On July 01 2012 20:50 Heh_ wrote: Easily. There's two reasons why people think organic food is better: safety and taste. If you genetically modify crops to grow faster, nothing new suddenly pops up that's gonna poison you. There is a slight risk to adding pesticide resistance genes, caused by excessive usage of the pesticide which might remain on food sold in stores. All other fears are completly irrational and baseless (with 1 exception, unless you're completely devoid of any common sense).
It's an ongoing debate in the scientific community, so I would like to have some credentials before you somehow close the question. Especially since GMOs mostly come from a firm that has a... questionable deontology. The question also isn't only reduced to the two reasons you quoted. Ever heard of indian peasants committing suicide by hundreds after accumulating a huge debt due to restrictive patents? Of GMO contamination and forced used of modified crops due to geographical insemination?
PS : when I saw 104 replies, I knew this wasn't only going to be about food.
Who cares about credentials? If you're giving someone else authority on truth the you're going to be fooled by the next huckster who comes alone. If someone makes a statement, regardless of their credentials, they need to be able to follow it through to fact. They need to be able to not only point me to the "studies" that support their statement, but pull quotations out and substitute them into their statement. If you make a statement but can't follow it through all the way to fact, even to a layman, then you simply don't understand it. Blind leading the blind.
On July 01 2012 20:50 Heh_ wrote: Easily. There's two reasons why people think organic food is better: safety and taste. If you genetically modify crops to grow faster, nothing new suddenly pops up that's gonna poison you. There is a slight risk to adding pesticide resistance genes, caused by excessive usage of the pesticide which might remain on food sold in stores. All other fears are completly irrational and baseless (with 1 exception, unless you're completely devoid of any common sense).
It's an ongoing debate in the scientific community, so I would like to have some credentials before you somehow close the question. Especially since GMOs mostly come from a firm that has a... questionable deontology. The question also isn't only reduced to the two reasons you quoted. Ever heard of indian peasants committing suicide by hundreds after accumulating a huge debt due to restrictive patents? Of GMO contamination and forced used of modified crops due to geographical insemination?
PS : when I saw 104 replies, I knew this wasn't only going to be about food.
Who cares about credentials? If you're giving someone else authority on truth the you're going to be fooled by the next blind hukster who comes alone. If someone makes a statement, regardless of their credentials, they need to be able to follow it through to fact. They need to be able to not only point me to the "studies" that support their statement, but pull quotations out and substitute them into their statement. If you make a statement but can't follow it through all the way to fact, even to a layman, then you simply don't understand it.
Yeah the only, but crucial thing that is missing from all this are citations.
On July 01 2012 20:50 Heh_ wrote: Easily. There's two reasons why people think organic food is better: safety and taste. If you genetically modify crops to grow faster, nothing new suddenly pops up that's gonna poison you. There is a slight risk to adding pesticide resistance genes, caused by excessive usage of the pesticide which might remain on food sold in stores. All other fears are completly irrational and baseless (with 1 exception, unless you're completely devoid of any common sense).
It's an ongoing debate in the scientific community, so I would like to have some credentials before you somehow close the question. Especially since GMOs mostly come from a firm that has a... questionable deontology. The question also isn't only reduced to the two reasons you quoted. Ever heard of indian peasants committing suicide by hundreds after accumulating a huge debt due to restrictive patents? Of GMO contamination and forced used of modified crops due to geographical insemination?
PS : when I saw 104 replies, I knew this wasn't only going to be about food.
Who cares about credentials? If you're giving someone else authority on truth the you're going to be fooled by the next blind hukster who comes alone. If someone makes a statement, regardless of their credentials, they need to be able to follow it through to fact. They need to be able to not only point me to the "studies" that support their statement, but pull quotations out and substitute them into their statement. If you make a statement but can't follow it through all the way to fact, even to a layman, then you simply don't understand it.
Yeah the only, but crucial thing that is missing from all this are citations.
Citations implies that a source was referenced. We haven't even gotten that far yet, we're still at conjecture (or maybe hubris XD)
On July 01 2012 20:50 Heh_ wrote: Easily. There's two reasons why people think organic food is better: safety and taste. If you genetically modify crops to grow faster, nothing new suddenly pops up that's gonna poison you. There is a slight risk to adding pesticide resistance genes, caused by excessive usage of the pesticide which might remain on food sold in stores. All other fears are completly irrational and baseless (with 1 exception, unless you're completely devoid of any common sense).
