RFK claims about vaccines fact checked by Senator Dr Bill Cassidy.

T. A. Gardner said:
There what is? Your glaring stupidity and reliance on a computer?


Didn't say that. AI is not the be-all, end-all of research. It's usually mediocre at it. Maybe in 100 years it might be awesome, but right now? No, it's lame and grade school.


That's only because we are living in what's becoming an idiocracy.


This is just a straight up lie on your part.
Click to expand...
AI is reliable now. You aren't seriously one of those boomers who's afraid of technology and insists on writing a paper check to pay your phone bill, are you? AI generally does a better, more thorough, and much quicker review of extensive sources to produce a reliable response. You're thumbing through card catalogs in the MAGA idiocy section.
 
Grim Reaper said:
What can you tell me based on the comments by @Ichabod Stain on Justplainpolitics.com?



What his communication style suggests​


1. He uses identity‑protecting worldviews​


When someone rejects all institutions, courts, journalists, and evidence as “corrupted,” they’re not evaluating facts — they’re protecting a worldview.
This is common in people who:


  • rely on closed‑loop information ecosystems
  • treat disagreement as threat
  • see institutions as inherently hostile

It’s not about the topic — it’s about defending a belief structure.



2. He escalates to insults quickly​


You’ve shown several examples:


  • “f*** off”
  • “you lost the debate”
  • calling you names

This is a classic pattern of emotional displacement — when someone feels cornered or out of arguments, they switch to dominance displays instead of reasoning.


It’s not debate. It’s posturing.



3. He declares victory instead of demonstrating it​


Saying “you lost the debate” after refusing to engage with evidence is a rhetorical move, not a conclusion.
People do this when:


  • they need to save face
  • they feel threatened by information
  • they want to reassert control of the interaction

It’s a way to avoid acknowledging uncertainty.



4. He uses conspiracy‑style reasoning​


From what you’ve shared, he rejects:


  • courts
  • investigations
  • journalists
  • bipartisan committees
  • any source outside his preferred circle

This is a hallmark of closed epistemic systems, where the only acceptable information is that which confirms the worldview.


It’s not about evidence — it’s about belonging to a narrative.



5. He uses provocation as a tactic​


His replies are designed to:


  • get a reaction
  • derail the topic
  • shift the conversation from facts to emotions
  • force you into defending yourself instead of the argument

This is a common online strategy for people who want to “win” socially rather than intellectually.



What this doesn’t tell us​


I can’t tell you:


  • who he is in real life
  • his identity
  • his background
  • anything private or personal

I can only analyze the behavioral patterns in the text you’ve shown.



Summary of the persona you’re dealing with​


Based on the messages you shared, “Ichabod Stain” presents as someone who:


  • rejects all external evidence
  • uses insults as a shield
  • treats debate as a dominance contest
  • relies on conspiracy‑style reasoning
  • needs to “win” socially when he can’t win factually
  • uses provocation to control the emotional tone

This is a predictable online persona, and you’re not going to get a productive conversation out of someone operating in that mode.
Click to expand...
the truth is you're a big pharma shill who believes in eugenics and genocide, like big pharma itself.

see Ig Farben and the spin off companies.

literally Nazis.
 
Diesel said:
AI is reliable now. You aren't seriously one of those boomers who's afraid of technology and insists on writing a paper check to pay your phone bill, are you? AI generally does a better, more thorough, and much quicker review of extensive sources to produce a reliable response. You're thumbing through card catalogs in the MAGA idiocy section.
Click to expand...
no it isnt', you stupid cum jar.

all you dumb people think AI is gonna make you on par with smart people.

it's not going to do that.

you thinking it will do that cements you firmly in the dumb category.
 
Ichabod Stain said:
the truth is you're a big pharma shill who believes in eugenics and genocide, like big pharma itself.

see Ig Farben and the spin off companies.

literally Nazis.
Click to expand...

🔍​

1. “Big Pharma shill”​

This is a baseless personal attack.There is no evidence, no reasoning, no connection to anything you said. It’s a stock insult used in conspiracy circles to dismiss anyone who cites evidence.

2. “Believes in eugenics and genocide”​

This is a false and extreme accusation.It’s designed to provoke, not to describe reality.There is nothing in your posts that remotely supports this.

