Friday, June 28, 2013

Presidents who were elected with less than 50% of the popular vote (in the 1800's)

The "election" of President John Q. Adams in 1824 is one of the most interesting elections in presidential history.

Besides not receiving the majority of the popular vote (he only got 30.9%) he also he didn't get the majority of the electoral votes either. In fact Andrew Jackson technically won the election, but because he didn't win the majority of the electoral votes either, the decision on who would become the was thrown to the House of Representatives, who ultimately voted for John Q. Adams.

This election was also the last one in which the Democratic-Republicans participated in due to infighting and the eventual splitting up of the party into the Democratic Party and the National Republican Party over the results.

Despite beating Henry Clay with a clear majority of the electoral vote in the presidential election of 1844, James K. Polk actually only won 49.5% of the popular vote (Clay won 48.1%). The reason for this is because a third presidential candidate, a James G. Birney of the Liberty Party, won 2.3% of the popular vote, and might have cost Clay the presidency, because the Liberty Party was an abolitionist party, and the political party that Clay was running for president under, the Whig party, opposed the expansion of slavery (although not outlawing it).

In 1848 Zachary Taylor became the second person of the Whig party to be elected President of the United States. He also did it after only wining 47.3% of the popular vote. Probably the only reason why he didn't actually get the majority of the popular vote was because of former president Martin Van Buren, who ran for president again under the Free Soil Party ticket (an anti-slavery expansion party).

The election of 1856 was the first election in which the Republican party ran a candidate for president (that being John C. Fremont). Of course, Fremont did not win the election, James Buchanan did, but he only won 45.3% of the popular vote. The reason why neither candidate won the majority of the of popular vote is because of former president Millard Fillmore, who ran under the Know-Nothing party in that election and won 21.6% of the popular vote (although who actually would have won if the Know-Nothing party had not ran a candidate for president is unknown).

Despite being one of the most famous presidents in United States history, in the 1860 presidential election Abraham Lincoln only won 39.8% of the popular vote. In fact the only reason he won was because there were three other major presidential candidates running for president (including two Democrats).

Lincoln was also greatly hated in the south. He wasn't even on the ballot throughout most of the south, and his election was the tipping point for the start of the Civil War.

Not only did Rutherford B. Hayes win the presidential election of 1876 with only 47.9% of the popular vote, he's actually the only person to win a presidential election when someone else (Samuel J. Tilden) actually won the majority of the popular vote (that being 50.9%).

James A. Garfield barely beat Winfield S. Hancock in the presidential election of 1880, and he barely got more of the popular vote than Scott did. In fact Garfield only got 48.3% of the popular vote, while Hancock got 48.2% of the popular vote.

In fact it's even possible that Hancock may have lost due to James B. Weaver of the Greenback Party (who won 2.3% of the popular vote) winning votes that probably would have gone to Hancock.

Grover Cleveland has had a very interesting presidential election history. Not only is he the only person to hold two non-consecutive terms as president, he also didn't win the majority of the popular vote in either of the elections he won (48.9% in 1884, and 46% in 1892)

In the presidential election of 1888 Benjamin Harrison, while he might have defeated President Grover Cleveland in the electoral college (and the election itself) he didn't win the popular vote. In fact he only won 47.8% of the popular vote, while Cleveland won 48.6%.

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

5 Things I've noticed about... Homophobics

Homophobics are individuals whom for some reason or another hate (or more likely fear) homosexuals. Now while there are many things that I've notice about homophobics, I've managed to narrow it down to five things.

So here are five things I've noticed about homophobics:

5. They're gay.

When I use the word "gay" I don't mean that they're happy people (because most of them aren't) or, as what some high school students mean when they use the word "gay", that they're stupid (although they are, but that meaning really should stop). No, what I mean when I say that homophobics are "gay" is that they really are gay...

Not only have there been several notorious homophobic individuals that have been caught in gay sex scandals (and several more are suspected of being closeted homosexuals too), several studies suggest that people with strong homophobic beliefs are actually themselves homosexuals.

4. They're arguments against homosexuality is based off of fraud studies and emotion.

If you ask a homophobic person why same sex marriage should remain illegal, and why same sex couples shouldn't be aloud to adopt children, and why homosexuality itself should be outlawed, they'll give you a number of different "reasons" why. The problem with the arguments that are often given is that they are often emotionally based rather than fact based, and that religious beliefs, going against nature claims, and slippery slop fallacious are often times used as covers for what is really a person's emotionally based prejudices.

