This sounds like a stupid question, but I'm being genuine.
He is telling people to eat more meat, which sounds absolutely insane to me.
What qualifies him to give health advice ? Why are americans trusting him ?
this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2026
551 points (88.7% liked)
No Stupid Questions
45681 readers
1633 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As much as I wish this dude would immediately suffer cardiac arrest from a clogged artery, him being a former addict has nothing to do with anything, and in itself doesn’t devalue anything he says. That kind of thinking is pretty problematic, and you need to have a real hard think about the way you obviously look down on people who are recovering from addiction, cause honestly you’re being pretty shitty right now.
Mmmm, I think there's still a point to the question. Being an addict is not a moral failing; it doesn't make you less of a person. But the vast majority of people who believe in RFK also believe being an addict is reprehensible.
t's like how people ask Christians why they vote for someone who's been married x times. Personally idgaf how many times Trump has been married, I care about how many women and children he has assaulted. I don't think divorce is a moral failing; hell, I don't believe in the institution of marriage by the state. But, the very same people who hold him up also claim to believe that it should make him unworthy.
While true, they're also the segment of the population most impacted by the opioid epidemic.
There is no logistical consistency in the conservative mind, we have to stop trying to make square pegs fit into something that doesn't even have holes. These folks go with how they feel, and they adore having a health and human services leader who gives them validation for believing in magic water, essential oil and avoidance of scarrrrryyyy needles and vaccines. That's ALL they care about, nothing in his background would change that. NOTHING.
He spent his entire life literally destroying his mind. Is he bad because he is an addict? Perhaps not, but he has significant brain damaged because of the drugs.
I am all for recovery but the truth is he will never have the mental faculties to be a leader because of his life choices. He will never be able to make a full recovery. That is not discrimination, that is just reality.
No. This logic is fatalist bullshit.
Drugs have consequences whether you accept it or not.
They do, i know. Theyre not certain. The consequences depend on lots of factors. To disqualify someone because they used drugs without looking more into how it affected that specific person is fatalist bullshit.
Oh yeah, I totally get that. It is obvious that RFK has brain damage which affects his ability to think clearly. This is specific to him doing hard drugs for decades.
Also, just because you wouldn't make a good leader because of damage you did to your mind does not change that you should be treated with dignity and care.
When oxygen to the brain is habitually suppressed, brain damage can occur. That's not fatalist, it's just reality.
That doesn't imply addiction is a moral failing. It's a disease, and diseases can have permanent effects.
I agree brain damage CAN occur. Thats not the same statement i was criticizing.
You called it fatalistic bullshit to say RFK jr. has permanent brain damage...
No no. I was calling the logic bullshit. The reasoning was bad, not the conclusion. Learn to interpret text.
I do not need to take a hard look at this to clearly see that this is a person who does not approach life with the scientific method in mind.
Being a drug addict does not accidentally happen. It suggests a flawed decision making process which should make someone ineligible to be making decisions which affect millions of people.
I don't look down on someone for being a heroin user, but I do trust their decision making process less than I would trust someone who did not make that decision.
You can't get a security clearance with a history of narcotics addiction. Nor can you join the military. Because the addiction compromises you and your judgement.
There is no such thing as a 'former addict'.
so does having questioned the US or Israeli governments, or participated in any protests or activism. as an example, yours was a pretty bad one.
If this was true then hating Israel would have been an epidemic during the Vietnam era.
Uh huh. Apply for a security clearance sometime and see how far they sniff up your ass before you're granted access to that scif you need to do your job.