|
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. |
On October 23 2014 02:43 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 02:37 WhiteDog wrote:On October 23 2014 02:33 ZasZ. wrote:On October 23 2014 02:28 WhiteDog wrote:On October 23 2014 02:23 ZasZ. wrote:On October 23 2014 02:10 bookwyrm wrote: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. ? 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 It is outdated and has no place in the modern age of technology and science.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 Rationality cannot resolve those problems, and even if some political arguments are simplified to the utmost, the "outdated" arguments have the same basis as most "modern" or "scientific" argument, which is a specific usage of words, concepts, that bear values.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:On October 23 2014 02:10 bookwyrm wrote: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. and a rational behavior from a position of ignorance is still ignorance. 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." That's not what I meant at all. 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.
Yeah but those "traditionnal" value, that see badly any new innovations, also have a rationality : they can be, for exemple, supported by people for whom modernity is an increase in labor unemployment, insecurity and precarity. In this sense they're defense mecanism.
In the same way, scientific argument aren't completly rational, but are also backed up by a certain visions and people who believe in science also, more often than not, comes from specific social contexts : more young than old, more rich than poor, etc. "Scientific" arguments in the political fields are not truth but perspectives, just like religious arguments, that was my point.
On October 23 2014 02:44 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 02:42 WhiteDog wrote: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. 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.
And if information is the public interest ?
|
On October 23 2014 02:42 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Why is transparency a right? Is that in the Bill of Rights somewhere and I missed it? Transparency is ideal in a great many situations, but it is by no means a 100% positive force. The condition known as "analysis paralysis" is alive and well, and there is a point where providing too much information to an uninformed consumer is detrimental to everyone involved, including the consumer.
I'm a consulting water resources engineer. With my clients, I'm transparent with things like billing, invoices, and the methodologies and results of our work that affect their bottom line. I don't tell them when I am going on lunch, how much time I spend on other clients' work, or what the people in my office are doing. There's no reason for them to want this information, and if they asked for it that would be an unreasonable request and a waste of everyone's time and money.
How far do we take the transparency of food production? Do people honestly want to see where their tomato was grown and the bio of the farmer who grew it? Does that provide meaningful information regarding the purchase of said tomato and is it worth the money it costs to provide the infrastructure so that information can be displayed?
|
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.
you see, I have a friend, a good friend actually and one of the nicest most helpful people around. he is, some would call it, a bit quirky. he likes to pray, god knows why (pun intended). and still, it makes him feel better.
I am well aware and believe GMOs are not dangerous. Still, I see a label as a must. If you are convinced of your stuff, promote it. Go nuts. People will decide for themselves.
|
On October 23 2014 02:52 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 02:42 WhiteDog wrote: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. Why is transparency a right? Is that in the Bill of Rights somewhere and I missed it? Transparency is ideal in a great many situations, but it is by no means a 100% positive force. The condition known as "analysis paralysis" is alive and well, and there is a point where providing too much information to an uninformed consumer is detrimental to everyone involved, including the consumer. I'm a consulting water resources engineer. With my clients, I'm transparent with things like billing, invoices, and the methodologies and results of our work that affect their bottom line. I don't tell them when I am going on lunch, how much time I spend on other clients' work, or what the people in my office are doing. There's no reason for them to want this information, and if they asked for it that would be an unreasonable request and a waste of everyone's time and money. How far do we take the transparency of food production? Do people honestly want to see where their tomato was grown and the bio of the farmer who grew it? Does that provide meaningful information regarding the purchase of said tomato and is it worth the money it costs to provide the infrastructure so that information can be displayed?
I said the desire for transparency. Or do you believe that it is forbidden for people to defend the idea that transparency should be the closest to perfection ?
The food you consume is relevant to your consumption of food, while the food your engineer consume is not to the water engineering I guess.
|
On October 23 2014 02:43 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 02:37 WhiteDog wrote:On October 23 2014 02:33 ZasZ. wrote:On October 23 2014 02:28 WhiteDog wrote:On October 23 2014 02:23 ZasZ. wrote:On October 23 2014 02:10 bookwyrm wrote: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. ? 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:On October 23 2014 02:10 bookwyrm wrote: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. and a rational behavior from a position of ignorance is still ignorance. 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." That's not what I meant at all. 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.
There is a difference between hate and distrust. Not trusting something you do not understand is very rational. After all, trusting it would require blind faith (since you don't understand it nor the consequences), which could easily be exploited by someone who does understand it and would be able to take advantage of your lack of knowledge in some way. Of course, trying to inform yourself and starting to understand it is a better choice, especially in the longterm, as that would allow you to make an informed choice whether you want to trust it or not. On the other hand, the amount of time each person has is very limited, so one can not inform oneself about everything in detail, so shortcuts need to be taken, like trusting a renowned experts opinion.
Also, the amount of americans who simply accept open bribery in politics, or try to explain it away in some way, or argues a position like "well everyone does it", is insane. I can not understand how you don't have a movement against this obvious corruption. Senators are getting millions of dollars from private firms, and then happen to vote in the way those companies would want them to, not because they got millions of dollars to do so, but because they honestly think that is the best thing for the people who voted for them (as opposed to the people who bribed them)? You need some serious doublethink to hold that position.
|
On October 23 2014 02:55 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 02:43 ZasZ. wrote:On October 23 2014 02:37 WhiteDog wrote:On October 23 2014 02:33 ZasZ. wrote:On October 23 2014 02:28 WhiteDog wrote:On October 23 2014 02:23 ZasZ. wrote:On October 23 2014 02:10 bookwyrm wrote: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. ? 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:On October 23 2014 02:10 bookwyrm wrote: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. and a rational behavior from a position of ignorance is still ignorance. 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." That's not what I meant at all. 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. There is a difference between hate and distrust. Not trusting something you do not understand is very rational. After all, trusting it would require blind faith (since you don't understand it nor the consequences), which could easily be exploited by someone who does understand it and would be able to take advantage of your lack of knowledge in some way. Of course, trying to inform yourself and starting to understand it is a better choice, especially in the longterm, as that would allow you to make an informed choice whether you want to trust it or not. On the other hand, the amount of time each person has is very limited, so one can not inform oneself about everything in detail, so shortcuts need to be taken, like trusting a renowned experts opinion. Also, the amount of americans who simply accept open bribery in politics, or try to explain it away in some way, or argues a position like "well everyone does it", is insane. I can not understand how you don't have a movement against this obvious corruption. Senators are getting millions of dollars from private firms, and then happen to vote in the way those companies would want them to, not because they got millions of dollars to do so, but because they honestly think that is the best thing for the people who voted for them (as opposed to the people who bribed them)? You need some serious doublethink to hold that position.
I don't really know how to respond to you because you agreed with me. Distrusting something you don't understand is understandable. From that perspective you can go in two directions: a) don't form a viewpoint on something you don't understand, and b) learn more about it so that you can form a viewpoint.
It is completely reasonable for a person who knows nothing about GMOs, when asked what the effects are of consuming them, to say "I don't know." I don't think it's reasonable for them to have an opinion, one way or the other, when they don't understand the issue. If people are passionate enough about the issue to want mandatory labeling, then they are passionate enough to actually learn about the topic at hand. Obviously not everyone has the time, or wants the time, to be completely informed on every political issue. If that's the case, then don't vote on it! I just mailed in my ballot yesterday, and left most of the judiciary sections blank because I'm not an informed voter. For those of you who don't know, they are things like "Should Judge Steve Smith be retained as Judge of District X, Yes or No." I don't know anything about Steve, so I don't feel comfortable saying whether or not he should keep his job.
As for your second paragraph, I'm not sure this is in response to me as opposed to Americans as a group. I'm not sure where I said our political system is perfect, or even OK. It has a lot of flaws but unfortunately there are no easy fixes.
|
On October 23 2014 02:26 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 02:10 bookwyrm wrote: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. and a rational behavior from a position of ignorance is still ignorance.
