You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum.

I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. 

The following is the type of information that should be open for scientific and public debate, rather than censored for being misinformation that goes against the "MRNA vaccines are safe and effective" narrative.

"Global research already suggests the risk of COVID-19 infection rises with each mRNA vaccine dose and a higher risk of heart inflammation in jabbed young people, especially males, who face a low risk from COVID itself."

"Now a three-year study of nearly 1,000 heart attack patients at a hospital in Spain, published in a peer-reviewed Elsevier journal this month, suggests vaccination makes them far more likely to have "major adverse cardiovascular events" including death within six months of their heart attacks, especially when they've also recovered from COVID infection."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X24009873?

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/covid-vaccines-worsen-outcomes-after-heart-attacks-patients-prior

How many of you notice in the news the prevalence of young people in their 20's and 30's dying of heart attacks?

A true believer in what?

There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah.

I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation.

I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me.

Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from.

Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him.

Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news.

Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '.

When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings.

Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '.

When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings.

People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents.

This is because, in daily life - which you can see from Muz's track record on this forum - he does not engage in debate based on facts and evidence. With Miz, it's just mocking and jeering at his opponents. Therefore people like Muz are drawn to political parties that Ban, Censor, Fine and Jail their opponents.

Remember, in the 6,000 years of recorded human history, there have been a short few hundreds years, in a few places, where people have been free to speak opposing ideas. Muz's mentality represents to norm of 6,000 years of human history, where force is used to crush opposing voices. Over 6,000 years most people are like Muz. Muz is "most people".

Look at this report from Democrat John Carey wanting to silence the opposition.
https://x.com/SwipeWright/status/1840231811554664541

As for me, in contrast to Muz, I stand for open debate. Let the best reasoning prevail. Let facts and evidence be the way young people are taught to base their ideas, not on mob pressure of succumbing to the pressure of prevailing ideas. I might be one of the few people in Australia that still hold to the maxim: "I might disagree with you, but I will fight for your right to express your view". Very few Australians are left who believe in this foundation of Democracy".

A true believer in the ALP

The young people of Australia need you now, so they can wave their Hezbollah flags. Dutton wants to jail people for this. 

you missed the 6,000 years of recorded human history bit... that shit NEVER gets old. 

Göbekli Tepe is a fake planted by big pharma, global archaeology, anthropology , geography and scientific communities to discredit myocarditis stats. 

Just let that one go straight through to the keeper :D

See how you are so biased, even getting triggered on facts and data. It's people like you - when most people are like you - that will turn Australia away from a democracy into a Leftist gulag where people, who hold certain views, are dragged off into the night in vans.

A.I. states:

"Recorded human history spans approximately 5,500 years, beginning around 3,500 BCE with the advent of writing systems in ancient civilizations such as Mesopotamia and Egypt. This marks the transition from prehistory, which includes the time from the emergence of Homo sapiens approximately 300,000 years ago."

"Summary:
- Total Recorded History: ~5,500 years
- Start of Recorded History: ~3,500 BCE"

Why are the religious so terrified of the left? Is it because they don't believe in the big fella? Bad for the grift? 

No mate, the truly religious see socialism as the way of Christ:

1. Mark 12:41-44
   He sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the crowd putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums.  A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny. Then he called his disciples and said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.’

So homo sapiens emerged 300,00 years ago yet the universe began with a little working bee God had going on 6,000 years ago that lasted 6 days with an RDO on the 7th?

What universe did the home sapiens exit in BEFORE hand?

this place is a mad house

Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '.

Muz, Im 100% behind the sentiment however wouldn't go asking questions you dont want the answers too bud...  Not many copies of Animal Farm and Dr Zhivago floating around in China or North Korea these days either :)

are you okay with the government enforcing online censorship or not?

or you only have a problem when its some obscure church in the USA doing it?

Are you arguing for kiddie material? 

Speaking for myself, I disagree and am against many things - but, for adults, I do not go around advocating banning anything. I believe in a level playing field, where all people can present argument and reasons for why they disagree. i.e. when a person becomes an adult, it's their freedom of choice. These pertain to personal freedoms.

As for under-age children, I am in favour of banning materials from schools that are regarded as inappropriate for young children. For example, when I was growing up, we had sex education classes in Year 10 where most of the students were aged around 15 or 16. In such instances, I see that the parents of the child are the ones primary having the responsibility to bring up their children, not the State. It is because of the innocence of children that is the reason for seeking to protect children. This is the prime motive of banning things like "child pornography". It is absolutely appropriate for the law to ban child pornography, in film format and in book format - because of the need to protect under-age children who are not yet adults.

In my opinion, it is inappropriate to provide sex education to pre-teen children who are at an age where their sexuality is many years away from becoming part of their awareness. Although one may debate when that age a person's sexuality becomes an awareness, surely it is common sense that a 4 to 6 year old is many years away from developing their sexual awareness.

Regarding personal freedoms, I see a principle that one can exercise one's personal freedoms, provided they do not kill someone else. That is why I am against abortion. Sure, a person has the right to personal freedom as to what happens to their body ... but that does not extend to killing another person that, for a few months, is resident inside someone else's body as it grows. In other words, there are two counter-balancing principles - the person's right over their own body, versus the life of the child resident inside that body. It is a separate person with separate DNA, and separate heartbeat. The baby is not the body of the adult.

This is how I would argue my case, and I am against a society that threatens the expression of such ideas with the force of law.

So you're in favour of your form of government censorship. Got it. 

Not even going to touch the rest,