Sometimes of course these people will not only give an emotionally based reasons for continuing to discriminate against homosexuals, they will actually give you "studies" that "show" why homosexuals should be discriminated against. The problem with this is that these studies are not produced by any credible medical or psychological organizations, and are in fact often produced by anti-gay hate groups. These studies are considered to be questionable at best, but often times are considered to be outright fraudulent and nothing more than propaganda.

3. They don't seem to understand the harm they are causing.

Because of homophobic politicians creating laws like DOMA and other state laws and amendments outlawing the legal recognition on both the state and federal levels of same sex marriage, this has caused both financial and legal troubles for many same sex couples.

Besides the political aspect of the harm they're causing, they're causing a lot of social harm as well. They've made some people believe that it's perfectly acceptable to mistreat homosexuals, and homophobia has caused families to break apart because someone (usually a parent) couldn't accept a family member who was gay (usually a child of said parent).

2. They're shrinking.

There's not as many people who believe that homosexuality is wrong and that same sex marriage should be illegal as there was ten years ago, or even five years ago. In fact some surveys suggest that a majority of Americans now believe that same sex marriage should be legal.

In fact most of the time when it comes to homophobic beliefs people tend to go one way, and that is they get over their fears and prejudices about homosexuals and accept that homosexuality is okay. In fact it's pretty rare for someone who isn't homophobic to develop homophobic beliefs, and usually the only people who this happens to are ex-gays (which are homosexuals who have been brainwashed into believing that they aren't homosexuals).

1. They're failing.

Over the years homophobics have been failing more and more to influence anyone other than fellow homophobics. Where once threats of boycotts by homophobic groups against companies for making gay friendly policies or advertising in a gay newspapers would actually get those companies to drop those policies and ads are now being ignored with no harm coming towards them. On the other hand, when there was a boycott against Chick-fil-a due to it's COO's (along with the WinShape Foundation and the company in general) support of anti-gay groups, the boycott was successful and lead to the company ceasing of support of anti-gay groups.

They're also failing in politics too. Same sex marriage is now legal in 12 states and the District of Columbia, and is legal in 15 counties (along with civil union and registered partnerships in eight states and 17 countries). In fact many religious groups (including Christian religious groups) now support gay rights and same sex marriage as well.

Eventually homophobics will have no say what so ever in politics. People won't vote them in, and they'll be treated just like any other bigots.

Friday, June 21, 2013

8 Alternate UFO explanations

UFOs, and what they are, have been a subject of debate throughout the world for decades now.

For those who are apart of the UFO community, UFOs are usually considered to be extra-terrestrial spacecraft. For skeptics however most UFOs can be easily explained as either being some type of natural weather or astronomical phenomenon, a mis-identification of a man made object, or a hoax.

Beside the most obvious explanations for what UFOs are, there are a few not so obvious (or in some cases, accepted) explanations for what UFOs really are:

8. Extra-dimensional

Probably one of the far most common alternative UFO explanations is that UFOs (and the alleged beings operating them) are actually from other universes, rather than other planets.

This explanation has become so common among UFO believers that many believers actually try to determine if a UFO in a photo or video is of either extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional origin (rather than of natural or man made origin).

7. Time travelers

Another explanation for the origin of UFOs is that they are from Earth, just far, far into the future. Just how far exactly is often debated amongst the UFO believers who believe this theory.

Some people believe that they're from a few hundred years into the future. Some people believe that they're from several millions of years into the future. Some people even believe that they're just from a few decades into the future.

6. Angels and Demons

Probably one of the more popular explanations amongst devout and fundamentalist Christians (especially those who don't believe in even the possibility of extra-terrestrial life existing elsewhere in the universe) is that UFOs are either angels sent by God, or (more commonly) demons sent by Satan.

While this explanation is far more accepted with devout and fundamentalist Christians (at least those who actually believe in UFOs to begin with) most UFO believers (and skeptics for that matter) do not.

5. Secret and experimental military aircraft

One of the more common explanations for UFOs amongst both skeptics and UFO believers is that many UFOs are actually secret and experimental military aircraft.

The reason why this is accepted among skeptics as well as UFO believers is because several different kinds military aircraft, back when they were still secret and/or experimental, were thought to be UFOs (i.e. F-117, B-2) and that sometimes the government even used the UFO phenomenon as a cover to help keep certain aircraft secret for years (like with the SR-71).