Believing it possible to escape ignorance is the highest form of ignorance. The rational response is therefore how to act given your constitutive ignorance
whats irrational is trusting in things that you belive that other peoplw understand. Whats rational is distrusting things you dont understand and realizing that the people who supposedly understand them actually dont. Like genetic engineering and high finance.
|
On October 22 2014 14:09 Doublemint wrote:Boy this thread moved quickly. ad GMO label controversy: Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 02:47 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 00:58 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 00:51 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 00:41 oneofthem wrote:
i think the haber process is still in its infancy so let's put a haber process ammonia label on everything raised from fertilizers made from CHEMICAL ammonia. who's with me It has been over 100 years since the Haber-Bosch process was invented, and the pros and cons of what it has done for the agricultural industry are well documented. Don't you think your analogy is just a little hyperbolic? I have to ask, do you work for Monsanto or something? You seem really emotionally invested in this topic, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. I'm all for GMOs and think they are the future of agriculture, but we need to work to educate people about why they shouldn't be scared of them, not withhold information that they are asking for, that's just a way to engender more ill will. And Danglars, comparing this to Prop 8 is kind of laughable as well. Sure, if the Supreme Court finds that mandatory labeling for GMOs is unconstitutional, we can all say that the public didn't know any better. The ballot initiative process exists to reflect the will of the masses, and the courts are there to tell the masses when they are wrong. Let it play out like its supposed to. it is even german! must be evil. the analogy is good. don't bother me about it. What a fantastic argument. You're not even trying anymore and are just repeating "labeling is bad" over and over. We get that there are costs associated with labeling, but are struggling to see your viewpoint as to why these costs shouldn't be incurred when over 90% of the public wants the labels. 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. Without the background noise, someone reasonable actually could agree with your line of thought. Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree. Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls. I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. Such faith. I am moved to tears. Not sure why though. Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:22 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:17 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:05 Gorsameth wrote:On October 22 2014 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
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. Political bribery is illegal in the US. Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection. Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery. The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree. Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Ehhh this doesn't really translate to ballot initiatives. Companies like Monsanto may have plenty of money to spend on political advertisements, and that may sway a percentage of the voting public, but for your example, if 90% of people are pro-labels, I don't think any amount of advertisement from Monsanto's camp could change the inevitable outcome on election day. In the case of ballot initiatives, public opinion literally does have the last laugh.Which may be unfortunate in this case since a lot of people are probably pro-label not because they want more information, but because they actually believe GMO's are harmful to them or their families. In the perfect world, science would talk louder than money or public opinion, but that is not the way our country works. I have no idea what the public opinion in Colorado is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 105 ends up passing on Nov. 4th by a large margin. Hopefully it doesn't affect our agriculture too much... In fact it actually did. Better campaigns with like 3-4 times the amount of money from just a handful of special interest people trumped the campaign of 13k small donators and one big one. the no gmo label campaign had 4 individual(sic!) donors. And then there's this: Show nested quote +The No on 522 campaign has a decidedly different kind of backing. For all their TV ads full of amber waves of grain and local farmers, their entire donor list can be counted on your fingers. The top five are the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—a conglomerate of food manufacturers—Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Bayer CropScience, and Dow AgroSciences. Donation details for Washington StateShow nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:19 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong.
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls. I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks." Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks. That's got to be just a (rather obtuse) joke. Right?!... + Show Spoiler + kind of hearing this song in the background while reading some lines disguised as arguments. ("Jonny's an American") :p //edit: god dammit, that's what I get for having no coffee yet. messed up a bit with my own interpretation of the donation, though the link explains it better anyway.
Imagine a popular witch hunt where a local rich guy is trying to tell you that it's a provable fact that magic, and by extension witches, don't exist.
But... but... he's rich! He must be wrong!
But... but... the witch hunt is popular! It must be right!
You're effectively deciding right and wrong based upon who the speaker is, rather than what is spoken.
|
On October 23 2014 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 14:09 Doublemint wrote:Boy this thread moved quickly. ad GMO label controversy: On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 02:47 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 00:58 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 00:51 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 00:41 oneofthem wrote:
i think the haber process is still in its infancy so let's put a haber process ammonia label on everything raised from fertilizers made from CHEMICAL ammonia. who's with me It has been over 100 years since the Haber-Bosch process was invented, and the pros and cons of what it has done for the agricultural industry are well documented. Don't you think your analogy is just a little hyperbolic? I have to ask, do you work for Monsanto or something? You seem really emotionally invested in this topic, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. I'm all for GMOs and think they are the future of agriculture, but we need to work to educate people about why they shouldn't be scared of them, not withhold information that they are asking for, that's just a way to engender more ill will. And Danglars, comparing this to Prop 8 is kind of laughable as well. Sure, if the Supreme Court finds that mandatory labeling for GMOs is unconstitutional, we can all say that the public didn't know any better. The ballot initiative process exists to reflect the will of the masses, and the courts are there to tell the masses when they are wrong. Let it play out like its supposed to. it is even german! must be evil. the analogy is good. don't bother me about it. What a fantastic argument. You're not even trying anymore and are just repeating "labeling is bad" over and over. We get that there are costs associated with labeling, but are struggling to see your viewpoint as to why these costs shouldn't be incurred when over 90% of the public wants the labels. 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. Without the background noise, someone reasonable actually could agree with your line of thought. On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:[quote] Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls. I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. Such faith. I am moved to tears. Not sure why though. On October 22 2014 06:22 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:17 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:05 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
except for the part where political bribery is not illegal in the US. But your unwilling to hear that anyway so meh, whatever. Political bribery is illegal in the US. Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection. Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery. The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree. Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Ehhh this doesn't really translate to ballot initiatives. Companies like Monsanto may have plenty of money to spend on political advertisements, and that may sway a percentage of the voting public, but for your example, if 90% of people are pro-labels, I don't think any amount of advertisement from Monsanto's camp could change the inevitable outcome on election day. In the case of ballot initiatives, public opinion literally does have the last laugh.Which may be unfortunate in this case since a lot of people are probably pro-label not because they want more information, but because they actually believe GMO's are harmful to them or their families. In the perfect world, science would talk louder than money or public opinion, but that is not the way our country works. I have no idea what the public opinion in Colorado is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 105 ends up passing on Nov. 4th by a large margin. Hopefully it doesn't affect our agriculture too much... In fact it actually did. Better campaigns with like 3-4 times the amount of money from just a handful of special interest people trumped the campaign of 13k small donators and one big one. the no gmo label campaign had 4 individual(sic!) donors. And then there's this: The No on 522 campaign has a decidedly different kind of backing. For all their TV ads full of amber waves of grain and local farmers, their entire donor list can be counted on your fingers. The top five are the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—a conglomerate of food manufacturers—Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Bayer CropScience, and Dow AgroSciences. Donation details for Washington StateOn October 22 2014 06:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:19 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment.
Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy.
We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls. I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks." Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks. That's got to be just a (rather obtuse) joke. Right?!... + Show Spoiler + kind of hearing this song in the background while reading some lines disguised as arguments. ("Jonny's an American") :p //edit: god dammit, that's what I get for having no coffee yet. messed up a bit with my own interpretation of the donation, though the link explains it better anyway. Imagine a popular witch hunt where a local rich guy is trying to tell you that it's a provable fact that magic, and by extension witches, don't exist. But... but... he's rich! He must be wrong! But... but... the witch hunt is popular! It must be right! You're effectively deciding right and wrong based upon who the speaker is, rather than what is spoken.
Better analogy: You are having a witch hunt, and a very rich producer of brooms and spiky hats spends shitloads of money trying to convince you that witches don't exist. I would be highly suspicious of that guy. He might be correct, but he also has such a vested self-interest in the situation that you really shouldn't trust him. Not because he is rich, but because he is obviously biased. The fact that he is spending a lot of money to propegate his money is not even that important, though the fact that he CAN basically just spend a lot of money to make laws IS a big problem, because even if this one rich guy is correct, what about the other rich guy that sells snake oil and wants to make sure that you can get the cure for all illnesses prescribed from your local doctor, because it is very much the best solution to any medical problem.
|
On October 23 2014 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 14:09 Doublemint wrote:Boy this thread moved quickly. ad GMO label controversy: On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 02:47 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 00:58 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 00:51 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 00:41 oneofthem wrote:
i think the haber process is still in its infancy so let's put a haber process ammonia label on everything raised from fertilizers made from CHEMICAL ammonia. who's with me It has been over 100 years since the Haber-Bosch process was invented, and the pros and cons of what it has done for the agricultural industry are well documented. Don't you think your analogy is just a little hyperbolic? I have to ask, do you work for Monsanto or something? You seem really emotionally invested in this topic, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. I'm all for GMOs and think they are the future of agriculture, but we need to work to educate people about why they shouldn't be scared of them, not withhold information that they are asking for, that's just a way to engender more ill will. And Danglars, comparing this to Prop 8 is kind of laughable as well. Sure, if the Supreme Court finds that mandatory labeling for GMOs is unconstitutional, we can all say that the public didn't know any better. The ballot initiative process exists to reflect the will of the masses, and the courts are there to tell the masses when they are wrong. Let it play out like its supposed to. it is even german! must be evil. the analogy is good. don't bother me about it. What a fantastic argument. You're not even trying anymore and are just repeating "labeling is bad" over and over. We get that there are costs associated with labeling, but are struggling to see your viewpoint as to why these costs shouldn't be incurred when over 90% of the public wants the labels. 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. Without the background noise, someone reasonable actually could agree with your line of thought. On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:[quote] Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls. I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. Such faith. I am moved to tears. Not sure why though. On October 22 2014 06:22 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:17 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:05 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
except for the part where political bribery is not illegal in the US. But your unwilling to hear that anyway so meh, whatever. Political bribery is illegal in the US. Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection. Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery. The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree. Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Ehhh this doesn't really translate to ballot initiatives. Companies like Monsanto may have plenty of money to spend on political advertisements, and that may sway a percentage of the voting public, but for your example, if 90% of people are pro-labels, I don't think any amount of advertisement from Monsanto's camp could change the inevitable outcome on election day. In the case of ballot initiatives, public opinion literally does have the last laugh.Which may be unfortunate in this case since a lot of people are probably pro-label not because they want more information, but because they actually believe GMO's are harmful to them or their families. In the perfect world, science would talk louder than money or public opinion, but that is not the way our country works. I have no idea what the public opinion in Colorado is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 105 ends up passing on Nov. 4th by a large margin. Hopefully it doesn't affect our agriculture too much... In fact it actually did. Better campaigns with like 3-4 times the amount of money from just a handful of special interest people trumped the campaign of 13k small donators and one big one. the no gmo label campaign had 4 individual(sic!) donors. And then there's this: The No on 522 campaign has a decidedly different kind of backing. For all their TV ads full of amber waves of grain and local farmers, their entire donor list can be counted on your fingers. The top five are the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—a conglomerate of food manufacturers—Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Bayer CropScience, and Dow AgroSciences. Donation details for Washington StateOn October 22 2014 06:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:19 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment.
Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy.
We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls. I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks." Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks. That's got to be just a (rather obtuse) joke. Right?!... + Show Spoiler + kind of hearing this song in the background while reading some lines disguised as arguments. ("Jonny's an American") :p //edit: god dammit, that's what I get for having no coffee yet. messed up a bit with my own interpretation of the donation, though the link explains it better anyway. Imagine a popular witch hunt where a local rich guy is trying to tell you that it's a provable fact that magic, and by extension witches, don't exist. But... but... he's rich! He must be wrong! But... but... the witch hunt is popular! It must be right! You're effectively deciding right and wrong based upon who the speaker is, rather than what is spoken.
I am hearing very clearly. And the GMA (Grocery manufacturing association) is not the rich guy trying to save innocent women from being burned(= the label apparently).
When did the faceless multi billion dollar company become the hero, did I miss that meeting?
|
On October 23 2014 04:07 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 14:09 Doublemint wrote:Boy this thread moved quickly. ad GMO label controversy: On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 02:47 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 00:58 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 00:51 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 00:41 oneofthem wrote:
i think the haber process is still in its infancy so let's put a haber process ammonia label on everything raised from fertilizers made from CHEMICAL ammonia. who's with me It has been over 100 years since the Haber-Bosch process was invented, and the pros and cons of what it has done for the agricultural industry are well documented. Don't you think your analogy is just a little hyperbolic? I have to ask, do you work for Monsanto or something? You seem really emotionally invested in this topic, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. I'm all for GMOs and think they are the future of agriculture, but we need to work to educate people about why they shouldn't be scared of them, not withhold information that they are asking for, that's just a way to engender more ill will. And Danglars, comparing this to Prop 8 is kind of laughable as well. Sure, if the Supreme Court finds that mandatory labeling for GMOs is unconstitutional, we can all say that the public didn't know any better. The ballot initiative process exists to reflect the will of the masses, and the courts are there to tell the masses when they are wrong. Let it play out like its supposed to. it is even german! must be evil. the analogy is good. don't bother me about it. What a fantastic argument. You're not even trying anymore and are just repeating "labeling is bad" over and over. We get that there are costs associated with labeling, but are struggling to see your viewpoint as to why these costs shouldn't be incurred when over 90% of the public wants the labels. 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. Without the background noise, someone reasonable actually could agree with your line of thought. On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong.
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls. I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. Such faith. I am moved to tears. Not sure why though. On October 22 2014 06:22 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:17 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Political bribery is illegal in the US. Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection. Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery. The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree. Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Ehhh this doesn't really translate to ballot initiatives. Companies like Monsanto may have plenty of money to spend on political advertisements, and that may sway a percentage of the voting public, but for your example, if 90% of people are pro-labels, I don't think any amount of advertisement from Monsanto's camp could change the inevitable outcome on election day. In the case of ballot initiatives, public opinion literally does have the last laugh.Which may be unfortunate in this case since a lot of people are probably pro-label not because they want more information, but because they actually believe GMO's are harmful to them or their families. In the perfect world, science would talk louder than money or public opinion, but that is not the way our country works. I have no idea what the public opinion in Colorado is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 105 ends up passing on Nov. 4th by a large margin. Hopefully it doesn't affect our agriculture too much... In fact it actually did. Better campaigns with like 3-4 times the amount of money from just a handful of special interest people trumped the campaign of 13k small donators and one big one. the no gmo label campaign had 4 individual(sic!) donors. And then there's this: The No on 522 campaign has a decidedly different kind of backing. For all their TV ads full of amber waves of grain and local farmers, their entire donor list can be counted on your fingers. The top five are the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—a conglomerate of food manufacturers—Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Bayer CropScience, and Dow AgroSciences. Donation details for Washington StateOn October 22 2014 06:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:19 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls. I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks." Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks. That's got to be just a (rather obtuse) joke. Right?!... + Show Spoiler + kind of hearing this song in the background while reading some lines disguised as arguments. ("Jonny's an American") :p //edit: god dammit, that's what I get for having no coffee yet. messed up a bit with my own interpretation of the donation, though the link explains it better anyway. Imagine a popular witch hunt where a local rich guy is trying to tell you that it's a provable fact that magic, and by extension witches, don't exist. But... but... he's rich! He must be wrong! But... but... the witch hunt is popular! It must be right! You're effectively deciding right and wrong based upon who the speaker is, rather than what is spoken. Better analogy: You are having a witch hunt, and a very rich producer of brooms and spiky hats spends shitloads of money trying to convince you that witches don't exist. I would be highly suspicious of that guy. He might be correct, but he also has such a vested self-interest in the situation that you really shouldn't trust him. Not because he is rich, but because he is obviously biased. The fact that he is spending a lot of money to propegate his money is not even that important, though the fact that he CAN basically just spend a lot of money to make laws IS a big problem, because even if this one rich guy is correct, what about the other rich guy that sells snake oil and wants to make sure that you can get the cure for all illnesses prescribed from your local doctor, because it is very much the best solution to any medical problem.
You're skeptical of the broom and hat salesman. Lovely.
Why aren't you skeptical of the mob?
If only there was an impartial source... oh wait, there is. Why don't you listen to that source?
Nah, better to stay ignorant. I hear that's bliss...
On October 23 2014 04:22 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 14:09 Doublemint wrote:Boy this thread moved quickly. ad GMO label controversy: On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 02:47 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 00:58 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 00:51 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 00:41 oneofthem wrote:
i think the haber process is still in its infancy so let's put a haber process ammonia label on everything raised from fertilizers made from CHEMICAL ammonia. who's with me It has been over 100 years since the Haber-Bosch process was invented, and the pros and cons of what it has done for the agricultural industry are well documented. Don't you think your analogy is just a little hyperbolic? I have to ask, do you work for Monsanto or something? You seem really emotionally invested in this topic, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. I'm all for GMOs and think they are the future of agriculture, but we need to work to educate people about why they shouldn't be scared of them, not withhold information that they are asking for, that's just a way to engender more ill will. And Danglars, comparing this to Prop 8 is kind of laughable as well. Sure, if the Supreme Court finds that mandatory labeling for GMOs is unconstitutional, we can all say that the public didn't know any better. The ballot initiative process exists to reflect the will of the masses, and the courts are there to tell the masses when they are wrong. Let it play out like its supposed to. it is even german! must be evil. the analogy is good. don't bother me about it. What a fantastic argument. You're not even trying anymore and are just repeating "labeling is bad" over and over. We get that there are costs associated with labeling, but are struggling to see your viewpoint as to why these costs shouldn't be incurred when over 90% of the public wants the labels. 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. Without the background noise, someone reasonable actually could agree with your line of thought. On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong.