It's an ongoing debate in the scientific community, so I would like to have some credentials before you somehow close the question. Especially since GMOs mostly come from a firm that has a... questionable deontology. The question also isn't only reduced to the two reasons you quoted. Ever heard of indian peasants committing suicide by hundreds after accumulating a huge debt due to restrictive patents? Of GMO contamination and forced used of modified crops due to geographical insemination?
PS : when I saw 104 replies, I knew this wasn't only going to be about food.
Who cares about credentials? If you're giving someone else authority on truth the you're going to be fooled by the next blind hukster who comes alone. If someone makes a statement, regardless of their credentials, they need to be able to follow it through to fact. They need to be able to not only point me to the "studies" that support their statement, but pull quotations out and substitute them into their statement. If you make a statement but can't follow it through all the way to fact, even to a layman, then you simply don't understand it.
Yeah the only, but crucial thing that is missing from all this are citations.
Citations implies that a source was referenced. We haven't even gotten that far yet, we're still at conjecture (or maybe hubris XD)
On July 01 2012 20:50 Heh_ wrote: Easily. There's two reasons why people think organic food is better: safety and taste. If you genetically modify crops to grow faster, nothing new suddenly pops up that's gonna poison you. There is a slight risk to adding pesticide resistance genes, caused by excessive usage of the pesticide which might remain on food sold in stores. All other fears are completly irrational and baseless (with 1 exception, unless you're completely devoid of any common sense).
It's an ongoing debate in the scientific community, so I would like to have some credentials before you somehow close the question. Especially since GMOs mostly come from a firm that has a... questionable deontology. The question also isn't only reduced to the two reasons you quoted. Ever heard of indian peasants committing suicide by hundreds after accumulating a huge debt due to restrictive patents? Of GMO contamination and forced used of modified crops due to geographical insemination?
PS : when I saw 104 replies, I knew this wasn't only going to be about food.
Who cares about credentials? If you're giving someone else authority on truth the you're going to be fooled by the next huckster who comes alone. If someone makes a statement, regardless of their credentials, they need to be able to follow it through to fact. They need to be able to not only point me to the "studies" that support their statement, but pull quotations out and substitute them into their statement. If you make a statement but can't follow it through all the way to fact, even to a layman, then you simply don't understand it. Blind leading the blind.
That's how I understood my request, I'm not simply asking him to say he's got a PhD. And because I highly doubt he's a biotechnologist or even that he really know what he's talking about (like most of us), it was mostly a rhetorical question to imply that he should moderate his own statements.
I don't understand why you had to write a whole paragraph about it.
Don't have access to the search engine for peer-reviewed journal articles, random websites will have to do.
Yeah, bash me instead of actually considering the facts. You're the one arguing like a 7-year old. *clap, clap clap.
@ Kukaracha: Sorry that I'm stil doing my PhD in one of the top ten universities for that discipline and don't have that title yet. Sorry that the first class honours that I got for a BSc in Biology from one of the top ten universities of the world have no value at all.
On July 01 2012 20:50 Heh_ wrote: Easily. There's two reasons why people think organic food is better: safety and taste. If you genetically modify crops to grow faster, nothing new suddenly pops up that's gonna poison you. There is a slight risk to adding pesticide resistance genes, caused by excessive usage of the pesticide which might remain on food sold in stores. All other fears are completly irrational and baseless (with 1 exception, unless you're completely devoid of any common sense).
It's an ongoing debate in the scientific community, so I would like to have some credentials before you somehow close the question. Especially since GMOs mostly come from a firm that has a... questionable deontology. The question also isn't only reduced to the two reasons you quoted. Ever heard of indian peasants committing suicide by hundreds after accumulating a huge debt due to restrictive patents? Of GMO contamination and forced used of modified crops due to geographical insemination?
PS : when I saw 104 replies, I knew this wasn't only going to be about food.
Who cares about credentials? If you're giving someone else authority on truth the you're going to be fooled by the next blind hukster who comes alone. If someone makes a statement, regardless of their credentials, they need to be able to follow it through to fact. They need to be able to not only point me to the "studies" that support their statement, but pull quotations out and substitute them into their statement. If you make a statement but can't follow it through all the way to fact, even to a layman, then you simply don't understand it.
