|
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. |
I still don't know why people are arguing about the scientific angle so much. Labelling gm food as gm food is not unscientific or wrong. The implications may make some multi national companies angry which has nothing to do with science. Gluten free diets are for the most part useless and nearly always some kind of irrational lifestyle decision. That doesn't mean that gluten should be removed from the ingredient list.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 22 2014 04:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 04:33 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 04:24 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2014 04:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:14 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2014 04:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:05 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 04:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 03:51 DoubleReed wrote:
No, I'm saying this is yet another example of our government being bought and paid for. For some reason, your "side" seems reluctant to admit that. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. yes, scientists are politically significant figures bought by salary and grant money.
|
On October 22 2014 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Wow, Jonny. I try to offer an olive branch and you spit in my face with this weaksauce bullshit?
|
On October 22 2014 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Riiiiight...I can't take this seriously. Is the suggestion that bribery is illegal so it doesn't happen? or that it can't be prevented any more than it is? or just that it is illegal and still happens rather regularly in the colloquial meaning of the word 'bribe' (as opposed to what is proven in court),except in Jonnyland where it is only people on the left?
I'm pretty sure all of the recent bribery stories have had Republicans mentioned. The two that come to mind are the VA senator bribe, and the former Campaign manager from McConnell's campaign who left on bribery allegations.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 22 2014 04:38 Nyxisto wrote:
I still don't know why people are arguing about the scientific angle so much. Labelling gm food as gm food is not unscientific or wrong. The implications may make some multi national companies angry which has nothing to do with science. Gluten free diets are for the most part useless and nearly always some kind of irrational lifestyle decision. That doesn't mean that gluten should be removed from the ingredient list.
it is a performative fallacy to argue for the passing of a resolution because it is popular, yet wrong by virtue of a relevant but false belief.
reducing the voter population to 1, it becomes obvious why this is so, because the majority vote depends on majority holding false belief. the voter will say, i am right because i believe in [false belief]. this is a circularity dependent on treating one's self held beliefs as a factual condition. the false belief does not provide any warrant for passing the resolution because holding the belief is a performative fact.
simple lesson is this, engage with the actual substance of the belief and not its popularity, if you are actually considering yourself a part of the deliberating public.
|
United States43995 Posts
On October 22 2014 04:33 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 04:24 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2014 04:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:14 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2014 04:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:05 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 04:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 03:51 DoubleReed wrote:
No, I'm saying this is yet another example of our government being bought and paid for. For some reason, your "side" seems reluctant to admit that. 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? 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. 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. 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. or you can listen to the other 50 guys who are not bought?
The entire political process in your country is bought and paid for.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 22 2014 04:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 04:33 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 04:24 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2014 04:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:14 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2014 04:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:05 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 04:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 03:51 DoubleReed wrote:
No, I'm saying this is yet another example of our government being bought and paid for. For some reason, your "side" seems reluctant to admit that. 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? 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. 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. 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. or you can listen to the other 50 guys who are not bought? The entire political process in your country is bought and paid for.
okay? this does not then mean there are no impartial sources to get the info from. consider this infographic
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On October 22 2014 04:38 Nyxisto wrote:
I still don't know why people are arguing about the scientific angle so much. Labelling gm food as gm food is not unscientific or wrong. The implications may make some multi national companies angry which has nothing to do with science. Gluten free diets are for the most part useless and nearly always some kind of irrational lifestyle decision. That doesn't mean that gluten should be removed from the ingredient list.
Well it depends on how the law is written. At least for the ballot initiative in Colorado, labeling could be wrong. If, for whatever reason, regulatory agencies decide that any aspect of the food supply chain hasn't met its burden of proof for proving their food is non-GMO, they'll be labeled as GMO whether they are or not. That seems kind of ass-backwards to me, but I'm not sure of a better alternative if we do decide to go the labeling route.
