Newton believed in alchemy during a time when the metaphysical assumptions behind alchemy were considered reasonable and axiomatic by everyone - the concept of a natural world being separate from a supernatural world simply did not exist.

That's a lot less nutty, relatively speaking, than believing in something like adrenochrome harvesting or Jewish space lasers or flat earth or reptilians today. Or even alchemy.

Right, and none of your "more nutty" examples have any overtures to JFK.

I mean "Jewish space lasers" hahah where are you even getting this? Hahahah great material by the way. Can you upload a YT vid, I want to see your comedy bit! :) hahaah

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.

Do you realize how you sound? What you are saying is very extreme. Can you state what his position is on these topics on which you judge him? Have you read his books? Can you summarize them?

Your willingness to paint something you dislike as "dangerous" "harm", and your reduction to binary opposites with no discussion of nuance speaks to an authoritarian, "Witch hunt" mindset.

This suggests you are uniquely incapable of dealing with the issues in a scientific or rational way, making you equally unqualified to judge anybody.

I think the attitude displayed in your comment, is what's dangerous. I'm not saying JFK is "not dangerous", but not in the way you think, perhaps. And I'm not going to reduce people, or issues, to simplistic moral fables. Such a flawed model can never represent reality, so anyone wielding it can neither be said to be in touch with reality, nor capable of deciding anything that matters.

But the willingness to hate, is a dangerous thing. Think on it! Hahaha :)

> 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.)

This is a kind of absolutism and judgemental attitude that could be see as equally nutty but very harmful.

Essentially appointing yourself chief inquisitor and decide who the heretics are. Sure, we all love power, but actually owning up to that in a bad way and trying to implement that with a partition into "nut" and "non nut", over complex nuanced topics, speaks to a kind of mind control, a disrespect of other people's views, an unwillingness to engage on the real issues, an awareness perhaps that you have to silence the opposition as you know your own views do not withstand scrutiny, but basically, an: authoritarian simplistic reduction of the complexity of the world to "good" v "bad", making you or that attitude, uniquely incapable of dealing with the said issues. Hahaah! :)