Yeah the only, but crucial thing that is missing from all this are citations.
Citations implies that a source was referenced. We haven't even gotten that far yet, we're still at conjecture (or maybe hubris XD)
Hehe, we need sources man
I don't follow. We don't need sources at all. We need answers to questions. Whether those answers refer to other sources is up to the person giving the answer. It's their answer after all.
You made a statement, it is not up to me to find your evidence and then create your argument. My last reply to you asked questions which you may answer. I didn't ask you for any websites or sources, I simply asked you to answer my simple questions.
Yeah, bash me instead of actually considering the facts. You're the one arguing like a 7-year old. *clap, clap clap.
Quote me bashing you/arguing like a 7-year old and also demonstrate where I have not considered facts. If you can't, don't waste my time again with this nonsense.
You made a statement, it is not up to me to find your evidence and then create your argument. My last reply to you asked questions which you may answer. I didn't ask you for any websites or sources, I simply asked you to answer my simple questions.
Yeah, bash me instead of actually considering the facts. You're the one arguing like a 7-year old. *clap, clap clap.
Quote me bashing you/arguing like a 7-year old and also demonstrate where I have not considered facts. If you can't, don't waste my time again with this nonsense.
You made a statement, it is not up to me to find your evidence and then create your argument. My last reply to you asked questions which you may answer. I didn't ask you for any websites or sources, I simply asked you to answer my simple questions.
Yeah, bash me instead of actually considering the facts. You're the one arguing like a 7-year old. *clap, clap clap.
Quote me bashing you/arguing like a 7-year old and also demonstrate where I have not considered facts. If you can't, don't waste my time again with this nonsense.
No, someone else is the 7-year old. Not you.
My apologies then. Perhaps a new protocol for your future replies to avoid confusion
You have no facts, no supported arguments, and the only thing you're trying to do is convince me that I'm wrong based off your personal preferences. Seeing that you're an adult, you seriously need to reconsider yourself.
On July 01 2012 20:50 Heh_ wrote: Easily. There's two reasons why people think organic food is better: safety and taste. If you genetically modify crops to grow faster, nothing new suddenly pops up that's gonna poison you. There is a slight risk to adding pesticide resistance genes, caused by excessive usage of the pesticide which might remain on food sold in stores. All other fears are completly irrational and baseless (with 1 exception, unless you're completely devoid of any common sense).
It's an ongoing debate in the scientific community, so I would like to have some credentials before you somehow close the question. Especially since GMOs mostly come from a firm that has a... questionable deontology. The question also isn't only reduced to the two reasons you quoted. Ever heard of indian peasants committing suicide by hundreds after accumulating a huge debt due to restrictive patents? Of GMO contamination and forced used of modified crops due to geographical insemination?
PS : when I saw 104 replies, I knew this wasn't only going to be about food.
Who cares about credentials? If you're giving someone else authority on truth the you're going to be fooled by the next blind hukster who comes alone. If someone makes a statement, regardless of their credentials, they need to be able to follow it through to fact. They need to be able to not only point me to the "studies" that support their statement, but pull quotations out and substitute them into their statement. If you make a statement but can't follow it through all the way to fact, even to a layman, then you simply don't understand it.
Yeah the only, but crucial thing that is missing from all this are citations.
Citations implies that a source was referenced. We haven't even gotten that far yet, we're still at conjecture (or maybe hubris XD)
Hehe, we need sources man
I don't follow. We don't need sources at all. We need answers to questions. Whether those answers refer to other sources is up to the person giving the answer. It's their answer after all.
There is only one god, and it's a giant CAT. I have no sources, deal with it.
To our good scholar friend, a counter google search :
Now take a minute to think about the value of each link. Does this make you more suited to lead a debate on the subject? God no, or else I'm a neurologist after spending twenty minutes on Wikipedia.
Now stop acting like a whiny kid and accept that this is a question that has yet to find a definitive answer.
You made a statement, it is not up to me to find your evidence and then create your argument. My last reply to you asked questions which you may answer. I didn't ask you for any websites or sources, I simply asked you to answer my simple questions.