And it's not just multinational corporations that would suffer. If farmers were mixing GMO and non-GMO before, even inadvertently, they have to completely restructure their operations to comply with this law and jump through more bureaucratic hoops than they already do. Given the market for water rights in Colorado and with how many farmers are jumping ship to sell their water to municipalities, I don't really think we should be giving them more of a reason to do so.
|
On October 22 2014 04:51 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 04:38 Nyxisto wrote:
I still don't know why people are arguing about the scientific angle so much. Labelling gm food as gm food is not unscientific or wrong. The implications may make some multi national companies angry which has nothing to do with science. Gluten free diets are for the most part useless and nearly always some kind of irrational lifestyle decision. That doesn't mean that gluten should be removed from the ingredient list. it is a performative fallacy to argue for the passing of a resolution because it is popular, yet wrong by virtue of a relevant but false belief. reducing the voter population to 1, it becomes obvious why this is so, because the majority vote depends on majority holding false belief. the voter will say, i am right because i believe in [false belief]. this is a circularity dependent on treating one's self held beliefs as a factual condition. the false belief does not provide any warrant for passing the resolution because holding the belief is a performative fact. simple lesson is this, engage with the actual substance of the belief and not its popularity, if you are actually considering yourself a part of the deliberating public.
instead of writing all of this down you could actually answer my question. What is factually false about labelling gm-food as gm food?
On October 22 2014 04:54 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 04:38 Nyxisto wrote:
I still don't know why people are arguing about the scientific angle so much. Labelling gm food as gm food is not unscientific or wrong. The implications may make some multi national companies angry which has nothing to do with science. Gluten free diets are for the most part useless and nearly always some kind of irrational lifestyle decision. That doesn't mean that gluten should be removed from the ingredient list. Well it depends on how the law is written. At least for the ballot initiative in Colorado, labeling could be wrong. If, for whatever reason, regulatory agencies decide that any aspect of the food supply chain hasn't met its burden of proof for proving their food is non-GMO, they'll be labeled as GMO whether they are or not. That seems kind of ass-backwards to me, but I'm not sure of a better alternative if we do decide to go the labeling route. And it's not just multinational corporations that would suffer. If farmers were mixing GMO and non-GMO before, even inadvertently, they have to completely restructure their operations to comply with this law and jump through more bureaucratic hoops than they already do. Given the market for water rights in Colorado and with how many farmers are jumping ship to sell their water to municipalities, I don't really think we should be giving them more of a reason to do so.
Well surely it depends on how such a law is written, but is mixing gmo and non gmo's even legal right now?
|
United States43995 Posts
On October 22 2014 04:53 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 04:51 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2014 04:33 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 04:24 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2014 04:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:14 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2014 04:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:05 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 04:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 03:51 DoubleReed wrote:
No, I'm saying this is yet another example of our government being bought and paid for. For some reason, your "side" seems reluctant to admit that. 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? 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. 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. 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. or you can listen to the other 50 guys who are not bought? The entire political process in your country is bought and paid for. okay? this does not then mean there are no impartial sources to get the info from. consider this infographic + Show Spoiler +
That doesn't respond to anything I've said ever.
What I said is that if someone is willing to say whatever they're told to say for money then they're anti science and just because sometimes someone pays them to say something which is not literally factually untrue doesn't change that. Ain't no such thing as halfway corrupt.
|
On October 22 2014 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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. Riiiiight...I can't take this seriously. Is the suggestion that bribery is illegal so it doesn't happen? or that it can't be prevented any more than it is? or just that it is illegal and still happens rather regularly in the colloquial meaning of the word 'bribe' (as opposed to what is proven in court),except in Jonnyland where it is only people on the left? I'm pretty sure all of the recent bribery stories have had Republicans mentioned. The two that come to mind are the VA senator bribe, and the former Campaign manager from McConnell's campaign who left on bribery allegations.