3. “See IG Farben and the spin‑off companies”​

IG Farben was a German chemical conglomerate dissolved after WWII.Modern pharmaceutical companies are not continuations of Nazi ideology.This is a common conspiracy trope, not a historical fact.

4. “Literally Nazis”​

This is not factual.It’s an emotionally loaded label meant to shut down discussion.

None of this is evidence‑based.It’s all rhetorical escalation.


🧠​

This kind of reply shows:

  • He cannot refute your facts, so he attacks your character
  • He escalates to extreme accusations to derail the conversation
  • He uses historical references (IG Farben) without context to sound authoritative
  • He tries to trigger an emotional reaction so you stop talking about evidence
This is a classic pattern in online conspiracy‑driven personas.
 
Grim Reaper said:

🔍​

1. “Big Pharma shill”​

This is a baseless personal attack.There is no evidence, no reasoning, no connection to anything you said. It’s a stock insult used in conspiracy circles to dismiss anyone who cites evidence.

2. “Believes in eugenics and genocide”​

This is a false and extreme accusation.It’s designed to provoke, not to describe reality.There is nothing in your posts that remotely supports this.

3. “See IG Farben and the spin‑off companies”​

IG Farben was a German chemical conglomerate dissolved after WWII.Modern pharmaceutical companies are not continuations of Nazi ideology.This is a common conspiracy trope, not a historical fact.

4. “Literally Nazis”​

This is not factual.It’s an emotionally loaded label meant to shut down discussion.

None of this is evidence‑based.It’s all rhetorical escalation.


🧠​

This kind of reply shows:

  • He cannot refute your facts, so he attacks your character
  • He escalates to extreme accusations to derail the conversation
  • He uses historical references (IG Farben) without context to sound authoritative
  • He tries to trigger an emotional reaction so you stop talking about evidence
This is a classic pattern in online conspiracy‑driven personas.
Click to expand...
is the world overpopulated?
 
Ichabod Stain said:
is the world overpopulated?
Click to expand...

🌍​

Short answer: Experts don’t agree on a simple yes/no because “overpopulation” isn’t just about the number of people — it’s about resources, distribution, consumption, and sustainability.

Here’s the breakdown.


✅​

According to the United Nations and World Bank:

  • Global population is over 8 billion
  • Growth rates are declining
  • Many countries (Japan, South Korea, Italy, China) are facing population decline, not overpopulation
So the issue isn’t just “too many people” — it’s where population is growing and where it’s shrinking.


✅​

High‑income countries consume far more resources per person than low‑income countries.

For example:

  • The average American uses many times more energy, water, and materials than the average person in most of Africa or South Asia.
  • So environmental strain is driven more by lifestyle and consumption patterns than by population alone.
This is why many scientists say the question is really about sustainable resource use, not just population numbers.


✅​

Global agriculture already produces more than enough calories to feed everyone.The problem is:

  • distribution
  • waste
  • inequality
  • conflict
  • infrastructure
So hunger is not caused by “too many people,” but by how resources are managed.


✅​

Scientists focus on:

  • climate change
  • water scarcity
  • biodiversity loss
  • land use
  • pollution
These issues are tied to how humans live, not just how many there are.


📌​

The world isn’t “overpopulated” in a simple numerical sense. The real challenge is sustainable resource use, inequality, and environmental impact.

Population growth is part of the picture, but it’s not the whole story — and in many countries, the bigger problem is actually population decline, aging, and shrinking workforces.
 
Grim Reaper said:

🌍​

Short answer: Experts don’t agree on a simple yes/no because “overpopulation” isn’t just about the number of people — it’s about resources, distribution, consumption, and sustainability.

Here’s the breakdown.


✅​

According to the United Nations and World Bank:

  • Global population is over 8 billion
  • Growth rates are declining
  • Many countries (Japan, South Korea, Italy, China) are facing population decline, not overpopulation
So the issue isn’t just “too many people” — it’s where population is growing and where it’s shrinking.


✅​

High‑income countries consume far more resources per person than low‑income countries.