Yeah, bash me instead of actually considering the facts. You're the one arguing like a 7-year old. *clap, clap clap.
Quote me bashing you/arguing like a 7-year old and also demonstrate where I have not considered facts. If you can't, don't waste my time again with this nonsense.
No, someone else is the 7-year old. Not you.
My apologies then. Perhaps a new protocol for your future replies to avoid confusion
I can discuss in greater detail via pm, if you want. I prefer spreading facts instead of rumours.
You made a statement, it is not up to me to find your evidence and then create your argument. My last reply to you asked questions which you may answer. I didn't ask you for any websites or sources, I simply asked you to answer my simple questions.
Yeah, bash me instead of actually considering the facts. You're the one arguing like a 7-year old. *clap, clap clap.
Quote me bashing you/arguing like a 7-year old and also demonstrate where I have not considered facts. If you can't, don't waste my time again with this nonsense.
No, someone else is the 7-year old. Not you.
My apologies then. Perhaps a new protocol for your future replies to avoid confusion
I can discuss in greater detail via pm, if you want. I prefer spreading facts instead of rumours.
Are you insinuating that this discussion so far is going to spread rumours?
You made a statement, I asked you to demonstrate that it is true. You have yet to. I'd like to do it in public where you made the statement to begin with.
You made a statement, it is not up to me to find your evidence and then create your argument. My last reply to you asked questions which you may answer. I didn't ask you for any websites or sources, I simply asked you to answer my simple questions.
Yeah, bash me instead of actually considering the facts. You're the one arguing like a 7-year old. *clap, clap clap.
Quote me bashing you/arguing like a 7-year old and also demonstrate where I have not considered facts. If you can't, don't waste my time again with this nonsense.
No, someone else is the 7-year old. Not you.
My apologies then. Perhaps a new protocol for your future replies to avoid confusion
I can discuss in greater detail via pm, if you want. I prefer spreading facts instead of rumours.
Are you insinuating that this discussion so far is going to spread rumours?
You made a statement, I asked you to demonstrate that it is true. You have yet to. I'd like to do it in public where you made the statement to begin with.
What do you want me to demonstrate? Do you want sources, or do you want a wall of text?
On July 01 2012 20:50 Heh_ wrote: Easily. There's two reasons why people think organic food is better: safety and taste. If you genetically modify crops to grow faster, nothing new suddenly pops up that's gonna poison you. There is a slight risk to adding pesticide resistance genes, caused by excessive usage of the pesticide which might remain on food sold in stores. All other fears are completly irrational and baseless (with 1 exception, unless you're completely devoid of any common sense).
It's an ongoing debate in the scientific community, so I would like to have some credentials before you somehow close the question. Especially since GMOs mostly come from a firm that has a... questionable deontology. The question also isn't only reduced to the two reasons you quoted. Ever heard of indian peasants committing suicide by hundreds after accumulating a huge debt due to restrictive patents? Of GMO contamination and forced used of modified crops due to geographical insemination?
PS : when I saw 104 replies, I knew this wasn't only going to be about food.
Who cares about credentials? If you're giving someone else authority on truth the you're going to be fooled by the next blind hukster who comes alone. If someone makes a statement, regardless of their credentials, they need to be able to follow it through to fact. They need to be able to not only point me to the "studies" that support their statement, but pull quotations out and substitute them into their statement. If you make a statement but can't follow it through all the way to fact, even to a layman, then you simply don't understand it.
Yeah the only, but crucial thing that is missing from all this are citations.
Citations implies that a source was referenced. We haven't even gotten that far yet, we're still at conjecture (or maybe hubris XD)
Hehe, we need sources man
I don't follow. We don't need sources at all. We need answers to questions. Whether those answers refer to other sources is up to the person giving the answer. It's their answer after all.
There is only one god, and it's a giant CAT. I have no sources, deal with it.
Now take a minute to think about the value of each link. Does this make you more suited to lead a debate on the subject? God no, or else I'm a neurologist after spending twenty minutes on Wikipedia.
Now stop acting like a whiny kid and accept that this is a question that has yet to find a definitive answer.
Forgive me, but I find I have a habit of ignoring posts that come from a mind which stoops to insults.
You made a statement, it is not up to me to find your evidence and then create your argument. My last reply to you asked questions which you may answer. I didn't ask you for any websites or sources, I simply asked you to answer my simple questions.
