[KorbenDallas]

(05-10-2015 07:27 PM)zigZag Wrote:  

(05-10-2015 07:13 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

He said it wasn't dangerous and that he would drink it. Then, it was offered to him, he didn't drink it, and declared, "I'm not an idiot".

My point is that advocates for GMO are on record for being disingenuous liars. Why should we not label GMO's if their spokespeople are documented liars?

It isn't dangerous but that does not mean you should drink a glass of it. That makes no sense. The only people I see going on private property destroying fields are Anti-GMO people. The only people that lie about GMOs causing cancer are anti-GMO people.

There has not been Any studies done to show GMOs are how you say. Your fear is completely irrational.

That's not what the GMO advocate said though. He said you could drink it, and furthermore, said he WOULD.

That's why people don't trust GMO's. Their paid advocates are deliberately misleading liars.

[zigZag]

(05-10-2015 07:30 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

(05-10-2015 07:27 PM)zigZag Wrote:  

(05-10-2015 07:13 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

He said it wasn't dangerous and that he would drink it. Then, it was offered to him, he didn't drink it, and declared, "I'm not an idiot".

My point is that advocates for GMO are on record for being disingenuous liars. Why should we not label GMO's if their spokespeople are documented liars?

It isn't dangerous but that does not mean you should drink a glass of it. That makes no sense. The only people I see going on private property destroying fields are Anti-GMO people. The only people that lie about GMOs causing cancer are anti-GMO people.

There has not been Any studies done to show GMOs are how you say. Your fear is completely irrational.

That's not what the GMO advocate said though. He said you could drink it, and furthermore, said he WOULD.

That's why people don't trust GMO's. Their paid advocates are deliberately misleading liars.

It seems that if this is the best evidence you can bring for companies being evil then you are just grasping at straws. A guy refuses to drink a glass full of herbicide from a random person = GMO advocates are evil and cannot be trusted and we must ban all Molecular breeding.

[KorbenDallas]

No, it's not the best evidence, I only continued to hammer the point, because you refused to concede he was lying, saying only that drinking water can kill you too. He wasn't asked to drink a lot, only a glass, which, he claimed he would.

Now, you are being misleading, by saying this is the only evidence anti-gmo advocates have.

Seems to me like a pattern is emerging...

I simply don't trust people who have a track record of misdirection and dishonesty. That's not the only evidence I have seen though.

[zigZag]

(05-10-2015 07:42 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

No, it's not the best evidence, I only continued to hammer the point, because you refused to concede he was lying, saying only that drinking water can kill you too. He wasn't asked to drink a lot, only a glass, which, he claimed he would.

Now, you are being misleading, by saying this is the only evidence anti-gmo advocates have.

Seems to me like a pattern is emerging...

I simply don't trust people who have a track record of misdirection and dishonesty. That's not the only evidence I have seen though.

Whether You trust one man or not who would not drink a glass full of herbicide has no bearing on whether GMOs are safe or not. Thats my point. Also not drinking a glass full of herbicide is not exactly a track record of dishonesty.

[Darius]

(05-10-2015 07:52 PM)zigZag Wrote:  

Whether You trust one man or not who would not drink a glass full of herbicide has no bearing on whether GMOs are safe or not. Thats my point. Also not drinking a glass full of herbicide is not exactly a track record of dishonesty.

Why does it have to be all are nothing?

Could some GMO's not be harmful?

Could some not have good properties?

Why shouldn't they be labelled like ingredients are on the food you buy?

[Darius]

(05-10-2015 06:56 PM)zigZag Wrote:  

They are both modified by people and the net result is the same. So no they aren't different. Well one takes Takes a few years the other takes decades or more.

Some would never occur through natural breeding or evolution.

You are either being purposely misleading or ignorant of the process involved.

[Darius]

(05-10-2015 07:07 PM)zigZag Wrote:  

If You drink enough water.. It can kill you. What's Your point?

Maybe that some GMO's produce insecticides that might be harmful to humans.

[zigZag]

@Darius They might be who knows. However the overwhelming scientific evidence is that they are not. So i'm going to go with the science on this one.

The other point about natural breeding is true and thats why this technology is sooo ground breaking. It's a positive for me and for you it's a negative. I can't wait to see what amazing new traits can be produced for the benefit of mankind with this one. I also find it funny how people seem stuck on the GMO corn but no one seems to talk about the GMO papaya that saved Hawaiis papaya industry.

