Good point, Shadow Minister.

<<When you say the anti-vax movement is becoming a domain of the, then you are saying that that the right is beginning to dominate that movement.>>

I should have added the words, "as well".

The anti-vax movement is no longer, exclusively, a blight on left-wingism. Donald Trump, Armchair Critic, runner, and (from a personal perspective) a few of my far-Left cousins on OLO (who have been rapidly warming to right-wing fake news sites ever since Trump's professed anti-vax stance) are a testament to that.

Even ttbn's claim that no-one here really KNOWS, was reminiscent of the pointless agnostic position in debates surrounding the existence of gods.

Of course, I meant my cousins on Facebook, not OLO. Sorry, that must have been confusing.

Hey leoj,
I wouldn't use fact checkers to check those kinds of facts...
Those fact checkers aren't reliable, they're just as likely to give you a establishment 'narrative' rather than present facts in an unbiased manner.
'Move along, nothing to see here', unless it's something about Trump and Russia, in which case is probably true fact...
- A load of garbage, in my opinion.

AJ Philips,
"No, the Washington Post is not good enough for me when it comes to science. Where science in concerned, I rely almost entirely on peer-reviewed articles. That should be plain enough to anyone who has read my posts."
That's good, I like facts rather than conjecture, but half of those fools will write whatever they are told, for funding and tenure.
You did take note that when I replied I mistakenly thought I was responding to Toni, you did get that didn't you?
I don't think a real lot of the Washington Post myself, they are owned by Bezos and paid off by the CIA but it's considered much more acceptable by most than 'Natural News'.

<<You lost your own credibility opening your piehole without checking things out first. Yes?>>

"No, I didn't."

Yeah, you did.
You tried to score a cheap shot based on 'narrative' of 'natural news' being 'fake news' and the story turned out to be covered in mainstream media.
It was egg on your face, but we can agree to disagree if you're too egotistical to admit fact.

- And really there's no need to piss and moan and act like a girl, and post a video of Alex Jones's fake crying?
What are you trying to prove? You've probably never watched a full episode of his show so what does your opinion amount to exactly?
Do you think that means anything to me other than make me think you're acting like a little child?
- Sorry you took my comment offensively.

Oh and btw everyone, heres another potentially sketchy site, not sure of the facts.
(But I'm still allowed to post it right?)

139 Deaths from Gardasil Vaccines.
http://www.trueactivist.com/its-official-139-girls-have-died-from-hpv-vaccinations/

Are vaccines safe?

It's like a Jedi mind trick.

"No, you did not read that someone's child took our vaccine and become a drooling mental retard requiring lifelong care or that tens of millions have been paid out by vaccine courts for side-effects"

You people are like Shultz of Hogan's Heroes:
"I know nothing"
Or maybe that lady with the jumper over her head:
"What charter boat?"

Foolish ignorant morons...
If I told you all to jump of a cliff would you do it?
Probably not, but only in an attempt to try to prove you're not as dumb as you actually are...

The 'agnostic position in debates surrounding the existence of gods' isn't necessarily pointless, there's pro's and con's in everything.

A religious person may sum up the good and bad things that happen in life as 'Gods will'.
A non religious person might have a similar but different kind of philosophy, 'Everything happens for a reason'.

'Act of God' v's 'Accident' / 'Act of human nature'
Non-religious people may sometimes see things from more of a well-grounded or 'attributed to people' cause of the worlds problems rather than looking to spirituality for understanding.
'Crap doesn't just happen; it's caused by arseholes'
Remember those T-shirts?
And a religious person may more readily accept a life of mediocrity or servitude; turn the other cheek and think that heaven awaits them in the afterlife;
Whereas an athiest believe this is the only one chance to exist they will ever get and that they should live each and every minute to the fullest.

'Agnostic' is the fence-sitter.
The one who see's the pro's and cons in both arguments.
They believe in evidence not faith and require such, but won't discount the possibility that God exists either.

Theres always different ways of looking at things...
Jesus supposedly spoke in parables didn't he?
- Stories that mean something other than what they mean, right.
Well what if heaven and hell wasn't about the afterlife but a guide for this life?
You can live your life in 'heaven' or live it in 'hell'?
Why do they say the one sin that cannot be forgiven is to blaspheme against the holy spirit?
What is the Holy Spirit?
- Is it maybe your 'conscience'?
So the real lesson not do anything that goes against your conscience?
- Lest you live your life in hell ?

Probably not; Probably crazy talk
But there's always other ways of looking at things

I never really got this 'Asking God for forgiveness' stuff.
If I do wrong by someone, don't I need to (firstly understand what I did wrong, if I did in fact do something wrong) and then seek THEIR forgiveness?
To be set free from the guilt I may feel for doing THEM wrong or causing THEM harm?
How can God forgive someone if the person they harmed does not?