While skeptics and UFO believers do accept that some UFOs are most likely secret and experimental aircraft, many UFO believers also believe that these aircraft are far more technologically advance than what anyone believes is currently possible, and that the technology being used in them is of extra-terrestrial origin.

4. Holograms

Some UFO believers believe that some UFOs aren't even physically real at all, and that they're actually holograms created by the military.

While the main reasons behind why the military would even do this in civilians areas (if they even are doing this at all) are unknown, speculations from UFO believers vary from either being tests for holographic projection weapons, to being part of a bizarre conspiracy theory called Project Blue Beam.

3. Inner-terrestrial

Particularly popular amongst supporters of the hollow Earth theory, some people believe that UFOs are actually created by beings that supposedly live inside the Earth.

This theory is of course impossible, being that modern science has completely dis-proven the hollow Earth theory, although some will say that there are large areas underground that are hollowed out, not the whole Earth, and that these alleged beings live in those areas (at least those that don't claim that there is a conspiracy to hide the "truth" about the Earth being hollow).

2. Spirits

Some people in the UFO community believe that UFOs are neither of alien, or even of technological origin (or natural either) and that they're actually supernatural in nature.

While the belief that UFOs are actually spirits is somewhat popular amongst those in the New Age Movement, the explanation that UFOs are spirits are usually dismissed by both skeptics and UFO believers alike.

1. Ancient human astronauts

Some people believe (especially those who believe in the myth about Atlantis) that humans were more technologically advanced in the past than we were actually known to be, and that some even managed to build spacecraft and left the Earth thousands of years ago, and that they sometimes come back to Earth from time to time.

While this theory may sound plausible, so far no evidence has ever been found that we are far more advanced technologically in the past then we are today.

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

How to tell a Conspiracy Theorist from a Conspiracy Believer

In a previous post I discussed how some conspiracy theorists aren't really conspiracy theorists, and that those people should instead be called "conspiracy believers".

While I did point out some basic differences between the two, I didn't really go into to much detail into what those differences really are.

Here I have put together a list of things that conspiracy theorists tend to do that sets them apart from conspiracy believers:


Conspiracy theorists has certain words that they tend to use and is quite common for them to use in a conversation (or argument). Some of the more common words used are shill, sheeple, blue pill, red pill, and dis-info agent.

There are of course more then just that, but if you hang around enough conspiracy theorist websites (or get into an argument with a conspiracy theorist on Youtube) you'll learn more of them.

Creating conspiracy theories

One of the primary things that set conspiracy theorists apart from conspiracy believers is that conspiracy theorists actually create conspiracy theories.

Many of these conspiracy theories tend to be either expanding on a already established conspiracy theory, or a conspiracy thats directed at them. Of course, sometimes conspiracy theorists create entirely new conspiracy theories as well.

Emotional Reactions

While conspiracy believers might not become to emotional when discussing a conspiracy theory that they believe in, many conspiracy theorists on the other hand tend to become emotional when they discuss a conspiracy theory they believe. The levels of emotional reactions varies depending on how important the conspiracy theory is to that person, how much they believe the alledged conspiracy affects them, and if the person they are discussing the conspiracy theory with believes them or not.

The use of logical fallacies

While conspiracy believers try to avoid using logical fallacies, conspiracy theorists on the other hand tend to use them all the time, and appear to not even know that they are doing so.

While logical fallacies of all types tend to be used, two of the most common types used are association fallacy and emotional appeal.

Rejection of contradicting and disproving evidence

Conspiracy believers, while they many or may not stop believing in a conspiracy theory once they have been given evidence that can prove the conspiracy theory that they believe in is not true (or at least having a high probability of not being true) conspiracy theorist on the other hand tends to reject any evidence that contradicts and/or disproves what they believe, unless there is something in that evidence that they feel actually proves the conspiracy theory they believe in.

Confirmation bias

While both conspiracy believers and conspiracy theorists tend to have confirmation bias, conspiracy theorists tends to see any small piece of evidence as being absolute confirmation that the conspiracy theory they believe in is true, no matter small it is, no matter if it is taken out of context or not, and no matter if it is even real or not. Conspiracy believers at least will see evidence as just that, evidence, and is more willing to disregard such evidence if it can be proven to them that it isn't true, or taken out of context.