Some GMOs Could be dangerous yes but no more or less dangerous than lots of other things. My point is that there is no commercial reason to develop a new trait spending hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a trait that is not economically viable but then again i'm not a conspiracy theorist.

As i said before its the separate but equal type thing. Should Mexican picked foods be labeled differently than american picked foods? the foods are functionally the same thing, neither is more risky than the other. Labeling would cost money, create confusion and it puts in the mind of the consumer that GMOs are bad. Besides this is what Companies like monsanto
are up against so i agree that GMOs should not be labeled.

[Darius]

(05-10-2015 08:25 PM)zigZag Wrote:  

@Darius They might be who knows. However the overwhelming scientific evidence is that they are not. So i'm going to go with the science on this one.

The other point about natural breeding is true and thats why this technology is sooo ground breaking. It's a positive for me and for you it's a negative. I can't wait to see what amazing new traits can be produced for the benefit of mankind with this one. I also find it funny how people seem stuck on the GMO corn but no one seems to talk about the GMO papaya that saved Hawaiis papaya industry.

Yet you yourself said before that technology could be used for good or evil. Which means that no technology is inherently good or evil. It's what it is used for that makes it so.

Openly accepting a technology just because it is new is foolhardy. Each and ever use should be judged on it's own merit.

(05-10-2015 08:25 PM)zigZag Wrote:  

Some GMOs Could be dangerous yes but no more or less dangerous than lots of other things. My point is that there is no commercial reason to develop a new trait spending hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a trait that is not economically viable but then again i'm not a conspiracy theorist.

They might not produce it on purpose but their could be economic reasons to downplay the side effects of eating certain GMO's. Just like I'm sure that cell phone companies wouldn't want to publicize that heavy cell phone use over the long term can lead to an increased risk of cancer. I'm also sure that vaccine producers don't want to admit publicly that a certain small percentage of recipients will experience adverse effects. That doesn't mean that these dangers don't exist and that we should hide them for their benefit.

(05-10-2015 08:25 PM)zigZag Wrote:  

As i said before its the separate but equal type thing. Should Mexican picked foods be labeled differently than american picked foods? the foods are functionally the same thing, neither is more risky than the other. Labeling would cost money, create confusion and it puts in the mind of the consumer that GMOs are bad. Besides this is what Companies like monsanto
are up against so i agree that GMOs should not be labeled.

Though you admitted previously that they aren't equal. One can do things that the other would never be able to do. What would be wrong with admitting that one had a gene that enabled it to produce an insecticide?

[zigZag]

(05-10-2015 08:44 PM)Darius Wrote:  

(05-10-2015 08:25 PM)zigZag Wrote:  

@Darius They might be who knows. However the overwhelming scientific evidence is that they are not. So i'm going to go with the science on this one.

The other point about natural breeding is true and thats why this technology is sooo ground breaking. It's a positive for me and for you it's a negative. I can't wait to see what amazing new traits can be produced for the benefit of mankind with this one. I also find it funny how people seem stuck on the GMO corn but no one seems to talk about the GMO papaya that saved Hawaiis papaya industry.

Yet you yourself said before that technology could be used for good or evil. Which means that no technology is inherently good or evil. It's what it is used for that makes it so.

Openly accepting a technology just because it is new is foolhardy. Each and ever use should be judged on it's own merit.

(05-10-2015 08:25 PM)zigZag Wrote:  

Some GMOs Could be dangerous yes but no more or less dangerous than lots of other things. My point is that there is no commercial reason to develop a new trait spending hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a trait that is not economically viable but then again i'm not a conspiracy theorist.

They might not produce it on purpose but their could be economic reasons to downplay the side effects of eating certain GMO's. Just like I'm sure that cell phone companies wouldn't want to publicize that heavy cell phone use over the long term can lead to an increased risk of cancer. I'm also sure that vaccine producers don't want to admit publicly that a certain small percentage of recipients will experience adverse effects. That doesn't mean that these dangers don't exist and that we should hide them for their benefit.

(05-10-2015 08:25 PM)zigZag Wrote:  

As i said before its the separate but equal type thing. Should Mexican picked foods be labeled differently than american picked foods? the foods are functionally the same thing, neither is more risky than the other. Labeling would cost money, create confusion and it puts in the mind of the consumer that GMOs are bad. Besides this is what Companies like monsanto
are up against so i agree that GMOs should not be labeled.