I read him as saying that the far left screams corruption at everything, not that the far left is corrupt.
|
On October 22 2014 04:55 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 04:51 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 04:38 Nyxisto wrote:
I still don't know why people are arguing about the scientific angle so much. Labelling gm food as gm food is not unscientific or wrong. The implications may make some multi national companies angry which has nothing to do with science. Gluten free diets are for the most part useless and nearly always some kind of irrational lifestyle decision. That doesn't mean that gluten should be removed from the ingredient list. it is a performative fallacy to argue for the passing of a resolution because it is popular, yet wrong by virtue of a relevant but false belief. reducing the voter population to 1, it becomes obvious why this is so, because the majority vote depends on majority holding false belief. the voter will say, i am right because i believe in [false belief]. this is a circularity dependent on treating one's self held beliefs as a factual condition. the false belief does not provide any warrant for passing the resolution because holding the belief is a performative fact. simple lesson is this, engage with the actual substance of the belief and not its popularity, if you are actually considering yourself a part of the deliberating public. instead of writing all of this down you could actually answer my question. What is factually false about labelling gm-food as gm food?
The way the law is written (in Colorado) there is a distinct possibility of labeling non-gm food as gm. That's some misinformation right there.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 22 2014 04:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 04:53 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 04:51 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2014 04:33 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 04:24 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2014 04:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:14 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2014 04:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:05 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 04:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
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? 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. 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. 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. or you can listen to the other 50 guys who are not bought? The entire political process in your country is bought and paid for. okay? this does not then mean there are no impartial sources to get the info from. consider this infographic + Show Spoiler + That doesn't respond to anything I've said ever. What I said is that if someone is willing to say whatever they're told to say for money then they're anti science and just because sometimes someone pays them to say something which is not literally factually untrue doesn't change that. Ain't no such thing as halfway corrupt.
sure, but what's the relevance of those people to the issue at hand. there's some hired propagandists (maybe, i would not know) working to put out stuff in public, but spiting monsanto is about the only reason to pay attention to this fact?
|
On October 22 2014 04:38 Nyxisto wrote:
I still don't know why people are arguing about the scientific angle so much. Labelling gm food as gm food is not unscientific or wrong. The implications may make some multi national companies angry which has nothing to do with science. Gluten free diets are for the most part useless and nearly always some kind of irrational lifestyle decision. That doesn't mean that gluten should be removed from the ingredient list.
For the government to mandate something there's usually a compelling public interest, rather than idle curiosity. By pointing out the science, we're demonstrating that there's no compelling public interest to mandate the labeling.
It's not just multi-nationals who oppose the labeling either. Scientific American opposes labeling, as does the NY Times, Boston Globe, and a plethora of other publications that have looked closely at the issue.
|
On October 22 2014 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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. Riiiiight...I can't take this seriously. Is the suggestion that bribery is illegal so it doesn't happen? or that it can't be prevented any more than it is? or just that it is illegal and still happens rather regularly in the colloquial meaning of the word 'bribe' (as opposed to what is proven in court),except in Jonnyland where it is only people on the left? I'm pretty sure all of the recent bribery stories have had Republicans mentioned. The two that come to mind are the VA senator bribe, and the former Campaign manager from McConnell's campaign who left on bribery allegations.
There's no suggestion. I'm literally saying that bribery is illegal, in response to a comment that said otherwise.
|
United States43995 Posts
On October 22 2014 04:58 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 04:56 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2014 04:53 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 04:51 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2014 04:33 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 04:24 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2014 04:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:14 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2014 04:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:05 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
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. 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. 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. or you can listen to the other 50 guys who are not bought? The entire political process in your country is bought and paid for. okay? this does not then mean there are no impartial sources to get the info from. consider this infographic + Show Spoiler + That doesn't respond to anything I've said ever. What I said is that if someone is willing to say whatever they're told to say for money then they're anti science and just because sometimes someone pays them to say something which is not literally factually untrue doesn't change that. Ain't no such thing as halfway corrupt. sure, but what's the relevance of those people to the issue at hand. there's some hired propagandists (maybe, i would not know) working to put out stuff in public, but spiting monsanto is about the only reason to pay attention to this fact?