Inappropriate behavior

Conspiracy believers tend to be civil, and tries not to engage in behaviors that would be considered inappropriate because they tend not to get frustrated with people who don't believe them. Conspiracy theorists on the other hand tends to get frustrated pretty easily, and because of this they get angry easily and start behaving in ways that many people would consider to be inappropriate. Examples of this would be insults, threats, spamming internet threads, vileness, manipulation, personal attacks, stalking, harassment, creating inappropriate conspiracy theories, defending another person's inappropriate behavior, and engaging in behavior that most people would consider to be disturbing.

Seeing people who disagree with them as their enemy

When a conspiracy believer talks to some one who doesn't believe in the conspiracy theory that they believe in they will only think of that person as someone who simply disagrees with them. A conspiracy theorist on the other hand sees a person who disagrees with them as being their enemy that is working for whatever group that they believe is committing the conspiracy that they believe in, or at the very least someone who is less intelligent then they are, and therefore (in their minds) more prone to believing whatever they are told by said group.

Belief that what they are doing is the right thing

While both conspiracy believers and conspiracy theorists believe that believing in certain conspiracy theories is okay, conspiracy theorists tend to take it a step further by spreading these conspiracy theories and "correcting" those who disagree with them. They do this because they strongly believe to be real the conspiracy theories that they believe in, and because of that they tend to think that anything they do to promote these conspiracy theories is okay and the right thing to do.

Friday, June 14, 2013

Not all Conspiracy Theorists are Conspiracy Theorists

This may odd by what I'm about about to say here, but not all conspiracy theorists are conspiracy theorists.

At least they're not all true conspiracy theorists per say...

When I think of a conspiracy theorist, I think about a person who not only believes in conspiracy theories, but also refuses to, and out right rejects any evidence that contradicts a conspiracy theory. In time this rejection of the evidence for what they consider "the truth" can lead them down a dark path, one in which causes them to think irrationally and illogically, and become hostile towards those who do not believe them, which can ultimately end up affecting their lives in a negative manner, and causes them to surround themselves with people who think like them.

This is what I typically think of when I think of a conspiracy theorist, due to the result of past encounters with actually conspiracy theorists on the internet. The problem with this is that not all of them are like this.

Not all people who believe in certain conspiracy theories are irrational and hostile people who reject evidence debunking the conspiracy theory they believe in. They might continue to believe in the conspiracy theory regardless of the evidence, but at least they don't out right reject the evidence without reason. Also, the belief in these conspiracy theories does not effect their lives in a negative manner, and they don't try to push their theories onto others (which is also something that conspiracy theorists tend to do), and they don't hang out with other people wo also believe what they believe.

This is why I believe a different term should be used for these people, and not the general term "conspiracy theorist" because, lets all face it, the term "conspiracy theorist" has become a pretty negative term as of late, and I also believe the term is inaccurate for some people as well.

I believe the term that should be used instead for such people should be called "conspiracy believer".

"Conspiracy believer" should be used to describe someone who simply believes in a conspiracy theory, rather than "conspiracy theorist" because not only would it be a more accurate term, as a such a person simply believes in conspiracy theory, rather than taking the time to try to promote, explain, and expand on said "theory" as a real conspiracy theorist would try to do, it's a far less negative term as well since telling a person you are not a conspiracy theorist but a conspiracy believer might not make a person look at you like you are some kind of nut who might go off on them if they tell you that they don't believe in the conspiracy theories you believe are real, or at least possible.

In fact I believe that most people in general who believe in conspiracy theories are actually conspiracy believers rather than true conspiracy theorists.

Also, many skeptics who once believed in some conspiracy theories (myself included) might have been just a conspiracy believer, rather than a conspiracy theorist (although I do know of some that were true conspiracy theorists).

The fact remains is that we shouldn't use the term "conspiracy theorist" for everyone that believes in a conspiracy theory, because not everyone believes a conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theorist, and while believing in a conspiracy theory is not something that's good, it doesn't mean that the person who believes in it is bad (or crazy).

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

5 Things I've noticed about... Doomsday Prophecies

There's been a lot of doomsday predictions and prophecies over the years (and I mean a lot), and fortunately none of them have ever come true. While I have noticed a lot of things about them, there are five things that I have really noticed about them that tends to stick out.

So here are five things I've noticed about doomsday prophecies:

5. They have a bad track record.

Every single doomsday prophecy and prediction ever made has always failed to come true, including the big ones that a lot of people believed would happen and were actually preparing for. The most recent example of this is 12/21/2012 ending of the Mayan Long Count Calendar, which many people thought would mark the end of the world, despite the fact that nothing in any Mayan religious texts ever stated this, and even if there was, it wouldn't have meant that the world was ending anyways...