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls. I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. Such faith. I am moved to tears. Not sure why though. On October 22 2014 06:22 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:17 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Political bribery is illegal in the US. Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection. Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery. The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree. Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Ehhh this doesn't really translate to ballot initiatives. Companies like Monsanto may have plenty of money to spend on political advertisements, and that may sway a percentage of the voting public, but for your example, if 90% of people are pro-labels, I don't think any amount of advertisement from Monsanto's camp could change the inevitable outcome on election day. In the case of ballot initiatives, public opinion literally does have the last laugh.Which may be unfortunate in this case since a lot of people are probably pro-label not because they want more information, but because they actually believe GMO's are harmful to them or their families. In the perfect world, science would talk louder than money or public opinion, but that is not the way our country works. I have no idea what the public opinion in Colorado is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 105 ends up passing on Nov. 4th by a large margin. Hopefully it doesn't affect our agriculture too much... In fact it actually did. Better campaigns with like 3-4 times the amount of money from just a handful of special interest people trumped the campaign of 13k small donators and one big one. the no gmo label campaign had 4 individual(sic!) donors. And then there's this: The No on 522 campaign has a decidedly different kind of backing. For all their TV ads full of amber waves of grain and local farmers, their entire donor list can be counted on your fingers. The top five are the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—a conglomerate of food manufacturers—Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Bayer CropScience, and Dow AgroSciences. Donation details for Washington StateOn October 22 2014 06:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:19 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls. I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks." Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks. That's got to be just a (rather obtuse) joke. Right?!... + Show Spoiler + kind of hearing this song in the background while reading some lines disguised as arguments. ("Jonny's an American") :p //edit: god dammit, that's what I get for having no coffee yet. messed up a bit with my own interpretation of the donation, though the link explains it better anyway. Imagine a popular witch hunt where a local rich guy is trying to tell you that it's a provable fact that magic, and by extension witches, don't exist. But... but... he's rich! He must be wrong! But... but... the witch hunt is popular! It must be right! You're effectively deciding right and wrong based upon who the speaker is, rather than what is spoken. I am hearing very clearly. And the GMA (Grocery manufacturing association) is not the rich guy trying to save innocent women from being burned(= the label apparently). When did the faceless multi billion dollar company become the hero, did I miss that meeting?
When did the lynch mob become the hero? Did I miss that meeting?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 23 2014 03:49 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 02:26 oneofthem wrote:On October 23 2014 02:10 bookwyrm wrote: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. and a rational behavior from a position of ignorance is still ignorance. Believing it possible to escape ignorance is the highest form of ignorance. The rational response is therefore how to act given your constitutive ignorance whats irrational is trusting in things that you belive that other peoplw understand. Whats rational is distrusting things you dont understand and realizing that the people who supposedly understand them actually dont. Like genetic engineering and high finance.
are we gonna go with baseless relativism now.
|
On October 23 2014 04:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 04:07 Simberto wrote:On October 23 2014 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 14:09 Doublemint wrote:Boy this thread moved quickly. ad GMO label controversy: On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 02:47 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 00:58 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 00:51 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 00:41 oneofthem wrote:
i think the haber process is still in its infancy so let's put a haber process ammonia label on everything raised from fertilizers made from CHEMICAL ammonia. who's with me It has been over 100 years since the Haber-Bosch process was invented, and the pros and cons of what it has done for the agricultural industry are well documented. Don't you think your analogy is just a little hyperbolic? I have to ask, do you work for Monsanto or something? You seem really emotionally invested in this topic, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. I'm all for GMOs and think they are the future of agriculture, but we need to work to educate people about why they shouldn't be scared of them, not withhold information that they are asking for, that's just a way to engender more ill will. And Danglars, comparing this to Prop 8 is kind of laughable as well. Sure, if the Supreme Court finds that mandatory labeling for GMOs is unconstitutional, we can all say that the public didn't know any better. The ballot initiative process exists to reflect the will of the masses, and the courts are there to tell the masses when they are wrong. Let it play out like its supposed to. it is even german! must be evil. the analogy is good. don't bother me about it. What a fantastic argument. You're not even trying anymore and are just repeating "labeling is bad" over and over. We get that there are costs associated with labeling, but are struggling to see your viewpoint as to why these costs shouldn't be incurred when over 90% of the public wants the labels. 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. Without the background noise, someone reasonable actually could agree with your line of thought. On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment.
Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy.
We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls. I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. Such faith. I am moved to tears. Not sure why though. On October 22 2014 06:22 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:17 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection.
Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery.
The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree. Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Ehhh this doesn't really translate to ballot initiatives. Companies like Monsanto may have plenty of money to spend on political advertisements, and that may sway a percentage of the voting public, but for your example, if 90% of people are pro-labels, I don't think any amount of advertisement from Monsanto's camp could change the inevitable outcome on election day. In the case of ballot initiatives, public opinion literally does have the last laugh.Which may be unfortunate in this case since a lot of people are probably pro-label not because they want more information, but because they actually believe GMO's are harmful to them or their families. In the perfect world, science would talk louder than money or public opinion, but that is not the way our country works. I have no idea what the public opinion in Colorado is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 105 ends up passing on Nov. 4th by a large margin. Hopefully it doesn't affect our agriculture too much... In fact it actually did. Better campaigns with like 3-4 times the amount of money from just a handful of special interest people trumped the campaign of 13k small donators and one big one. the no gmo label campaign had 4 individual(sic!) donors. And then there's this: The No on 522 campaign has a decidedly different kind of backing. For all their TV ads full of amber waves of grain and local farmers, their entire donor list can be counted on your fingers. The top five are the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—a conglomerate of food manufacturers—Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Bayer CropScience, and Dow AgroSciences. Donation details for Washington StateOn October 22 2014 06:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:19 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks." Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks. That's got to be just a (rather obtuse) joke. Right?!... + Show Spoiler + kind of hearing this song in the background while reading some lines disguised as arguments. ("Jonny's an American") :p //edit: god dammit, that's what I get for having no coffee yet. messed up a bit with my own interpretation of the donation, though the link explains it better anyway. Imagine a popular witch hunt where a local rich guy is trying to tell you that it's a provable fact that magic, and by extension witches, don't exist. But... but... he's rich! He must be wrong! But... but... the witch hunt is popular! It must be right! You're effectively deciding right and wrong based upon who the speaker is, rather than what is spoken. Better analogy: You are having a witch hunt, and a very rich producer of brooms and spiky hats spends shitloads of money trying to convince you that witches don't exist. I would be highly suspicious of that guy. He might be correct, but he also has such a vested self-interest in the situation that you really shouldn't trust him. Not because he is rich, but because he is obviously biased. The fact that he is spending a lot of money to propegate his money is not even that important, though the fact that he CAN basically just spend a lot of money to make laws IS a big problem, because even if this one rich guy is correct, what about the other rich guy that sells snake oil and wants to make sure that you can get the cure for all illnesses prescribed from your local doctor, because it is very much the best solution to any medical problem. You're skeptical of the broom and hat salesman. Lovely. Why aren't you skeptical of the mob? If only there was an impartial source... oh wait, there is. Why don't you listen to that source? Nah, better to stay ignorant. I hear that's bliss... Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 04:22 Doublemint wrote:On October 23 2014 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 14:09 Doublemint wrote:Boy this thread moved quickly. ad GMO label controversy: On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 02:47 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 00:58 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 00:51 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 00:41 oneofthem wrote:
i think the haber process is still in its infancy so let's put a haber process ammonia label on everything raised from fertilizers made from CHEMICAL ammonia. who's with me It has been over 100 years since the Haber-Bosch process was invented, and the pros and cons of what it has done for the agricultural industry are well documented. Don't you think your analogy is just a little hyperbolic? I have to ask, do you work for Monsanto or something? You seem really emotionally invested in this topic, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. I'm all for GMOs and think they are the future of agriculture, but we need to work to educate people about why they shouldn't be scared of them, not withhold information that they are asking for, that's just a way to engender more ill will. And Danglars, comparing this to Prop 8 is kind of laughable as well. Sure, if the Supreme Court finds that mandatory labeling for GMOs is unconstitutional, we can all say that the public didn't know any better. The ballot initiative process exists to reflect the will of the masses, and the courts are there to tell the masses when they are wrong. Let it play out like its supposed to. it is even german! must be evil. the analogy is good. don't bother me about it. What a fantastic argument. You're not even trying anymore and are just repeating "labeling is bad" over and over. We get that there are costs associated with labeling, but are struggling to see your viewpoint as to why these costs shouldn't be incurred when over 90% of the public wants the labels. 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. Without the background noise, someone reasonable actually could agree with your line of thought. On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment.
Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy.
We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls. I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. Such faith. I am moved to tears. Not sure why though. On October 22 2014 06:22 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:17 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection.
Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery.