For example:

  • The average American uses many times more energy, water, and materials than the average person in most of Africa or South Asia.
  • So environmental strain is driven more by lifestyle and consumption patterns than by population alone.
This is why many scientists say the question is really about sustainable resource use, not just population numbers.


✅​

Global agriculture already produces more than enough calories to feed everyone.The problem is:

  • distribution
  • waste
  • inequality
  • conflict
  • infrastructure
So hunger is not caused by “too many people,” but by how resources are managed.


✅​

Scientists focus on:

  • climate change
  • water scarcity
  • biodiversity loss
  • land use
  • pollution
These issues are tied to how humans live, not just how many there are.


📌​

The world isn’t “overpopulated” in a simple numerical sense. The real challenge is sustainable resource use, inequality, and environmental impact.

Population growth is part of the picture, but it’s not the whole story — and in many countries, the bigger problem is actually population decline, aging, and shrinking workforces.
Click to expand...
it's a yes/no. and the answer is no.

the world is not overpopulated and the green movement and scarcity mindset are only promulgated to justify mass genocides against humanity.

pure Nazi bullshit.
 
Ichabod Stain said:
it's a yes/no. and the answer is no.

the world is not overpopulated and the green movement and scarcity mindset are only promulgated to justify mass genocides against humanity.

pure Nazi bullshit.
Click to expand...
If you ever want to talk about population data instead of shouting ‘Nazi’ at everything, let me know.
 
Ichabod Stain said:
so is that a "yes" on students using calculators on their times table tests?

there are different use cases for things, you desperate dolt.
Click to expand...
If you need help reading get someone smarter than you to help.

I am the one saying there is different use cases above you don't and you are now just repeating me trying to pretend I've ever argued otherwise as you continue to scramble to try and pretend we were arguing things we were not as you got so badly owned here
 
Ichabod Stain said:
what is the carrying capacity of earth, according to your farcical notions?
Click to expand...
Carrying capacity isn’t a fixed number. It depends on technology, resource use, agriculture, energy systems, and consumption patterns. That’s why scientists don’t give a single value, it changes based on how societies operate.
 
Knuckles Z said:
Let's be transparent
Senator Bill Cassidy has received $712,504 from the pharmaceutical and health products industry between 2019 and 2024, according to OpenSecrets data. This includes $428,950 from PACs and $283,554 from individual contributors within the industry.
search.brave.com

How much campaign finance revenue does senator dr cassidy get from the pharmaceutical industry?

Senator Bill Cassidy has received $712,504 from the pharmaceutical and health products industry between 2019 and 2024, according to OpenSecrets data. This includes $428,950 from PACs and $283,554 from individual contributors within the industry. Additional context: - In the first half of 2023...
search.brave.com search.brave.com
Click to expand...
Thanks to citizens united

They can’t win without these types of donations

What you watch is what they bite got or against

I don’t give a fuck if they took the donation

That is the system we have

I gotta love someone who took the assholes money and then acted in the peoples interest at every turn


THATS DOUBLE FUCKING THOSE DONORS


GET IT FOLKS?
 
evince said:
Thanks to citizens united

They can’t win without these types of donations

What you watch is what they bite got or against

I don’t give a fuck if they took the donation

That is the system we have

I gotta love someone who took the assholes money and then acted in the peoples interest at every turn


THATS DOUBLE FUCKING THOSE DONORS


GET IT FOLKS?
Click to expand...
yes.

Citizens United needs to be flushed down the toilet.

it's legalized fascism.
 
Ichabod Stain said:
my reading is that you believe children should be able to use calculators on their times table test.

that means you're a fucking idiot.
Click to expand...
In certain level of mathematics that is fine

You want them to know how to make the calculations and don’t need them just have a brain wired perfectly for numbers
 
Diesel said:
AI is reliable now. You aren't seriously one of those boomers who's afraid of technology and insists on writing a paper check to pay your phone bill, are you? AI generally does a better, more thorough, and much quicker review of extensive sources to produce a reliable response. You're thumbing through card catalogs in the MAGA idiocy section.
Click to expand...
I cannot think of a single technological improvement we have talked about on this forum that Terry has not said there is no improvement at all.

He seriously argues EVs today have no more utility today for the average user compared to what they were in the early 1900's. He argued access to networks of charging stations add nothing.

Seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top