Q: Well you obviously don't read or watch the news.
Just to take one piece, this last one. I never said you don't watch the news. I assumed and assume that you do. What I was pointing out was that PR documents often go directly into news articles. I said OR you don't read or watch the news, meaning that the issue is moot if you get your information another way.
Just belabor the point, don't explain your point just keep ad homineming your opponent to death, nice.
You second post was a blanket ad hom. of anyone who does not share your views on the issue:
there are those that have an irrational fear of genetic modification
and then in response to another poster
Riiiiiiggghhht, and next you tell me cowpox vaccine will turn people into cows. the evil corporations are going to get us all, next it will be the 5 jewish bankers.
you jump into straw man, mocking and implying again racism.
You set the tone, live with it and pull back your victim hyperbole, notice you are alive and as snarly as the next guy.
Depending on the herbicide, sure I'll bath in it. And that article seems to validate my point that this is a witch hunt against GM.
I thought it was a balanced article that included this, on my side...
Critics say the improvements have yet to be seen. "The biotech industry's claims about genetically altered crops are perennially overstated. In truth, agricultural biotechnology has almost nothing to offer to the world food crisis in the short term," said Margaret Mellon, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' food and environment program in a press release during the peak of this year's food crisis.Instead, farmers now douse the landscape with herbicides in places where pesticide-resistant crops have become widespread, critics say. They point out that the most popular herbicide happens to be sold by Monsanto, the same company that patents most GM crops. In addition, opponents say, the spread of GM crops may lead to the creation of new food allergies and to the disruption of the ecological balance.
In its report, the IAASTD also concluded that concentrated biotechnology ownership has driven up the cost of seeds and forced developing nations to buy crops not adapted to their regions if they choose to acquire GM crops.
and this...
Environmentalists say these promises are unfounded and that the crops instead encourage widespread chemical use that may threaten human and ecosystem health.
and yes, it also made points for your case from the industry side.
I could find an article that was more to my side and I think you know this. Am I being mocked now because I presented a balanced article?
European Union legislation requires research facilities to disclose the locations of GM trials to the public. Concerned researchers say such information has allowed anti-GM protesters to destroy these crops during the experimental phase. "We demand the academic freedom to gain knowledge, and a society that doesn't allow scientists to do that has got a problem,"
Yeah thanks for holding back sciences assholes "burn it all, so what if people in africa starve, at least the land will be GMO free!" Just wait 30 years when it will be your turn to starve to death because energy cost make fertilizer and herbicides to expensive and when you come crying for science to do something "sorry you burn all our experiments down".
The presumption, again, of course, being that the GM foods will actually help people and it is the only way. Let alone the ad hom - which I hasn't killed me - and the strawman.
Superweeds were not a unforeseen problem
Not as a category, but in this case, and specific cases are the issue, abstract categories will never be the problem.
The cross-fertilisation between GM oilseed rape, a brassica, and a distantly related plant, charlock, had been discounted as virtually impossible by scientists with the environment department.
,
in fact its the main one cited, lethal operons and sterility could fix this, but because you people are do busy trying to destroy a whole science regulation within it never happens.
You are blaming me for a solution to a problem that my stance would not face.
That is a non sequitur there, I don't see the connection. The argument for GM foods is that without increase productivity we won't be able to feed everyone, as is we can only keep 1/3 of the world in first world level, and without the energy to make massive amounts of environmentally damaging fertilizer and suck huge amounts of freash water which we are running out of, we are doom! Unless we make crops that are more efficient with less and grow more productively, its impossible to achieve high throughput to feed the world with "green" agriculture, its already beyond its limits to feed the with industrial agriculture, GM is the only hope left. Now if you want regulation to prevent superweeds and to test for health concerns be my guest but forbidding the whole technology is plain wrong.
Are you for any of the regulations that you keep suggesting I support, which I do and actively?
I understand your position. You must be aware that there are other experts out there who disagree with what you are saying must be and will be the case without GM foods. There are others experts, with overlap between the two groups, that are skeptical that GM foods will be used in the ways you think they will. And there are experts who support your position. Two positions each supported by doomsayers.
Yeah like killer bees, purple Lucite, Chinese ladybugs, gee all this was done just with conventional agriculture! We can make GM crops that can't live without human supervision that can't become invasive, that hybrid offspring will die, simple regulation requiring leathal operons would provide this and allow us to make crops that can grow without fertilizers, in nutrient poor fertilizers, with less water, and produce more while at the same time alleviating an ecological concern endemic to all agriculture.
Ibid.
Bioweapons are forbidden, biotech is not. forbidding genetic modification is forbiding a technique, as science, it is its self capable of being use for good or evil, not just evil like say bioweapons.
I would forbid the commercial aspects of it, at the very least radically slow down introduction and expect actual regulation and oversight.
I might just be younger than you, or perhaps you 'metaphor jackass' is more slang and not an ad hom and you are simply informing me about your language. Here's the thing: who is the authority here. If industry has enough power to get a green light from government - and I recommend Kennedy Jr.s Crimes Against Nature on the issue - then shutting the damn thing down is fighting the man.
Hey if your willing to help other people develop over your opinions of nature, than your not a racist, but if you want people to starve because you feel GM is wrong, fuck you racists.
You seem smart enough to know the problems of logic and ethics in the above, you pedophile, no let me see. I mean really come on. I do believe that you think this is best for people. I do believe that. However mocking and insulting I never implied anything like this. Grow up.
This is not a issue physical randomness verse order, quantum mechanics is in fact predictable, and the belief that the universe holds properties which can't be predicted is so far at the biological level unfounded.
This would be another thread, but sorry you did not sum up my case or dismiss it.
Yeah we don't, and if your asking for that than you better start asking for a theocracy rather than secularism.
Man, you are off. The scientists I was referring to, as far as I know, are for the most part atheists, as are the majority of scientists.
And and its also expected that no matter what something can get passed all those sterilizations steps.
Sterilization is not the only issue and has not been as effective as anticipated, see above for one example.
What makes a difference to you does not determine if the argument is right or wrong. The nature of an ad hominem is as terrible as rejecting 2+2=4 because a child says it instead of an adult.
You are supporting your argument with a straw man. You would treat my posts differently if I had a doctorate in a relevent field. I was pointing out that you were (or at least seem to be) an outsider speculating on the odds of certain things happening. I pointed out that I do not find that compelling, nor would I or do I take it as seriously as I would the speculations of an expert. It is not ad hominim. You angrily dismiss the liklihood of something as if it were written in stone.
Well than if you aren't open to changing your opinion than it best not to discuss this anymore, if not than next time you want to drop a thread that long you better wait a least a week for me to reply.
After calling me a racist, you really think I give a shit about anything you have to say. You are on permanent ignore.