Though you admitted previously that they aren't equal. One can do things that the other would never be able to do. What would be wrong with admitting that one had a gene that enabled it to produce an insecticide?

I don't accept it because it is new. I accept it because it is leaps and bounds better than what we currently have. Maybe you should actually do more investigation into the technology, the processes and what is possible if we can make even more progress into this type of breeding.

Again more pseudo-science and conspiracy theories not backed up by scientific evidence. The minute your brought up vaccines as a causing problems for people is the minute you outed yourself as a conspiracy theorist.

Because functionally the plants are the same. Literally nothing is different. But you have to be specific to which trait you're against. BT Corn? Round Up ready corn? Virus resistant papayas? There is a lot of crops nowadays that are GMO each with a different trait that is beneficial to farmers. Since you mentioned the insecticide producing corn it is functionally the same as regular corn. In fact if you did research you'd see that the Insecticide the corn produces is actually used in organic gardening as well. http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/organic_farming.html This it the insecticide that is produced and that is how it is used in organic gardening. Please at least do more investigation into what you're against so you don't sound like the people in the video i linked to above.

[Darius]

(05-10-2015 09:13 PM)zigZag Wrote:  

I don't accept it because it is new. I accept it because it is leaps and bounds better than what we currently have. Maybe you should actually do more investigation into the technology, the processes and what is possible if we can make even more progress into this type of breeding.

It could be better or it could be better. It all depends on how it is used.

(05-10-2015 09:13 PM)zigZag Wrote:  

Again more pseudo-science and conspiracy theories not backed up by scientific evidence. The minute your brought up vaccines as a causing problems for people is the minute you outed yourself as a conspiracy theorist.

What's the point in engaging in any discussion if you have to resort to Ad Hominem attacks. Vaccines do cause adverse effects in small percentages of the population. Just like medications can cause adverse effects in some of the population. This isn't a conspiracy theory.

You act like conspiracies aren't commonplace. They happen all the time. A conspiracy is simply the act of conspiring. For instance my wingman and I might conspire to get laid.

(05-10-2015 09:13 PM)zigZag Wrote:  

Because functionally the plants are the same. Literally nothing is different.

They are functionally different. A plant that produces insecticide is functionally different than one that does not.

[KorbenDallas]

lol, If you know that a small percentage of vaccinations cause adverse effects your a conspiracy theorist?

Vaccine companies settle in court with people harmed by vaccines all the time.

Someone in my immediate family is a doctor, and an uncle of mine is an infectious disease doctor.

Vaccines causing harm in a certain percentage of people who get them is common medical knowledge. This isn't to say vaccines are all bad, but the fact that you dismiss someones argument because he knows this...wow.

Zigzag is the typical science fetishist who uses his worship of conventional talking points to hide the fact that he actually doesn't understand science that well and is extremely out if his league intellectually.

Zigzag, if you actually knew anything about vaccines, you would know they can cause adverse effects.

It makes me question how much anyone should listen to you about anything else.

[zigZag]

Yeah they might, however A few allergic reactions is not the same as they are dangerous and cause cancer.

If you think that korben but you're the one arguing with your emotions the same way a feminist would.

@ Darius However this thread is not about vaccines but rather about GMOs and not the tech but specific crops that have been engineered. None of those crops are dangerous. You ca say what ifs till tomorrow but I can only answer what is in front of me and yeah none of the crops are dangerous.

They are functionally the same to the human body which is what matters with food.

You guys have not given me one shred of evidence about these GMOs

btw here is the link to the GMO sweet corn
http://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/monsantocorn.asp
http://genera.biofortified.org/viewall.php

There are the studies.

[Libertas]

There's no reason not to label GMO foods, just like the nutrition facts and ingredients used to make the food. The purpose of this is to educate and give consumers choice in the marketplace. Monsanto lobbying to conceal GMO foods is a shady business practice that to me diminishes its reputation.

There might as yet be no conclusive evidence of GMOs being bad, but I still want to know about what goes into my food and make decisions accordingly. Taking that choice away from the consumer prevents a free market from functioning to its best extent. This should be a no brainer to most of us here who are in some ways libertarian.

[KofiKingston]

Well this thread went down the shitter real quick. Lets just boil it down to the basics, whether one believes GMO's harm or help us has no standing on one's right to choose what they want to eat or to know what's in their food.

Any foodstuffs containing GMO ingredients should be labelled as such, simple as that. Monsanto and many other corporations went to great lengths to oppose proposition 37 in california, to the tune of $46 million to be exact.