Thinking about, it's actually a pretty good thing that these doomsday prophecies and predictions has such a bad track record...

4. They tend to get pushed back.

While sometimes when a doomsday prediction fails it will go away, more often then not they just get pushed back to a later date, or will inspire someone else to make a similar prediction for a later date.

One of the most common types of doomsday predictions to this are the New World Order type of predictions. These are predictions that proclaim that the imaginary "New World Order" is going to take over the world and kill lots of people in the process. These types of predictions have failed every single time to come true, and have been pushed back so many times I can't even count how many times now, and that's just from Alex Jones alone...

3. They're pretty vague.

Most of these doomsday predictions and prophecies are quite vague and often times lack many details, if any.

While some of these predictions will at least say what type of disaster is suppose to occur, sometimes they don't even do that. This causes people to add in their own details about what is suppose to happen, which often times gets very... strange.

2. It causes people to do dumb things.

Often times these doomsday predictions and prophecies causes people to do things that many others would see as being very stupid, or at the very least, wasteful. These predictions and prophecies can cause some people to buy thousands, if not millions of dollars worth of supplies and even properties to live on that in the end they never needed, and probably would not have saved them if the worst did happen.

Other examples of people doing stupid stuff would be the 2011 Rapture predictions by Harold Camping, which caused many people to waste their life savings on pointless advertising campaigns.

In some extreme cases, these predictions have caused people to commit murder and suicide.

1. They make people fearful.

Doomsday predictions and prophecies (especially the more famous ones) make people afraid of whats going to happen. Even rational people can sometimes be a little edgy the day before and day of when the end of the world is suppose to happen.

Religious doomsday prophecies (like the Rapture) also tends to make people fearful as well, causing people to do strange, and sometimes extreme things due to the fear that if they don't that they will be left behind and have to deal with what is suppose to come, which they believe will happen soon.

Regardless of how people react to these doomsday prophecies and predictions, the fact is that it's almost always in some ways is a fear based reaction, because that's all these prophecies and predictions do, make people fearful for no reason.

Friday, June 7, 2013

Debunking Earthing

A few days ago I was alerted to a short video on Youtube about something called "Earthing", which is something to do about humans getting energy from the Earth (and I'm not talking about geothermic energy either).

Here is the short video that I watched:

Now the first claim in this video says this:

  • So we all know the sun's energy is crucial for good health.

This is true. The sun's light is necessary for the production of Vitamin D inside of our skin, which is necessary for our bodies. Of course to much exposure can also led to the production of skin cancer too...

The video then goes on to claim this:

  • But did you know that the Earth's energy is also crucial for good health? When we make direct contact with the surface of the Earth, our bodies receive a charge of energy that makes our bodies feel better, fast. This is called "Earthing."

Now this is where we get into the pseudoscience part.

Human beings do not receive energy from the Earth, and there are no studies that show this. In fact, other then from eating and drinking food, we can't receive energy by any actual means.

If you are outside and you "feel" like you are receiving energy from the Earth, what you're experiencing is not the receiving of energy from the Earth, but a placebo effect in which you only think you're receiving energy from the Earth.

The next claim in the video states that:

  • Throughout history people were always "naturally" absorbing the Earth's energy, but in today's world we live most of our lives inside, and even when we do go outside, we usually wear shoes, which prevent us from connecting.

Back in the "good old days" working outside was far more common then it is today. This is because most people tended to have jobs that required working outside. It was also far more common for people back then to die in their 40's and 50's than it is today as well.

People simply didn't live as long in the past as they do today. The reason for that is because of a combination disease and the occasional lack of food. While a lack of food could be a hard thing to prevent back then, one of the things that helped prevent some diseases then (and now) however is shoes. Shoes help prevent us from cutting our feet on things like sticks and rock, and then getting infections from stepping in bacteria and parasite infested water and animal droppings.

Besides all of this, there is still no proof what so ever that we have ever been able to absorb energy from the Earth through our skin.

This claim makes it appear that we better off in the past when more of us were barefooted, when in reality the exact opposite is true.

The next claim then goes on to say:

  • So of course we often feel drained and achy, because we go for days, or even years, without ever touching the Earth.

This is implying that people back in the "good old days" didn't get tired at the end of a work day. This is not true at all. In fact people tended to work themselves to death back then.

