EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1360
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On October 22 2014 04:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote: If a corporation convinces congress that 2+2=4 you should thank them for the math lesson. No, we should vote out the congress people who think otherwise. Honestly, you're defending government corruption now? Really? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 22 2014 04:03 bookwyrm wrote: You're overlooking the fact that industrial monoculture CREATES the problems that you think GMO is going to magically solve. Otherwise you're just fighting an arms race against food-web flattening and ecological degradation which we're not going to win. we can't engineer an ecology, and trying to do so is hubristic madness. small-scale, localized agriculture is what we need, not Progress there's absolutely nothing simple about ecology, you are living in a technocratic fantasy the science is obviously referring to the consumption safety aspect. really now. btw without the regulatory cost you'll see less monoculture. as i've stated, there is no silver bullet for solving a complex problem like ecosustainable farming. gmo helps with it though. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 22 2014 04:05 DoubleReed wrote: No, we should vote out the congress people who think otherwise. Honestly, you're defending government corruption now? Really? There's no corruption in telling congress that 2+2=4. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On October 22 2014 04:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote: There's no corruption in telling congress that 2+2=4. When 90%+ of Americans disagree there sure is. I must balk once again at this argument. Are you saying that this isn't a case of government corruption? You think if our government was sqeaky clean then we still wouldn't have labels? | ||
KwarK
United States44355 Posts
On October 22 2014 04:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote: There's no corruption in telling congress that 2+2=4. If they arrive at the right answer for the wrong reasons it's still corrupt. Given they'll accept that 2+2 is any number you tell them as long as the campaign donations continue I think the voting out solution is better. | ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote: If 90% of the public really wanted the labels they'd vote that way and it would be a done deal. Turns out, when a vote comes up people learn more about the costs and that the benefits are really non-existent and support falls. There doesn't seem to be a good argument out there for labeling. The only arguments are "right to know" and "it's popular". Both rely on misinformation - the idea that GMOs aren't safe and therefore this is information you need to know. Forcing products to label all the ingredients in them aren't things (for the most part) something we need either and yet I don't see too much support for getting rid of those regulations. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 22 2014 03:33 WhiteDog wrote: I personally consider that protecting nature should be one of our top priority in this day and age, and GMO have bad impacts not on health but in biodiversity - not only GMO but also modern "intensive" agriculture". The gain behind GMO are hugely overstated, we actually produce enough food for everybody, but there is too much waste and some people just eat more than they should. The best quality that GMO have for the agro industry is that they permit pattern and monopole like situations. It's about profit, not human well being or research. Actually GMOs offer opportunities to fill in nutrition gaps (ex. golden rice), lower the price of food (very important for the poor) and increase yields (need less land for agriculture). They carry risks, but so does all technology. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 22 2014 04:14 KwarK wrote: If they arrive at the right answer for the wrong reasons it's still corrupt. Given they'll accept that 2+2 is any number you tell them as long as the campaign donations continue I think the voting out solution is better. They're arriving at the right answer for the right reason - information. If that information goes to voters or congress it's having the same effect. On October 22 2014 04:17 DoubleReed wrote: Pointing out that bribery is legal is not an argument against it being bribery. Bribery is illegal. Monsanto running an ad saying "vote NO because scientists say that GMOs are safe" is not bribing anyone. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 22 2014 04:17 DoubleReed wrote: Pointing out that bribery is legal is not an argument against it being bribery. so what does this have to do with the efficacy of the labeling law. did monsanto buy votes? they ran some ads. | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
On October 22 2014 04:08 oneofthem wrote: the science is obviously referring to the consumption safety aspect. really now. btw without the regulatory cost you'll see less monoculture. as i've stated, there is no silver bullet for solving a complex problem like ecosustainable farming. gmo helps with it though. how does it help? if you're paying huge overhead research costs to develop GMO strains, that pretty much implies monoculture i don't mind people opposing the correct enemy for the wrong reasons | ||
|
KwarK
United States44355 Posts
On October 22 2014 04:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote: They're arriving at the right answer for the right reason - information. If that information goes to voters or congress it's having the same effect. Bribery is illegal. Monsanto running an ad saying "vote NO because scientists say that GMOs are safe" is not bribing anyone. If someone will stand up and deny global warming while taking oil money then when they stand up and defend GMOs while taking GMO money it's a little hard to give them credit for their commitment to good science, even if the GMO lobbyists had a point. You're either for sale or you're not. It doesn't matter who buys you. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
Look, I'm not asking you to say Monsanto is evil or that GMOs are bad. I just want you to say that it's shady and kind of fucked up how money dominates the discourse. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 22 2014 04:24 bookwyrm wrote: how does it help? if you're paying huge overhead research costs to develop GMO strains, that pretty much implies monoculture i don't mind people opposing the correct enemy for the wrong reasons the research isn't that costly. it's very simple single gene insertions. the cost comes from testing and compliance, which has a very strict standard of harm. the particular nature of GE technology makes monoculture not the norm, because it is efficient to design strains for different needs and different conditions of the environment. the contributing factor for monoculture is not the GMO seed side, it is rather the scale of supply chains. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 22 2014 04:27 DoubleReed wrote: "Bribery is illegal" you are ADORABLE! Look, I'm not asking you to say Monsanto is evil or that GMOs are bad. I just want you to say that it's shady and kind of fucked up how money dominates the discourse. Bribery is illegal, outside of the far left circle-jerk. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 22 2014 04:24 KwarK wrote: or you can listen to the other 50 guys who are not bought? If someone will stand up and deny global warming while taking oil money then when they stand up and defend GMOs while taking GMO money it's a little hard to give them credit for their commitment to good science, even if the GMO lobbyists had a point. You're either for sale or you're not. It doesn't matter who buys you. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22638 Posts
On October 22 2014 04:33 oneofthem wrote: or you can listen to the other 50 guys who are not bought? implying there are political figures of significance in the US who are not bought. good joke. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
Aren't we talking about ballot initiatives here? Shouldn't this be solely about the voters and what information they have access to? I have no problem with Monsanto running ads trying to educate people on the science behind GMO's, that is their right. They don't present all sides of the issue, but honestly do we expect them to? In Colorado we're getting non-stop ads about Proposition 105. Personally, being associated with the agriculture industry here, I'll probably vote no, but I can see people's reasoning for wanting to go the other way and we kind of have to respect that if they are the majority. | ||
| ||