Either way, the science behind GMO's is overshadowed by the shady practices of the corporations promoting it as the Holy Grail that will save humanity.

[TheWastelander]

(05-11-2015 07:29 AM)Libertas Wrote:  

There's no reason not to label GMO foods, just like the nutrition facts and ingredients used to make the food. The purpose of this is to educate and give consumers choice in the marketplace. Monsanto lobbying to conceal GMO foods is a shady business practice that to me diminishes its reputation.

There might as yet be no conclusive evidence of GMOs being bad, but I still want to know about what goes into my food and make decisions accordingly. Taking that choice away from the consumer prevents a free market from functioning to its best extent. This should be a no brainer to most of us here who are in some ways libertarian.

Just assume anything not marked "organic" is a GMO.

[zigZag]

We're talking about the science. Monsanto != Molecular Breeding.

I'm not in favor of labeling because labeling implies that they are different to conventional foods. They aren't and it only creates confusion in an otherwise confused consumer base.

Also pretty much everything has corn in it. They feed it to animals, they turn it into HFCS which is used to sweeten drinks... Pretty much everything you find in a supermarket will be GMO.

[kaotic]

(05-11-2015 12:30 PM)zigZag Wrote:  

We're talking about the science. Monsanto != Molecular Breeding.

I'm not in favor of labeling because labeling implies that they are different to conventional foods. They aren't and it only creates confusion in an otherwise confused consumer base.

Also pretty much everything has corn in it. They feed it to animals, they turn it into HFCS which is used to sweeten drinks... Pretty much everything you find in a supermarket will be GMO.

Sounds like you've gotta go vegetarian/raise your own animals, non processed, and grow your own vegetables to get away from it all.

[zigZag]

(05-11-2015 12:57 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

(05-11-2015 12:30 PM)zigZag Wrote:  

We're talking about the science. Monsanto != Molecular Breeding.

I'm not in favor of labeling because labeling implies that they are different to conventional foods. They aren't and it only creates confusion in an otherwise confused consumer base.

Also pretty much everything has corn in it. They feed it to animals, they turn it into HFCS which is used to sweeten drinks... Pretty much everything you find in a supermarket will be GMO.

Sounds like you've gotta go vegetarian/raise your own animals, non processed, and grow your own vegetables to get away from it all.

Yeah i'm buying a plot of land later this year and i'm gonna Try to get 90% of my meals from that. It is actually an exciting prospect to live free and independent and grow your own meals and live life on your own terms.

[FrenchCanadian]

Wow, didn't think there'd be so many luddites here.

Thought if any place, people here would realize that the marketing strategies behind "organic"/"non-gmo"/gluten free/"all natural" products, really, aren't any better than what Montsanto is doing.

Do you guys understand that the scientific consensus behind GMO's is unanimous? The people who really know about this stuff collectively agree that GMO's aren't harmful. People who are strongly opposed to GMO's more times than not have no credentials and often sound like conspiracy theorist / illuminati / NWO numbnuts and therefore cannot be taken seriously by myself, and many other people who are fond of reason.

Also, one must take in consideration, some very basic facts about demography, history, and economics. The world's population is still, soaring - and even today, many are still stuck in hunger, or have severe vitamin deficiencies.

Food Justice Warriors (lol) need to step out their San Francisco apartments and realize that 3 000 000 people died of hunger last year, and hmm how many people died of GMO's? ...None. As long as people refuse to acknowledge that pesticides, herbicides, gmo's will (whether they like it or not) have the utmost importance in our planets nutrition one day, this data will get worst, and worst every year.

Speaking of data (the enemy of the FJW) when you quickly peek at any statistics you'll understand that we're using less energy, less water and getting more produce out of the same acreage year after year.



Humans have been progressing in farming for thousands of years, and we will keep doing so. In any case.... within the scientific literate we understand what GMO's are doing and where they are going. And most people who argue with devoted passion and emotion against Biotech have no clue what they are talking about and remind me, in the way they argue, of a mad twitter feminist, or anti-vaxxer.

[Darius]

(05-11-2015 01:46 PM)FrenchCanadian Wrote:  

Wow, didn't think there'd be so many luddites here.

Ad Hom

(05-11-2015 01:46 PM)FrenchCanadian Wrote:  

Thought if any place, people here would realize that the marketing strategies behind "organic"/"non-gmo"/gluten free/"all natural" products, really, aren't any better than what Montsanto is doing.

