r/MurderedByWords Jan 31 '25

#1 Murder of Week Your response is concerning, Bobby!

Post image
142.6k Upvotes

4.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

623

u/a-pilot Jan 31 '25

He was a heroin addict for 17 years and had a brain worm! This is the best we’ve got?!?!?

-28

u/RedditIsADataMine Jan 31 '25

  He was a heroin addict for 17 years and had a brain worm! This is the best we’ve got?!?!?

I don't see why either of these things would disqualify him? Let's stick to the anti vax stuff. 

53

u/RandomBritishGuy Jan 31 '25

Well, he did argue in court that the brain worm had affected him so severely that he shouldn't have to pay as much alimony, and that his memory was severely affected and that he had brain fog. He also claimed to have mercury poisoning.

Those are reasons why he shouldn't be in charge of federal departments, if he's apparently been so compromised by his health.

21

u/Titan_Astraeus Jan 31 '25

He talks about his own cognitive impairments. Sorry, but there should be a field full of qualified candidates to choose from. We shouldn't have to settle for the guy who has riddled his own brain through bad habits and eating random animals he finds dead on the side of the fucking road.

1

u/RedditIsADataMine Jan 31 '25

I agree. I was asking why the heroin and brain worms specifically disqualify him.

1

u/Titan_Astraeus Jan 31 '25

His brain worms and heroin use contributed to him being unfit..

1

u/RedditIsADataMine Jan 31 '25

But why? 

He's been clean from heroin for 42 years. He was a child when he got addicted. 

If a parasite makes you unfit, does that also mean cancer survivors are unfit? Given the documented impacts to brain health from chemotherapy? 

36

u/TerribleIdea27 Jan 31 '25

Plenty of reasons

1) blackmail vulnerabilities

2) getting addicted in the first place means poor impulse control

3) potential brain damage

4) heroin is an addiction for life. If he was addicted for 17 years, he's still addicted. He's just clean (we presume)

-14

u/TeBerry Jan 31 '25
  1. You can't blackmail someone for something that is widely known.

  2. It's a little more complicated and shouldn't be generalized.

  3. It may or may not. This should be investigated in each case.

  4. I don't even know what you mean by that.

8

u/HokusSchmokus Jan 31 '25

I think 4th means that there are generally no former addicts. Once an addict, always an addict.

-14

u/TeBerry Jan 31 '25

Is this a scientific conclusion, or just a loose observation by people who are not qualified on the subject?

18

u/HokusSchmokus Jan 31 '25

This is both a scientific conclusion and what every other actual addict ever says.

-12

u/TeBerry Jan 31 '25

If this is a scientific conclusion, what is the definition of such an addict?

12

u/nuliaj56 Jan 31 '25

how is this even a debate? just get someone who is qualified. wow.

11

u/HokusSchmokus Jan 31 '25

What is your problem and why can you not use google?

Addiction is a treatable, chronic medical disease involving complex interactions among brain circuits, genetics, the environment, and an individual’s life experiences.

Addicts are people suffering from that condition.

-1

u/TeBerry Jan 31 '25

I use google. And nowhere can I find that any scientific conclusions you are talking about. There are some conclusions what can at most suggest some part of what you are talking about, but these are not isolated factors that confirm causality. Most addicts are poor, and contrary to popular opinion, they were poor before addiction too. Cases where middle and upper class people who become poor through drugs are rare. Drugs are very addictive, but not that addictive. Most of the causes of addiction are low living standards or other mental illnesses. That's why many studies when treating addiction say that the most important factor in reducing the chances of relapsing into addiction is their improved standard of living.

RFK is rich. Do I need to say more?

And my questions toward you, in fact, were not questions. They were baits to make you understand that your level of knowledge on the subject is minimal.

8

u/HokusSchmokus Jan 31 '25 edited Jan 31 '25

You are such a clown my guy, I know more about addiction than many people. Addicting is not curable. Every definition of Addiction describes it as treatable, not curable. This means once you are actually addicted, you are addicted for good. This is why you can relapse back into it. And just because you can relapse does not mean you will. Which was never up for discussion.

"Hah I was merely pretending to be stupid" meme - that's you. You think you so smart and are the stupidest one in this thread, comical.

You interpret things into my posts that I have not talked about, and were not mentioned in the original comment. We were not talking about the cause of addiction. Why are you tallking to yourself about an etirely different topic?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/TerribleIdea27 Jan 31 '25

You absolutely 100% CAN blackmail someone for something that's widely known. Just tell them you want them to do X, or you'll claim you will post online you saw a needle in their suitcase. It's an incredible liability and even if you're innocent, after you're addicted, people will be much less inclined to trust your innocence

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/481765

Even when only looking at people being clean for a staggering 15 years, a quarter will still relapse. 15 years is an extremely long time.

Also from the article, an important part in the conclusion:

These results suggest that drug abuse treatment programs should focus more on incremental improvements in the lives of heroin addicts, a more realistic goal than lifelong abstinence.

0

u/TeBerry Jan 31 '25

You absolutely 100% CAN blackmail someone for something that's widely known. Just tell them you want them to do X, or you'll claim you will post online you saw a needle in their suitcase.

It only works if the RFK continues to use drugs. Because a simple test can show that the person there is lying.

focus more on incremental improvements in the lives of heroin addicts

Yes, because most addicts are poor, usually extremely poor. RFK is not.

1

u/Crowing87 Jan 31 '25

You could 100% blackmail him. By, I don't know, catching him doing the widely known bad thing he says he doesn't do anymore and threatening to tell everyone.

-6

u/starterchan Jan 31 '25

👏 We need to start calling out drug addicts more. There should be a registry so that we can avoid hiring them, I know once someone admits to having done drugs I would NEVER hire them. Addicts are disgusting, as you correctly point out.

3

u/TerribleIdea27 Jan 31 '25

I mean to a certain extent I think we should treat it with understanding and compassion. However, there should be consequences to being addicted, like not being able to care for children or hold office.

But we shouldn't make punishments too hard, or you'll just end up creating extra barriers on top of stigma and law enforcement to addicts coming clean and seeking help

6

u/BullShitting-24-7 Jan 31 '25

You want the best and the brightest at the top. The most qualified. If he wasn’t a nepo baby privileged Kennedy, he would never be near any high level government position.

0

u/RedditIsADataMine Jan 31 '25 edited Jan 31 '25

I agree. Was asking about the brain ones and heroin specifically.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '25

A worm was munching on his brain for god knows how long, the same brain that's now gonna decide on life or death policies. The anti vax stuff is probably the worm talking 🪱🪱🪱

3

u/disposableaccount848 Jan 31 '25

You want a heroin addict in charge of the Department of Health?

1

u/RedditIsADataMine Jan 31 '25

Not if he was still doing heroin most definitely not. 

I think people can change though.