The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree. Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Ehhh this doesn't really translate to ballot initiatives. Companies like Monsanto may have plenty of money to spend on political advertisements, and that may sway a percentage of the voting public, but for your example, if 90% of people are pro-labels, I don't think any amount of advertisement from Monsanto's camp could change the inevitable outcome on election day. In the case of ballot initiatives, public opinion literally does have the last laugh.Which may be unfortunate in this case since a lot of people are probably pro-label not because they want more information, but because they actually believe GMO's are harmful to them or their families. In the perfect world, science would talk louder than money or public opinion, but that is not the way our country works. I have no idea what the public opinion in Colorado is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 105 ends up passing on Nov. 4th by a large margin. Hopefully it doesn't affect our agriculture too much... In fact it actually did. Better campaigns with like 3-4 times the amount of money from just a handful of special interest people trumped the campaign of 13k small donators and one big one. the no gmo label campaign had 4 individual(sic!) donors. And then there's this: The No on 522 campaign has a decidedly different kind of backing. For all their TV ads full of amber waves of grain and local farmers, their entire donor list can be counted on your fingers. The top five are the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—a conglomerate of food manufacturers—Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Bayer CropScience, and Dow AgroSciences. Donation details for Washington StateOn October 22 2014 06:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:19 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks." Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks. That's got to be just a (rather obtuse) joke. Right?!... + Show Spoiler + kind of hearing this song in the background while reading some lines disguised as arguments. ("Jonny's an American") :p //edit: god dammit, that's what I get for having no coffee yet. messed up a bit with my own interpretation of the donation, though the link explains it better anyway. Imagine a popular witch hunt where a local rich guy is trying to tell you that it's a provable fact that magic, and by extension witches, don't exist. But... but... he's rich! He must be wrong! But... but... the witch hunt is popular! It must be right! You're effectively deciding right and wrong based upon who the speaker is, rather than what is spoken. I am hearing very clearly. And the GMA (Grocery manufacturing association) is not the rich guy trying to save innocent women from being burned(= the label apparently). When did the faceless multi billion dollar company become the hero, did I miss that meeting? When did the lynch mob become the hero? Did I miss that meeting?
Nobody is lynching anybody... or suggesting anything even REMOTELY CLOSE to it. This is a pointless discussion where just different world views are clashing.
America is a fascinating and highly diverse country, but when I read things like that I am just glad I am not living there.
|
On October 23 2014 04:47 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 04:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2014 04:07 Simberto wrote:On October 23 2014 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 14:09 Doublemint wrote:Boy this thread moved quickly. ad GMO label controversy: On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 02:47 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 00:58 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 00:51 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 00:41 oneofthem wrote:
i think the haber process is still in its infancy so let's put a haber process ammonia label on everything raised from fertilizers made from CHEMICAL ammonia. who's with me It has been over 100 years since the Haber-Bosch process was invented, and the pros and cons of what it has done for the agricultural industry are well documented. Don't you think your analogy is just a little hyperbolic? I have to ask, do you work for Monsanto or something? You seem really emotionally invested in this topic, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. I'm all for GMOs and think they are the future of agriculture, but we need to work to educate people about why they shouldn't be scared of them, not withhold information that they are asking for, that's just a way to engender more ill will. And Danglars, comparing this to Prop 8 is kind of laughable as well. Sure, if the Supreme Court finds that mandatory labeling for GMOs is unconstitutional, we can all say that the public didn't know any better. The ballot initiative process exists to reflect the will of the masses, and the courts are there to tell the masses when they are wrong. Let it play out like its supposed to. it is even german! must be evil. the analogy is good. don't bother me about it. What a fantastic argument. You're not even trying anymore and are just repeating "labeling is bad" over and over. We get that there are costs associated with labeling, but are struggling to see your viewpoint as to why these costs shouldn't be incurred when over 90% of the public wants the labels. 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. Without the background noise, someone reasonable actually could agree with your line of thought. On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls. I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. Such faith. I am moved to tears. Not sure why though. On October 22 2014 06:22 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree. Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Ehhh this doesn't really translate to ballot initiatives. Companies like Monsanto may have plenty of money to spend on political advertisements, and that may sway a percentage of the voting public, but for your example, if 90% of people are pro-labels, I don't think any amount of advertisement from Monsanto's camp could change the inevitable outcome on election day. In the case of ballot initiatives, public opinion literally does have the last laugh.Which may be unfortunate in this case since a lot of people are probably pro-label not because they want more information, but because they actually believe GMO's are harmful to them or their families. In the perfect world, science would talk louder than money or public opinion, but that is not the way our country works. I have no idea what the public opinion in Colorado is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 105 ends up passing on Nov. 4th by a large margin. Hopefully it doesn't affect our agriculture too much... In fact it actually did. Better campaigns with like 3-4 times the amount of money from just a handful of special interest people trumped the campaign of 13k small donators and one big one. the no gmo label campaign had 4 individual(sic!) donors. And then there's this: The No on 522 campaign has a decidedly different kind of backing. For all their TV ads full of amber waves of grain and local farmers, their entire donor list can be counted on your fingers. The top five are the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—a conglomerate of food manufacturers—Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Bayer CropScience, and Dow AgroSciences. Donation details for Washington StateOn October 22 2014 06:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:19 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks." Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks. That's got to be just a (rather obtuse) joke. Right?!... + Show Spoiler + kind of hearing this song in the background while reading some lines disguised as arguments. ("Jonny's an American") :p //edit: god dammit, that's what I get for having no coffee yet. messed up a bit with my own interpretation of the donation, though the link explains it better anyway. Imagine a popular witch hunt where a local rich guy is trying to tell you that it's a provable fact that magic, and by extension witches, don't exist. But... but... he's rich! He must be wrong! But... but... the witch hunt is popular! It must be right! You're effectively deciding right and wrong based upon who the speaker is, rather than what is spoken. Better analogy: You are having a witch hunt, and a very rich producer of brooms and spiky hats spends shitloads of money trying to convince you that witches don't exist. I would be highly suspicious of that guy. He might be correct, but he also has such a vested self-interest in the situation that you really shouldn't trust him. Not because he is rich, but because he is obviously biased. The fact that he is spending a lot of money to propegate his money is not even that important, though the fact that he CAN basically just spend a lot of money to make laws IS a big problem, because even if this one rich guy is correct, what about the other rich guy that sells snake oil and wants to make sure that you can get the cure for all illnesses prescribed from your local doctor, because it is very much the best solution to any medical problem. You're skeptical of the broom and hat salesman. Lovely. Why aren't you skeptical of the mob? If only there was an impartial source... oh wait, there is. Why don't you listen to that source? Nah, better to stay ignorant. I hear that's bliss... On October 23 2014 04:22 Doublemint wrote:On October 23 2014 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 14:09 Doublemint wrote:Boy this thread moved quickly. ad GMO label controversy: On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 02:47 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 00:58 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 00:51 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 00:41 oneofthem wrote:
i think the haber process is still in its infancy so let's put a haber process ammonia label on everything raised from fertilizers made from CHEMICAL ammonia. who's with me It has been over 100 years since the Haber-Bosch process was invented, and the pros and cons of what it has done for the agricultural industry are well documented. Don't you think your analogy is just a little hyperbolic? I have to ask, do you work for Monsanto or something? You seem really emotionally invested in this topic, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. I'm all for GMOs and think they are the future of agriculture, but we need to work to educate people about why they shouldn't be scared of them, not withhold information that they are asking for, that's just a way to engender more ill will. And Danglars, comparing this to Prop 8 is kind of laughable as well. Sure, if the Supreme Court finds that mandatory labeling for GMOs is unconstitutional, we can all say that the public didn't know any better. The ballot initiative process exists to reflect the will of the masses, and the courts are there to tell the masses when they are wrong. Let it play out like its supposed to. it is even german! must be evil. the analogy is good. don't bother me about it. What a fantastic argument. You're not even trying anymore and are just repeating "labeling is bad" over and over. We get that there are costs associated with labeling, but are struggling to see your viewpoint as to why these costs shouldn't be incurred when over 90% of the public wants the labels. 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. Without the background noise, someone reasonable actually could agree with your line of thought. On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls. I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. Such faith. I am moved to tears. Not sure why though. On October 22 2014 06:22 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree. Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Ehhh this doesn't really translate to ballot initiatives. Companies like Monsanto may have plenty of money to spend on political advertisements, and that may sway a percentage of the voting public, but for your example, if 90% of people are pro-labels, I don't think any amount of advertisement from Monsanto's camp could change the inevitable outcome on election day. In the case of ballot initiatives, public opinion literally does have the last laugh.Which may be unfortunate in this case since a lot of people are probably pro-label not because they want more information, but because they actually believe GMO's are harmful to them or their families. In the perfect world, science would talk louder than money or public opinion, but that is not the way our country works. I have no idea what the public opinion in Colorado is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 105 ends up passing on Nov. 4th by a large margin. Hopefully it doesn't affect our agriculture too much... In fact it actually did. Better campaigns with like 3-4 times the amount of money from just a handful of special interest people trumped the campaign of 13k small donators and one big one. the no gmo label campaign had 4 individual(sic!) donors. And then there's this: The No on 522 campaign has a decidedly different kind of backing. For all their TV ads full of amber waves of grain and local farmers, their entire donor list can be counted on your fingers. The top five are the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—a conglomerate of food manufacturers—Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Bayer CropScience, and Dow AgroSciences. Donation details for Washington StateOn October 22 2014 06:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:19 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks." Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks. That's got to be just a (rather obtuse) joke. Right?!... + Show Spoiler + kind of hearing this song in the background while reading some lines disguised as arguments. ("Jonny's an American") :p //edit: god dammit, that's what I get for having no coffee yet. messed up a bit with my own interpretation of the donation, though the link explains it better anyway. Imagine a popular witch hunt where a local rich guy is trying to tell you that it's a provable fact that magic, and by extension witches, don't exist. But... but... he's rich! He must be wrong! But... but... the witch hunt is popular! It must be right! You're effectively deciding right and wrong based upon who the speaker is, rather than what is spoken. I am hearing very clearly. And the GMA (Grocery manufacturing association) is not the rich guy trying to save innocent women from being burned(= the label apparently). When did the faceless multi billion dollar company become the hero, did I miss that meeting? When did the lynch mob become the hero? Did I miss that meeting? Nobody is lynching anybody... or suggesting anything even REMOTELY CLOSE to it. This is a pointless discussion where just different world views are clashing. America is a fascinating and highly diverse country, but when I read things like that I am just glad I am not living there.