Besides that, all people have varying amounts of stamina. Some people can work from dawn to dusk and not get tired, some people can only work for a couple of hours before they feel like they need a nap. Touching the Earth has nothing to do with how we feel during the day.

The following claim made says this:

  • But it doesn't have to be this way. You can start receiving the benefits of Earthing by going barefoot outside. The more time, the better! This alone can be life changing, and it's free!

Really?! Because I've gone outside barefoot many times, and it's never been life changing to me...

Standing out in your yard barefoot for a few hours is not going to change your life. That's just wishful thinking. It takes a lot more then just standing outside barefooted for a person to change their life.

The final claim made states:

  • And if you love feeling great while Earthing outdoors, now you can start Earthing indoors too! Simply connect your Earthing product into the third hole of an outlet, which directly connects to the existing ground rod of your home. This connection lets you safely and conveniently receive Earth's energy from where ever you are, whether that be working, or playing, and especially while you're sleeping, because while Earthing you'll sleep deeper, feel more refreshed in the morning, and wake up looking terrific! And the best part, any one can benefit from this life changing discovery!

It figures. Ultimately they are trying to sell you something.

Feeling refreshed in the morning isn't going to result from sleeping on some special "pad" that's suppose to send energy from the Earth into you body (in fact I imagine if that was to actually happen, it might keep a person awake). It actually has allot to do with your comfort level, which can be affected by multiple factors (the mattress, room temperature, noise, how dark it is) and also much sleep you actually get.

I've checked out the website listed at the end of the video (, and the only things that they are selling are some (in my opinion) over priced "Earthing" pads, some over priced grounding rods (which most people won't even need in first place, as most of the time the grounding holes in the power outlets tend to be grounded), and of course a book on Earthing.

Now also on the website itself there is a lot of inform in the FAQ section about how Earthing (and the products being sold) allegedly works, along with a testimonials section. What the website does not provide is a peer reviewed, scientific study stating that Earthing itself even works, more or less that the products being sold will give you more energy.

The only thing that Earthing in itself seems to be is a bunch New Age woo and energy woo.

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Anti-Vaccination & Anti-GMO: Proof that bad things do come from "Good Intentions"

Many of you probably already know about the Anti-vaccination and Anti-GMO crowds, and what they stand for. For those that do not, I'll refresh your memories:

The Anti-vaccination crowd claims that vaccines can cause debilitating in children, primarily autism, while the Anti-GMO crowds claim that food from genetically modified plants are unhealthy and possibly dangerous.

While I know that both of these groups believe very strongly that what they are saying is true, and that they are spreading whatever they think is true because they only have "good intention" and think what they're doing is right, the reality is what they are doing is very wrong.

Besides the fact that the information that both of these groups put out tends to be out right false, or is based upon outdated information, they don't seem to realize the real damage they are actually doing.

For the Anti-vaccination, the damage is very obvious.

The spreading of the anti-vaccine propaganda has caused some parents to become unnecessarily fearful of vaccines, which in turn has cause those parents to choose to not allow their children to get vaccinated, which has caused the rise of many illnesses among children that I had not even heard of anyone getting when I was in school, and that for the most part I didn't even think could kill someone because I had never heard of anyone dying from these illnesses before, more or less know someone who died from something like the measles.

As a result of this combination propaganda and paranoia, hundreds of children, if not more so, have died, and thousands of children have gotten sick unnecessarily because their parents failed to get them vaccinated, or because they were to young to get vaccinated, and they got sick from another child that was sick with something that could been prevent with a vaccine shot.

Then there is the Anti-GMO crowd, which while might not seem as harmful, could actually be worse.

While there is this popular belief that GMO foods are harmful, untested, and unregulated, all of these are false as GMO foods are heavily tested, heavily regulated, and are no more harmful than organic foods.

While organic food itself isn't actually bad, the people in the Anti-GMO crowd wants to ultimately ban GMO foods, and that is bad thing because the world population can not sustain it's current levels on organic food alone. In fact only 2/3 of that current world population would be able to sustain itself on organic food (and that's the high end).

The fact is that the world hunger problems are bad enough as they are, and would be far worse if the Anti-GMO crowd had it their way and the only food we grew was organic food.

I know that both groups have good intentions, and that both think what they are doing is for the betterment of human kind, but the fact is that they only things these two groups are doing are bringing needless suffering and death, and instead of being saviors of humanity, they are harming it.