Unsubstantiated claim.

(05-11-2015 01:46 PM)FrenchCanadian Wrote:  

Do you guys understand that the scientific consensus behind GMO's is unanimous? The people who really know about this stuff collectively agree that GMO's aren't harmful. People who are strongly opposed to GMO's more times than not have no credentials and often sound like conspiracy theorist / illuminati / NWO numbnuts and therefore cannot be taken seriously by myself, and many other people who are fond of reason.

Appeal to Authority and Ad Hom.

(05-11-2015 01:46 PM)FrenchCanadian Wrote:  

Also, one must take in consideration, some very basic facts about demography, history, and economics. The world's population is still, soaring - and even today, many are still stuck in hunger, or have severe vitamin deficiencies.

People don't have enough to eat today not because of a lack of food but because they have no money to afford food.

(05-11-2015 01:46 PM)FrenchCanadian Wrote:  

Food Justice Warriors (lol) need to step out their San Francisco apartments and realize that 3 000 000 people died of hunger last year, and hmm how many people died of GMO's? ...None. As long as people refuse to acknowledge that pesticides, herbicides, gmo's will (whether they like it or not) have the utmost importance in our planets nutrition one day, this data will get worst, and worst every year.

Again people didn't die because there is a lack of food. People died because they don't have money to buy food.

(05-11-2015 01:46 PM)FrenchCanadian Wrote:  

Speaking of data (the enemy of the FJW) when you quickly peek at any statistics you'll understand that we're using less energy, less water and getting more produce out of the same acreage year after year.

This happened before GMO's. You seem to be implying that GMO's are solely responsible for this.

(05-11-2015 01:46 PM)FrenchCanadian Wrote:  

Humans have been progressing in farming for thousands of years, and we will keep doing so. In any case.... within the scientific literate we understand what GMO's are doing and where they are going. And most people who argue with devoted passion and emotion against Biotech have no clue what they are talking about and remind me, in the way they argue, of a mad twitter feminist, or anti-vaxxer.

Ad Hom


[/quote]75+% of your argument consists of Ad Hom's. Then you throw in an appeal to authority. Then you misrepresent the cause of starvation.

In conclusion your arguments have no substance.

You might as well just say that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a moron and that your dad can beat up my dad.

[Ziltoid]

Quote:

People don't have enough to eat today not because of a lack of food but because they have no money to afford food.

What? This might be the most ignorant statement yet in this thread.
So there's tons of crops and livestock in Africa and SE Asia going to waste because people can't afford to buy them, eh?

If by "afford food" you mean "afford to import non-perishable processed food at prohibitively expensive global market prices", then yeah, great point, they're starving because they can't afford canned beef stew and Hot Pockets.

There are still large areas of the world where local agricultural infrastructure is an utter trainwreck or barely even exists at all.

[Darius]

(05-12-2015 12:35 AM)Ziltoid Wrote:  

Quote:

People don't have enough to eat today not because of a lack of food but because they have no money to afford food.

What? This might be the most ignorant statement yet in this thread.
So there's tons of crops and livestock in Africa and SE Asia going to waste because people can't afford to buy them, eh?

If by "afford food" you mean "afford to import non-perishable processed food at prohibitively expensive global market prices", then yeah, great point, they're starving because they can't afford canned beef stew and Hot Pockets.

There are still large areas of the world where local agricultural infrastructure is an utter trainwreck or barely even exists at all.

This is actually true and if you did any sort of research you would realize that the world produces more food than there is demand for that food.

The problem is not that there is not enough food. It is that people can't afford to buy the food that is available.

http://www.unep.org/wed/2013/quickfacts/

Roughly one third of the world's food supply is wasted every year.

[The_e_man]

Strong bro-science in this thread.
GMO is fine. Google "appeal to nature" fallacy.
Monsanto is an evil company.
Please stop arguing over this. I respect the ideas on this forum so much that it pains me to see such uneducated stupidity that is up there with girls reading horoscopes as if they were true.

[The_e_man]

And to clarify, I mean monsanto is an evil company due to their preying on poor smaller farmers.
Their GMO use is totally fine. And I don't blame them for paying money to cover up the fact that they use GMOs.
They do this because they would lose business from stupid people applying the appeal to nature fallacy. If everyone understood GMOs were essentially an efficient version of the selective breeding process happening since the dawn of civilization, then monsanto would not need to cover up anything.

Do you guys have any idea how hot of a marketing buzz-word "all-natural" is?