for vaccines as opposed to medications that are taken regularly and never leave the system. Vaccines are gone in a few weeks at most.

Not sure what you mean here either.

I have been a owl all my life. I have problems dealing with everything that requires me to be fully in shape pre 11 am.

Do I get to take exams after 11 even if they set it for 8:30?

While things are a little better today, there are still offices that close at noon lol, which for you guys would be like an office open from 3am to 8am.

But I don't ask or beg politics to fix it. I am the anomaly and no one owes me ****. I personally pay the price of my anomaly and society doesn't have to cater to my needs.

Now do trans people, or "people on the spectrum" or any other tint minority for whom some societal arrangement is uncomfortable.

As a clinically diagnosed autist I have zero clue wtf you are talking about

That you can get "diagnosed" and get benefits from it even if you aren't actually autistic in a semantic sense that makes sense.

Doesn't mean it's your case (I have no clue about your case) I mean in general.

What are you going to change next? The definition of cancer?

What absolute bullshit. Do you ever stop lying.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Which part is a lie?

All of it.

The guy is a pathological liar.