Yeah, bash me instead of actually considering the facts. You're the one arguing like a 7-year old. *clap, clap clap.
Quote me bashing you/arguing like a 7-year old and also demonstrate where I have not considered facts. If you can't, don't waste my time again with this nonsense.
No, someone else is the 7-year old. Not you.
My apologies then. Perhaps a new protocol for your future replies to avoid confusion
I can discuss in greater detail via pm, if you want. I prefer spreading facts instead of rumours.
Are you insinuating that this discussion so far is going to spread rumours?
You made a statement, I asked you to demonstrate that it is true. You have yet to. I'd like to do it in public where you made the statement to begin with.
What do you want me to demonstrate? Do you want sources, or do you want a wall of text?
Read back to my post where I quote you in bold. I asked you two simple follow up questions on your statement. I want whatever it takes for you to take a layman from yourstatement to absolute fact-- a level of fact which would be irrational to disagree with, to use your words.
You made a statement, it is not up to me to find your evidence and then create your argument. My last reply to you asked questions which you may answer. I didn't ask you for any websites or sources, I simply asked you to answer my simple questions.
Yeah, bash me instead of actually considering the facts. You're the one arguing like a 7-year old. *clap, clap clap.
Quote me bashing you/arguing like a 7-year old and also demonstrate where I have not considered facts. If you can't, don't waste my time again with this nonsense.
No, someone else is the 7-year old. Not you.
My apologies then. Perhaps a new protocol for your future replies to avoid confusion
I can discuss in greater detail via pm, if you want. I prefer spreading facts instead of rumours.
Are you insinuating that this discussion so far is going to spread rumours?
You made a statement, I asked you to demonstrate that it is true. You have yet to. I'd like to do it in public where you made the statement to begin with.
What do you want me to demonstrate? Do you want sources, or do you want a wall of text?
Demonstrate that there is a consensus among the scientific community that states that A)GMOs are inherently safe, B)current GMO technology is safe or that C)benefits outweight the risks and D)no change can be made so far.
And I stress the term consensus. I don't know how you can do this, but it's the position you seem to defend.
On July 01 2012 20:50 Heh_ wrote: Easily. There's two reasons why people think organic food is better: safety and taste. If you genetically modify crops to grow faster, nothing new suddenly pops up that's gonna poison you. There is a slight risk to adding pesticide resistance genes, caused by excessive usage of the pesticide which might remain on food sold in stores. All other fears are completly irrational and baseless (with 1 exception, unless you're completely devoid of any common sense).
It's an ongoing debate in the scientific community, so I would like to have some credentials before you somehow close the question. Especially since GMOs mostly come from a firm that has a... questionable deontology. The question also isn't only reduced to the two reasons you quoted. Ever heard of indian peasants committing suicide by hundreds after accumulating a huge debt due to restrictive patents? Of GMO contamination and forced used of modified crops due to geographical insemination?
PS : when I saw 104 replies, I knew this wasn't only going to be about food.
Who cares about credentials? If you're giving someone else authority on truth the you're going to be fooled by the next blind hukster who comes alone. If someone makes a statement, regardless of their credentials, they need to be able to follow it through to fact. They need to be able to not only point me to the "studies" that support their statement, but pull quotations out and substitute them into their statement. If you make a statement but can't follow it through all the way to fact, even to a layman, then you simply don't understand it.
Yeah the only, but crucial thing that is missing from all this are citations.
Citations implies that a source was referenced. We haven't even gotten that far yet, we're still at conjecture (or maybe hubris XD)
Hehe, we need sources man
I don't follow. We don't need sources at all. We need answers to questions. Whether those answers refer to other sources is up to the person giving the answer. It's their answer after all.
There is only one god, and it's a giant CAT. I have no sources, deal with it.
Now take a minute to think about the value of each link. Does this make you more suited to lead a debate on the subject? God no, or else I'm a neurologist after spending twenty minutes on Wikipedia.
Now stop acting like a whiny kid and accept that this is a question that has yet to find a definitive answer.
Forgive me, but I find I have a habit of ignoring posts that come from a mind which stoops to insults.
Are you mad because I provided you with an unsourced statement, like you claimed it should be? The rest wasn't directed towards you.
EPT