"Lynch mob" in this case is simply referring to a group of people out to do harm to some other group, with the only intent to cause damage and fear. It's a poke at populism in the same way "evil corporations" are a poke at modern capitalism.
A lot of people seem to be siding with mandatory GMO labeling because: a) they're out to hurt Monsanto and Co., b) they don't believe research saying GMOs are safe, and/or c) they are on a ideological crusade for "transparency." A and C are both lynchmob scenarios since B isn't actually a concern at this point. Hell, I haven't even heard a single argument for B along the lines of, "How can we track widespread affects of GMO products if they aren't labeled correctly?" It's been almost entirely, "Look at these people Monsanto hurt!" and, "If only the consumer had perfect information, they could make perfect decisions and everybody would have FREEDOM!"
|
Are you under the impression that actual lynch mobs went after millionaires and corporations?
When did it become customary to not even think about one's own analogies and their relevance???
|
On October 23 2014 05:42 DoubleReed wrote:
Are you under the impression that actual lynch mobs went after millionaires and corporations?
When did it become customary to not even think about one's own analogies and their relevance???
When Thomas Perkins started to compare the fate of the 1 % with the jews during the holocaust.
Or maybe when Mitt Romney said companies are people too.
On October 23 2014 05:18 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 04:47 Doublemint wrote:On October 23 2014 04:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2014 04:07 Simberto wrote:On October 23 2014 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 14:09 Doublemint wrote:Boy this thread moved quickly. ad GMO label controversy: On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 02:47 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 00:58 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 00:51 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
It has been over 100 years since the Haber-Bosch process was invented, and the pros and cons of what it has done for the agricultural industry are well documented. Don't you think your analogy is just a little hyperbolic?
I have to ask, do you work for Monsanto or something? You seem really emotionally invested in this topic, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. I'm all for GMOs and think they are the future of agriculture, but we need to work to educate people about why they shouldn't be scared of them, not withhold information that they are asking for, that's just a way to engender more ill will.
And Danglars, comparing this to Prop 8 is kind of laughable as well. Sure, if the Supreme Court finds that mandatory labeling for GMOs is unconstitutional, we can all say that the public didn't know any better. The ballot initiative process exists to reflect the will of the masses, and the courts are there to tell the masses when they are wrong. Let it play out like its supposed to. it is even german! must be evil. the analogy is good. don't bother me about it. What a fantastic argument. You're not even trying anymore and are just repeating "labeling is bad" over and over. We get that there are costs associated with labeling, but are struggling to see your viewpoint as to why these costs shouldn't be incurred when over 90% of the public wants the labels. 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. Without the background noise, someone reasonable actually could agree with your line of thought. On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. Such faith. I am moved to tears. Not sure why though. On October 22 2014 06:22 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:[quote] Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Ehhh this doesn't really translate to ballot initiatives. Companies like Monsanto may have plenty of money to spend on political advertisements, and that may sway a percentage of the voting public, but for your example, if 90% of people are pro-labels, I don't think any amount of advertisement from Monsanto's camp could change the inevitable outcome on election day. In the case of ballot initiatives, public opinion literally does have the last laugh.Which may be unfortunate in this case since a lot of people are probably pro-label not because they want more information, but because they actually believe GMO's are harmful to them or their families. In the perfect world, science would talk louder than money or public opinion, but that is not the way our country works. I have no idea what the public opinion in Colorado is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 105 ends up passing on Nov. 4th by a large margin. Hopefully it doesn't affect our agriculture too much... In fact it actually did. Better campaigns with like 3-4 times the amount of money from just a handful of special interest people trumped the campaign of 13k small donators and one big one. the no gmo label campaign had 4 individual(sic!) donors. And then there's this: The No on 522 campaign has a decidedly different kind of backing. For all their TV ads full of amber waves of grain and local farmers, their entire donor list can be counted on your fingers. The top five are the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—a conglomerate of food manufacturers—Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Bayer CropScience, and Dow AgroSciences. Donation details for Washington StateOn October 22 2014 06:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:19 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks." Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks. That's got to be just a (rather obtuse) joke. Right?!... + Show Spoiler + kind of hearing this song in the background while reading some lines disguised as arguments. ("Jonny's an American") :p //edit: god dammit, that's what I get for having no coffee yet. messed up a bit with my own interpretation of the donation, though the link explains it better anyway. Imagine a popular witch hunt where a local rich guy is trying to tell you that it's a provable fact that magic, and by extension witches, don't exist. But... but... he's rich! He must be wrong! But... but... the witch hunt is popular! It must be right! You're effectively deciding right and wrong based upon who the speaker is, rather than what is spoken. Better analogy: You are having a witch hunt, and a very rich producer of brooms and spiky hats spends shitloads of money trying to convince you that witches don't exist. I would be highly suspicious of that guy. He might be correct, but he also has such a vested self-interest in the situation that you really shouldn't trust him. Not because he is rich, but because he is obviously biased. The fact that he is spending a lot of money to propegate his money is not even that important, though the fact that he CAN basically just spend a lot of money to make laws IS a big problem, because even if this one rich guy is correct, what about the other rich guy that sells snake oil and wants to make sure that you can get the cure for all illnesses prescribed from your local doctor, because it is very much the best solution to any medical problem. You're skeptical of the broom and hat salesman. Lovely. Why aren't you skeptical of the mob? If only there was an impartial source... oh wait, there is. Why don't you listen to that source? Nah, better to stay ignorant. I hear that's bliss... On October 23 2014 04:22 Doublemint wrote:On October 23 2014 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 14:09 Doublemint wrote:Boy this thread moved quickly. ad GMO label controversy: On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 02:47 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 00:58 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 00:51 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
It has been over 100 years since the Haber-Bosch process was invented, and the pros and cons of what it has done for the agricultural industry are well documented. Don't you think your analogy is just a little hyperbolic?
I have to ask, do you work for Monsanto or something? You seem really emotionally invested in this topic, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. I'm all for GMOs and think they are the future of agriculture, but we need to work to educate people about why they shouldn't be scared of them, not withhold information that they are asking for, that's just a way to engender more ill will.