I'm really not arguing anything that you seem to be interested in arguing against. Please stop quoting my posts.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 22 2014 04:55 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 04:51 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 04:38 Nyxisto wrote:
I still don't know why people are arguing about the scientific angle so much. Labelling gm food as gm food is not unscientific or wrong. The implications may make some multi national companies angry which has nothing to do with science. Gluten free diets are for the most part useless and nearly always some kind of irrational lifestyle decision. That doesn't mean that gluten should be removed from the ingredient list. it is a performative fallacy to argue for the passing of a resolution because it is popular, yet wrong by virtue of a relevant but false belief. reducing the voter population to 1, it becomes obvious why this is so, because the majority vote depends on majority holding false belief. the voter will say, i am right because i believe in [false belief]. this is a circularity dependent on treating one's self held beliefs as a factual condition. the false belief does not provide any warrant for passing the resolution because holding the belief is a performative fact. simple lesson is this, engage with the actual substance of the belief and not its popularity, if you are actually considering yourself a part of the deliberating public. instead of writing all of this down you could actually answer my question. What is factually false about labelling gm-food as gm food?
it becomes hard to get the hamster into the hoop in order, so i have resorted to desperate measures. the preceding post was to make this point: no matter the popularity of a position, let us look at the facts.
then there's your post suggesting an argument which is never made by anyone, namely GMO labeling is wrong because it is factually inaccurate. but factual accuracy is not the only consideration for a label policy, which has a good deal of market impact, not to mention the regulatory structure that comes with it. the argument, once again, is this:
by the fact of the situation at hand, there is no benefit for a costly and detrimental law. consumers who wish to be informed about GM procedures on their foodstuff can do so on their own, without the force of law behind it.
|
On October 22 2014 04:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 04:38 Nyxisto wrote:
I still don't know why people are arguing about the scientific angle so much. Labelling gm food as gm food is not unscientific or wrong. The implications may make some multi national companies angry which has nothing to do with science. Gluten free diets are for the most part useless and nearly always some kind of irrational lifestyle decision. That doesn't mean that gluten should be removed from the ingredient list. For the government to mandate something there's usually a compelling public interest, rather than idle curiosity. By pointing out the science, we're demonstrating that there's no compelling public interest to mandate the labeling. It's not just multi-nationals who oppose the labeling either. Scientific American opposes labeling, as does the NY Times, Boston Globe, and a plethora of other publications that have looked closely at the issue.
But you're not taking anything away from anybody by adding additional information. People who have no problem with anything regarding gm-food will buy it, people who wished to not buy it before but couldn't differentiate now have an additional choice.
@oneofthem: I don't buy this "the market will collapse" argument. GM food is being produced and researched here in Europe too and our regulation goes far beyond labelling. Countries like France more or less oppose it altogether which hasn't stopped research from continuing.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 22 2014 05:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 04:58 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 04:56 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2014 04:53 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 04:51 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2014 04:33 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 04:24 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2014 04:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:14 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2014 04:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
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. 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. 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. or you can listen to the other 50 guys who are not bought? The entire political process in your country is bought and paid for. okay? this does not then mean there are no impartial sources to get the info from. consider this infographic + Show Spoiler + That doesn't respond to anything I've said ever. What I said is that if someone is willing to say whatever they're told to say for money then they're anti science and just because sometimes someone pays them to say something which is not literally factually untrue doesn't change that. Ain't no such thing as halfway corrupt. sure, but what's the relevance of those people to the issue at hand. there's some hired propagandists (maybe, i would not know) working to put out stuff in public, but spiting monsanto is about the only reason to pay attention to this fact? I'm really not arguing anything that you seem to be interested in arguing against. Please stop quoting my posts. as far as i can tell you are only talking about the rightwing commentariats. okay, but the topic here is not the pro science credentials of those people. try making explicit your concern here, since the conversation has been about the GM labeling law.
|
On October 22 2014 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2014 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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. Riiiiight...I can't take this seriously. Is the suggestion that bribery is illegal so it doesn't happen? or that it can't be prevented any more than it is? or just that it is illegal and still happens rather regularly in the colloquial meaning of the word 'bribe' (as opposed to what is proven in court),except in Jonnyland where it is only people on the left? I'm pretty sure all of the recent bribery stories have had Republicans mentioned. The two that come to mind are the VA senator bribe, and the former Campaign manager from McConnell's campaign who left on bribery allegations. There's no suggestion. I'm literally saying that bribery is illegal, in response to a comment that said otherwise.
except for the part where political bribery is not illegal in the US. But your unwilling to hear that anyway so meh, whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uw2tPCR.jpg)
