EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1367
| 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
| ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On October 23 2014 01:36 Nyxisto wrote: It's a mixture of both. Consumer decisions are nearly never based on some kind of scientific decision-making, and if people want a label so they can make what they deem is the best decision then this is as valid as any other kind of argument as long as you're not living in some kind of technocratic dictatorship. If throwing around huge sums of money and starting media campaigns is what defines a democracy then Russia is the best democracy on the planet. Based on your second sentence, then at least some of the blame for the system being broken lies with the consumer. Not everyone can be or wants to be up to date on scientific study, which is why the average lay person should be trusting scientific study, not mass hysteria. So is your problem then the quantity of the messages, rather than the quality? It's not like the lobby for GMO foods can afford a "better" message with their money, they can just put out more ads in more places. If the message they are producing ad-nauseum is factually correct, I see no problem with them spending the big bucks to put it everywhere. There are legitimate arguments to be made for being opposed to GMO foods, but the pro-labeling movement doesn't seem to be making them. Instead, I hear a lot of "it's unnatural" and "I heard it isn't safe" without any basis for these opinions. These viewpoints are eerily similar to the religious or traditionalist arguments against gay marriage and abortion. | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
On October 23 2014 02:07 ZasZ. wrote: There are legitimate arguments to be made for being opposed to GMO foods, but the pro-labeling movement doesn't seem to be making them. Instead, I hear a lot of "it's unnatural" and "I heard it isn't safe" without any basis for these opinions. These viewpoints are eerily similar to the religious or traditionalist arguments against gay marriage and abortion. distrusting things you don't understand is one of the most eminently rational of all human behaviors. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On October 23 2014 02:10 bookwyrm wrote: distrusting things you don't understand is one of the most eminently rational of all human behaviors. Being gullible is also perfectly human. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
On October 23 2014 02:06 oneofthem wrote: consumers are not customers in the restaurant of the food market, and the laws therein are not servers. rather, it is a place of fair exchange and information transparency, as much as possible. it so happens in this instance that the label will actually pollute information given the weight of official sanction imposed. you got it ass backwards. consumers ARE the customer in the restaurant of the food market. the servers are food companies. if the customer demands to know what's in his food or how it was made then it's his right to know. if a consumer were to be unhappy to have some GMO served, he will get something different. or from different a different supplier. or the same supplier adapting to the consumer's wishes. what you call "information pollution", others might call transparency. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On October 23 2014 02:10 bookwyrm wrote: distrusting things you don't understand is one of the most eminently rational of all human behaviors. ? It is by definition irrational. Just because it is common and widely accepted does not mean it is rational. It is outdated and has no place in the modern age of technology and science. It made sense to distrust eating plants or animals you had never seen before when we were hunting and gathering in small groups. It made sense to distrust comets when we had no idea what they were and come up with theological explanations for their existence. Today, however, we know what comets are and why they aren't bad omens, and a wealth of almanacs and resources to tell us which plants and animals are safe to consume. Forming a viewpoint on an issue because you don't understand it is one of the fundamental problems with our political culture in this country, and why we continually have to fight for basic human rights like abortion, gay marriage, and race equality. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 23 2014 02:20 Doublemint wrote: you got it ass backwards. consumers ARE the customer in the restaurant of the food market. the servers are food companies. if the customer demands to know what's in his food or how it was made then it's his right to know. if a consumer were to be unhappy to have some GMO served, he will get something different. or from different a different supplier. or the same supplier adapting to the consumer's wishes. what you call "information pollution", others might call transparency. so you get to choose the rules of this market? how about consumers demanding prices be set by the buyer? rules are not whim based | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 23 2014 02:10 bookwyrm wrote: distrusting things you don't understand is one of the most eminently rational of all human behaviors. and a rational behavior from a position of ignorance is still ignorance. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On October 23 2014 02:23 ZasZ. wrote: ? It is by definition irrational. Just because it is common and widely accepted does not mean it is rational. It is outdated and has no place in the modern age of technology and science. It made sense to distrust eating plants or animals you had never seen before when we were hunting and gathering in small groups. It made sense to distrust comets when we had no idea what they were and come up with theological explanations for their existence. Today, however, we know what comets are and why they aren't bad omens, and a wealth of almanacs and resources to tell us which plants and animals are safe to consume. Forming a viewpoint on an issue because you don't understand it is one of the fundamental problems with our political culture in this country, and why we continually have to fight for basic human rights like abortion, gay marriage, and race equality. A society fight because it is made of conflicting interests. Rationality cannot resolve those problems, and even if some political arguments are simplified to the utmost, the "outdated" arguments have the same basis as most "modern" or "scientific" argument, which is a specific usage of words, concepts, that bear values. Politics is always a battle between gods, and believing science is on another level is also an act of faith. On October 23 2014 02:26 oneofthem wrote: and a rational behavior from a position of ignorance is still ignorance. Your point is based on the idea that any labelling on GMO will prevent its development and thus should not be applied because GMO are a necessity for the future. Your core argument is not rational, it's a belief, and perfectly democratic at that, since it's a "there is no alternative" kind of belief. I can replace labelling GMO with unemployment program, protectionnism, taxation on capital, and we'll basically do the entirety of the political mainstream arguments of the "modern age". | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On October 23 2014 02:28 WhiteDog wrote: A society fight because it is made of conflicting interests. Rationality cannot resolve those problems, and even if some political arguments are simplified to the utmost, the "outdated" arguments have the same basis as most "modern" or "scientific" argument, which is a specific usage of words, concepts, that bear values. Politics is always a battle between gods, and believing science is on another level is also an act of faith. Your all point is based on the idea that any legislation on GMO will prevent its development and thus should not be applied because GMO are a necessity for the future. Your core argument is not rational, it's a belief, and perfectly democratic at that, since it's a "there is no alternative" kind of belief. I can barely understand what you are saying, but I think it's something along the lines of science not being the only factor in politics? If so, you're completely right. I'm not putting science on a level above everything else, I'm putting it on a level with all the other valid economical and social arguments for or against mandatory labeling. While there may not be a scientific argument for labeling, there are valid economical and social arguments for labeling which are a hell of a lot stronger than "I think it's unnatural." | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
On October 23 2014 02:26 oneofthem wrote: so you get to choose the rules of this market? how about consumers demanding prices be set by the buyer? rules are not whim based Relevance? Nobody proposes anything of this sort. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you might want to keep track of your own arguments here, since this 'right to know' stuff is being repeated ad nauseam despite many good arguments against it. kind of like talking to a child wanting its toy | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On October 23 2014 02:33 ZasZ. wrote: I can barely understand what you are saying, but I think it's something along the lines of science not being the only factor in politics? If so, you're completely right. I'm not putting science on a level above everything else, I'm putting it on a level with all the other valid economical and social arguments for or against mandatory labeling. While there may not be a scientific argument for labeling, there are valid economical and social arguments for labeling which are a hell of a lot stronger than "I think it's unnatural." That's not what I meant at all. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
On October 23 2014 02:36 oneofthem wrote: the whim here being desire for a gmo label. no objective benefit demonstrated, plenty of harm and disruption whim for transparency. people are genuinely concerned and you call it a whim. I might add "to you". no objective benefit demonstrated to you. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On October 23 2014 02:41 oneofthem wrote: learn more about gmo if you want transparency, since that is precisely where there is a knowledge gap. Your point is then that more money are to be made if the transparency is not garanteed. Most people would argue it's off topic, and the desire for transparency is a right. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
Then I can't really respond, because I have no idea what you were trying to say. I just found it unfathomable that people believe "I don't understand it, so I hate it," to still be an acceptable viewpoint in today's society. I am as guilty of it as the next person, because it is human nature, but I am also capable of realizing it is irrational and undesirable behavior. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 23 2014 02:42 WhiteDog wrote: Your point is then that more money are to be made if the transparency is not garanteed. Most people would argue it's off topic, and the desire for transparency is a right. wat again, information with official authority has to serve some public interest, whether in shaping the behavior of the market or in direct consumer benefit. there is none here. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On October 23 2014 02:07 ZasZ. wrote: There are legitimate arguments to be made for being opposed to GMO foods, but the pro-labeling movement doesn't seem to be making them. Instead, I hear a lot of "it's unnatural" and "I heard it isn't safe" without any basis for these opinions. These viewpoints are eerily similar to the religious or traditionalist arguments against gay marriage and abortion. Being against gay marriage and abortion literally violates constitutional rights of large groups of people. I don't remember gm crops having constitutional rights. Violating rights of actual people and "hurting" businesses(if that even is the case) because people demand transparency are not even remotely comparable. again, information with official authority has to serve some public interest, If the public demands transparency and information that is not a public interest? Just because you don't care how your food is made the information has no value to everybody else? | ||
| ||