And Danglars, comparing this to Prop 8 is kind of laughable as well. Sure, if the Supreme Court finds that mandatory labeling for GMOs is unconstitutional, we can all say that the public didn't know any better. The ballot initiative process exists to reflect the will of the masses, and the courts are there to tell the masses when they are wrong. Let it play out like its supposed to. it is even german! must be evil. the analogy is good. don't bother me about it. What a fantastic argument. You're not even trying anymore and are just repeating "labeling is bad" over and over. We get that there are costs associated with labeling, but are struggling to see your viewpoint as to why these costs shouldn't be incurred when over 90% of the public wants the labels. 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. Without the background noise, someone reasonable actually could agree with your line of thought. On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. Such faith. I am moved to tears. Not sure why though. On October 22 2014 06:22 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:[quote] Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Ehhh this doesn't really translate to ballot initiatives. Companies like Monsanto may have plenty of money to spend on political advertisements, and that may sway a percentage of the voting public, but for your example, if 90% of people are pro-labels, I don't think any amount of advertisement from Monsanto's camp could change the inevitable outcome on election day. In the case of ballot initiatives, public opinion literally does have the last laugh.Which may be unfortunate in this case since a lot of people are probably pro-label not because they want more information, but because they actually believe GMO's are harmful to them or their families. In the perfect world, science would talk louder than money or public opinion, but that is not the way our country works. I have no idea what the public opinion in Colorado is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 105 ends up passing on Nov. 4th by a large margin. Hopefully it doesn't affect our agriculture too much... In fact it actually did. Better campaigns with like 3-4 times the amount of money from just a handful of special interest people trumped the campaign of 13k small donators and one big one. the no gmo label campaign had 4 individual(sic!) donors. And then there's this: The No on 522 campaign has a decidedly different kind of backing. For all their TV ads full of amber waves of grain and local farmers, their entire donor list can be counted on your fingers. The top five are the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—a conglomerate of food manufacturers—Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Bayer CropScience, and Dow AgroSciences. Donation details for Washington StateOn October 22 2014 06:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:19 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks." Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks. That's got to be just a (rather obtuse) joke. Right?!... + Show Spoiler + kind of hearing this song in the background while reading some lines disguised as arguments. ("Jonny's an American") :p //edit: god dammit, that's what I get for having no coffee yet. messed up a bit with my own interpretation of the donation, though the link explains it better anyway. Imagine a popular witch hunt where a local rich guy is trying to tell you that it's a provable fact that magic, and by extension witches, don't exist. But... but... he's rich! He must be wrong! But... but... the witch hunt is popular! It must be right! You're effectively deciding right and wrong based upon who the speaker is, rather than what is spoken. I am hearing very clearly. And the GMA (Grocery manufacturing association) is not the rich guy trying to save innocent women from being burned(= the label apparently). When did the faceless multi billion dollar company become the hero, did I miss that meeting? When did the lynch mob become the hero? Did I miss that meeting? Nobody is lynching anybody... or suggesting anything even REMOTELY CLOSE to it. This is a pointless discussion where just different world views are clashing. America is a fascinating and highly diverse country, but when I read things like that I am just glad I am not living there. "Lynch mob" in this case is simply referring to a group of people out to do harm to some other group, with the only intent to cause damage and fear. It's a poke at populism in the same way "evil corporations" are a poke at modern capitalism. A lot of people seem to be siding with mandatory GMO labeling because: a) they're out to hurt Monsanto and Co., b) they don't believe research saying GMOs are safe, and/or c) they are on a ideological crusade for "transparency." A and C are both lynchmob scenarios since B isn't actually a concern at this point. Hell, I haven't even heard a single argument for B along the lines of, "How can we track widespread affects of GMO products if they aren't labeled correctly?" It's been almost entirely, "Look at these people Monsanto hurt!" and, "If only the consumer had perfect information, they could make perfect decisions and everybody would have FREEDOM!"
There are many arguments for the idea that GMO (and modern agriculture) can have risks that needs to be taken into account in this thread.
And why do you have to link a desire for transparency to the question of consumption and market optimum ? Transparency for democratic reasons is just completly stupid for you ? Who pay what, what kind of food do you eat, which kind of firm do you give your money to ?
|
WASHINGTON (AP) — Four former Blackwater security guards were convicted Wednesday in the 2007 shootings of more than 30 Iraqis in Baghdad, an incident that inflamed anti-American sentiment around the globe and was denounced by critics as an illustration of a war gone horribly wrong.
The men claimed self-defense, but federal prosecutors argued that they had shown "a grave indifference" to the carnage their actions would cause. All four were ordered immediately to jail.
Their lawyers are likely to file appeals; one said quickly that he would. If those and other motions should fail, the judge would then set a sentencing date.
Source
|
On October 23 2014 05:18 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 04:47 Doublemint wrote:On October 23 2014 04:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2014 04:07 Simberto wrote:On October 23 2014 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 14:09 Doublemint wrote:Boy this thread moved quickly. ad GMO label controversy: On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 02:47 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 00:58 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 00:51 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
It has been over 100 years since the Haber-Bosch process was invented, and the pros and cons of what it has done for the agricultural industry are well documented. Don't you think your analogy is just a little hyperbolic?
I have to ask, do you work for Monsanto or something? You seem really emotionally invested in this topic, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. I'm all for GMOs and think they are the future of agriculture, but we need to work to educate people about why they shouldn't be scared of them, not withhold information that they are asking for, that's just a way to engender more ill will.
And Danglars, comparing this to Prop 8 is kind of laughable as well. Sure, if the Supreme Court finds that mandatory labeling for GMOs is unconstitutional, we can all say that the public didn't know any better. The ballot initiative process exists to reflect the will of the masses, and the courts are there to tell the masses when they are wrong. Let it play out like its supposed to. it is even german! must be evil. the analogy is good. don't bother me about it. What a fantastic argument. You're not even trying anymore and are just repeating "labeling is bad" over and over. We get that there are costs associated with labeling, but are struggling to see your viewpoint as to why these costs shouldn't be incurred when over 90% of the public wants the labels. 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. Without the background noise, someone reasonable actually could agree with your line of thought. On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. Such faith. I am moved to tears. Not sure why though. On October 22 2014 06:22 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:[quote] Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Ehhh this doesn't really translate to ballot initiatives. Companies like Monsanto may have plenty of money to spend on political advertisements, and that may sway a percentage of the voting public, but for your example, if 90% of people are pro-labels, I don't think any amount of advertisement from Monsanto's camp could change the inevitable outcome on election day. In the case of ballot initiatives, public opinion literally does have the last laugh.Which may be unfortunate in this case since a lot of people are probably pro-label not because they want more information, but because they actually believe GMO's are harmful to them or their families. In the perfect world, science would talk louder than money or public opinion, but that is not the way our country works. I have no idea what the public opinion in Colorado is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 105 ends up passing on Nov. 4th by a large margin. Hopefully it doesn't affect our agriculture too much... In fact it actually did. Better campaigns with like 3-4 times the amount of money from just a handful of special interest people trumped the campaign of 13k small donators and one big one. the no gmo label campaign had 4 individual(sic!) donors. And then there's this: The No on 522 campaign has a decidedly different kind of backing. For all their TV ads full of amber waves of grain and local farmers, their entire donor list can be counted on your fingers. The top five are the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—a conglomerate of food manufacturers—Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Bayer CropScience, and Dow AgroSciences. Donation details for Washington StateOn October 22 2014 06:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:19 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks." Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks. That's got to be just a (rather obtuse) joke. Right?!... + Show Spoiler + kind of hearing this song in the background while reading some lines disguised as arguments. ("Jonny's an American") :p //edit: god dammit, that's what I get for having no coffee yet. messed up a bit with my own interpretation of the donation, though the link explains it better anyway. Imagine a popular witch hunt where a local rich guy is trying to tell you that it's a provable fact that magic, and by extension witches, don't exist. But... but... he's rich! He must be wrong! But... but... the witch hunt is popular! It must be right! You're effectively deciding right and wrong based upon who the speaker is, rather than what is spoken. Better analogy: You are having a witch hunt, and a very rich producer of brooms and spiky hats spends shitloads of money trying to convince you that witches don't exist. I would be highly suspicious of that guy. He might be correct, but he also has such a vested self-interest in the situation that you really shouldn't trust him. Not because he is rich, but because he is obviously biased. The fact that he is spending a lot of money to propegate his money is not even that important, though the fact that he CAN basically just spend a lot of money to make laws IS a big problem, because even if this one rich guy is correct, what about the other rich guy that sells snake oil and wants to make sure that you can get the cure for all illnesses prescribed from your local doctor, because it is very much the best solution to any medical problem. You're skeptical of the broom and hat salesman. Lovely. Why aren't you skeptical of the mob? If only there was an impartial source... oh wait, there is. Why don't you listen to that source? Nah, better to stay ignorant. I hear that's bliss... On October 23 2014 04:22 Doublemint wrote:On October 23 2014 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 14:09 Doublemint wrote:Boy this thread moved quickly. ad GMO label controversy: On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 02:47 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 00:58 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 00:51 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
It has been over 100 years since the Haber-Bosch process was invented, and the pros and cons of what it has done for the agricultural industry are well documented. Don't you think your analogy is just a little hyperbolic?
I have to ask, do you work for Monsanto or something? You seem really emotionally invested in this topic, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. I'm all for GMOs and think they are the future of agriculture, but we need to work to educate people about why they shouldn't be scared of them, not withhold information that they are asking for, that's just a way to engender more ill will.
