I have another one of those "hypocritical" articles to show you.

With the advent of the internet, and the fact that information "wants to be free", there have been a multitude of sites that have appeared over the years that have been especially useful! I think one of the more important benefits to the internet is the fact that we don't have to rely on the liberal news corporations to hear what's going on anymore, which is especially good when it comes to politics and the media throwing themselves behind one candidate without portraying the others in a fair light. Even Digg understand this, with their outcry against CNN for clearly staging debates and asking only questions that advance certain political views that they want asked. When Digg defends the Republican candidates from CNN, you know something's very, very wrong with CNN.

Anyway, people love the internet. They can say what they want and read what they want. At least... That's the plan, and people enjoy it when their own views get publicized and tell the world that they can stop up their ears and hum loudly if they don't want to hear it. However... This doesn't always seem to be the case.

The University of Toronto has declared that YouTube is a "breeding ground" for anti-vaccination propaganda, and that these clearly insane publications are getting better ratings than the pro-vaccination propaganda videos. They go on about how people are being misinformed and how more people seem to think that the anti-vaccination videos are more informative than the ones for vaccinations, and that doctors and "health care professionals" need to be aware of this "concerning" trend and that something needs to be done.

Hmm, so it's alright for you to post videos telling us how great vaccinations are, yet it's not okay for other people to post videos telling us how not so great those vaccinations are. Isn't that the very definition of indoctrination? Isn't that against the very idea of sharing information? Like abortion and evolution, they only want to present one side of the matter and if someone else dares come along to say otherwise, they get called out for shoving their false, unscientific propaganda on everyone. Hmm...

Do you want to know my personal stance on vaccinations? They're extremely dangerous. I can personally attest to this. I've had, maybe... three vaccinations in my life, before my parents realized how dangerous they were. Mumps, measles and something else. I don't remember, and, frankly, I don't want to know. I actually experienced chicken pox, so that wasn't the other one. But when I was around... oh. 8 to 10 years old, I got something called HSP. It's got a big ol' long name, and I'm not going to bother trying to type it, but I had it, that's for sure. Strangely enough, Wikipedia doesn't seem to cover how you contract this thing... It comes from a vaccination. I don't remember which one, exactly, but my parents read about it extensively, so I could ask them again. I believe it was measles. Anyway, I got this as a direct result from a vaccination I received.

Actually, as a matter of fact, Wikipedia does mention very slightly at the very bottom of the article that it's considered an "allergy". So, yes, I got it as an allergic reaction to one of the vaccinations I got. My brother also reacted poorly to vaccinations with incredibly high blood pressure. Needless to say, with personal experience, vaccinations are not all they're cracked up to be. Some company invented this crap and decided it was worth fighting to make them required by law, and now we have to take some to do certain things. Isn't that lovely? Can't make our own choices? (Hmm, who else is fighting for making choices... Oh! Abortionists and homosexuals. People listen to them, though. When we talk about vaccinations, we get labeled as inferior morons who clearly don't understand how medicine works and we should shut up and deal with it.) Anyway, I'm getting off track...

It's just... amusing, shall we say... That it's okay for people to do whatever they want on the internet! That is, it's okay for people to do whatever they want, as long as it conforms to what's considered "scientifically accurate". I don't hold much for scientific accuracy these days. It's scientifically accurate to assume that the universe is 80 gazillion years old? It's scientifically accurate that the planet is going to fry itself thanks to the parasite called "human" pumping gases into the atmosphere? It's scientifically accurate to declare that drugs are good for you and you should take them because your doctor tells you to, even when the side effects could be worse than what the pills are supposed to be temporarily covering up?

A little word to you folks who don't like what you see on the internet? Guess what? You don't have to look! Haha! And if someone does want to look, then they should be allowed to. If they think vaccinations aren't all they're made to be, then they should be allowed to research wherever they want.

And before someone brings up the idea that YouTube shouldn't be some place where you go to look for this sort of information, I have to ask this: Just because it's on YouTube? That makes it inaccurate? Does it really? Hmm, what about all those clips of Carl Sagan's Cosmos series on YouTube? I'll bet you think those are accurate, huh? Hey! Political debates and interviews are posted on YouTube all the time now, too. Does it make those inaccurate? Just because it's YouTube, it doesn't make it inaccurate. It's what's presented in the video that makes it inaccurate, and if you think something's inaccurate, fine. Don't watch it, and tell people that you think it's inaccurate and why.

Healthy debate is good. One-sided indoctrination is not.

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 6th, 2007 at 7:32 pm and is filed under Politics.