And Danglars, comparing this to Prop 8 is kind of laughable as well. Sure, if the Supreme Court finds that mandatory labeling for GMOs is unconstitutional, we can all say that the public didn't know any better. The ballot initiative process exists to reflect the will of the masses, and the courts are there to tell the masses when they are wrong. Let it play out like its supposed to. it is even german! must be evil. the analogy is good. don't bother me about it. What a fantastic argument. You're not even trying anymore and are just repeating "labeling is bad" over and over. We get that there are costs associated with labeling, but are struggling to see your viewpoint as to why these costs shouldn't be incurred when over 90% of the public wants the labels. 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. Without the background noise, someone reasonable actually could agree with your line of thought. On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. Such faith. I am moved to tears. Not sure why though. On October 22 2014 06:22 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:[quote] Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Ehhh this doesn't really translate to ballot initiatives. Companies like Monsanto may have plenty of money to spend on political advertisements, and that may sway a percentage of the voting public, but for your example, if 90% of people are pro-labels, I don't think any amount of advertisement from Monsanto's camp could change the inevitable outcome on election day. In the case of ballot initiatives, public opinion literally does have the last laugh.Which may be unfortunate in this case since a lot of people are probably pro-label not because they want more information, but because they actually believe GMO's are harmful to them or their families. In the perfect world, science would talk louder than money or public opinion, but that is not the way our country works. I have no idea what the public opinion in Colorado is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 105 ends up passing on Nov. 4th by a large margin. Hopefully it doesn't affect our agriculture too much... In fact it actually did. Better campaigns with like 3-4 times the amount of money from just a handful of special interest people trumped the campaign of 13k small donators and one big one. the no gmo label campaign had 4 individual(sic!) donors. And then there's this: The No on 522 campaign has a decidedly different kind of backing. For all their TV ads full of amber waves of grain and local farmers, their entire donor list can be counted on your fingers. The top five are the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—a conglomerate of food manufacturers—Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Bayer CropScience, and Dow AgroSciences. Donation details for Washington StateOn October 22 2014 06:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:19 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks." Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks. That's got to be just a (rather obtuse) joke. Right?!... + Show Spoiler + kind of hearing this song in the background while reading some lines disguised as arguments. ("Jonny's an American") :p //edit: god dammit, that's what I get for having no coffee yet. messed up a bit with my own interpretation of the donation, though the link explains it better anyway. Imagine a popular witch hunt where a local rich guy is trying to tell you that it's a provable fact that magic, and by extension witches, don't exist. But... but... he's rich! He must be wrong! But... but... the witch hunt is popular! It must be right! You're effectively deciding right and wrong based upon who the speaker is, rather than what is spoken. I am hearing very clearly. And the GMA (Grocery manufacturing association) is not the rich guy trying to save innocent women from being burned(= the label apparently). When did the faceless multi billion dollar company become the hero, did I miss that meeting? When did the lynch mob become the hero? Did I miss that meeting? Nobody is lynching anybody... or suggesting anything even REMOTELY CLOSE to it. This is a pointless discussion where just different world views are clashing. America is a fascinating and highly diverse country, but when I read things like that I am just glad I am not living there. "Lynch mob" in this case is simply referring to a group of people out to do harm to some other group, with the only intent to cause damage and fear. It's a poke at populism in the same way "evil corporations" are a poke at modern capitalism. A lot of people seem to be siding with mandatory GMO labeling because: a) they're out to hurt Monsanto and Co., b) they don't believe research saying GMOs are safe, and/or c) they are on a ideological crusade for "transparency." A and C are both lynchmob scenarios since B isn't actually a concern at this point. Hell, I haven't even heard a single argument for B along the lines of, "How can we track widespread affects of GMO products if they aren't labeled correctly?" It's been almost entirely, "Look at these people Monsanto hurt!" and, "If only the consumer had perfect information, they could make perfect decisions and everybody would have FREEDOM!"
What's your point? Are consumers not allowed to protest or boycott anymore? They must buy Monsanto's GMOs and like it too?
|
On October 23 2014 04:47 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 04:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2014 04:07 Simberto wrote:On October 23 2014 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 14:09 Doublemint wrote:Boy this thread moved quickly. ad GMO label controversy: On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 02:47 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 00:58 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 00:51 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 00:41 oneofthem wrote:
i think the haber process is still in its infancy so let's put a haber process ammonia label on everything raised from fertilizers made from CHEMICAL ammonia. who's with me It has been over 100 years since the Haber-Bosch process was invented, and the pros and cons of what it has done for the agricultural industry are well documented. Don't you think your analogy is just a little hyperbolic? I have to ask, do you work for Monsanto or something? You seem really emotionally invested in this topic, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. I'm all for GMOs and think they are the future of agriculture, but we need to work to educate people about why they shouldn't be scared of them, not withhold information that they are asking for, that's just a way to engender more ill will. And Danglars, comparing this to Prop 8 is kind of laughable as well. Sure, if the Supreme Court finds that mandatory labeling for GMOs is unconstitutional, we can all say that the public didn't know any better. The ballot initiative process exists to reflect the will of the masses, and the courts are there to tell the masses when they are wrong. Let it play out like its supposed to. it is even german! must be evil. the analogy is good. don't bother me about it. What a fantastic argument. You're not even trying anymore and are just repeating "labeling is bad" over and over. We get that there are costs associated with labeling, but are struggling to see your viewpoint as to why these costs shouldn't be incurred when over 90% of the public wants the labels. 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. Without the background noise, someone reasonable actually could agree with your line of thought. On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls. I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. Such faith. I am moved to tears. Not sure why though. On October 22 2014 06:22 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree. Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Ehhh this doesn't really translate to ballot initiatives. Companies like Monsanto may have plenty of money to spend on political advertisements, and that may sway a percentage of the voting public, but for your example, if 90% of people are pro-labels, I don't think any amount of advertisement from Monsanto's camp could change the inevitable outcome on election day. In the case of ballot initiatives, public opinion literally does have the last laugh.Which may be unfortunate in this case since a lot of people are probably pro-label not because they want more information, but because they actually believe GMO's are harmful to them or their families. In the perfect world, science would talk louder than money or public opinion, but that is not the way our country works. I have no idea what the public opinion in Colorado is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 105 ends up passing on Nov. 4th by a large margin. Hopefully it doesn't affect our agriculture too much... In fact it actually did. Better campaigns with like 3-4 times the amount of money from just a handful of special interest people trumped the campaign of 13k small donators and one big one. the no gmo label campaign had 4 individual(sic!) donors. And then there's this: The No on 522 campaign has a decidedly different kind of backing. For all their TV ads full of amber waves of grain and local farmers, their entire donor list can be counted on your fingers. The top five are the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—a conglomerate of food manufacturers—Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Bayer CropScience, and Dow AgroSciences. Donation details for Washington StateOn October 22 2014 06:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:19 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks." Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks. That's got to be just a (rather obtuse) joke. Right?!... + Show Spoiler + kind of hearing this song in the background while reading some lines disguised as arguments. ("Jonny's an American") :p //edit: god dammit, that's what I get for having no coffee yet. messed up a bit with my own interpretation of the donation, though the link explains it better anyway. Imagine a popular witch hunt where a local rich guy is trying to tell you that it's a provable fact that magic, and by extension witches, don't exist. But... but... he's rich! He must be wrong! But... but... the witch hunt is popular! It must be right! You're effectively deciding right and wrong based upon who the speaker is, rather than what is spoken. Better analogy: You are having a witch hunt, and a very rich producer of brooms and spiky hats spends shitloads of money trying to convince you that witches don't exist. I would be highly suspicious of that guy. He might be correct, but he also has such a vested self-interest in the situation that you really shouldn't trust him. Not because he is rich, but because he is obviously biased. The fact that he is spending a lot of money to propegate his money is not even that important, though the fact that he CAN basically just spend a lot of money to make laws IS a big problem, because even if this one rich guy is correct, what about the other rich guy that sells snake oil and wants to make sure that you can get the cure for all illnesses prescribed from your local doctor, because it is very much the best solution to any medical problem. You're skeptical of the broom and hat salesman. Lovely. Why aren't you skeptical of the mob? If only there was an impartial source... oh wait, there is. Why don't you listen to that source? Nah, better to stay ignorant. I hear that's bliss... On October 23 2014 04:22 Doublemint wrote:On October 23 2014 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 14:09 Doublemint wrote:Boy this thread moved quickly. ad GMO label controversy: On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 02:47 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 00:58 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 00:51 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 00:41 oneofthem wrote:
i think the haber process is still in its infancy so let's put a haber process ammonia label on everything raised from fertilizers made from CHEMICAL ammonia. who's with me It has been over 100 years since the Haber-Bosch process was invented, and the pros and cons of what it has done for the agricultural industry are well documented. Don't you think your analogy is just a little hyperbolic? I have to ask, do you work for Monsanto or something? You seem really emotionally invested in this topic, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. I'm all for GMOs and think they are the future of agriculture, but we need to work to educate people about why they shouldn't be scared of them, not withhold information that they are asking for, that's just a way to engender more ill will. And Danglars, comparing this to Prop 8 is kind of laughable as well. Sure, if the Supreme Court finds that mandatory labeling for GMOs is unconstitutional, we can all say that the public didn't know any better. The ballot initiative process exists to reflect the will of the masses, and the courts are there to tell the masses when they are wrong. Let it play out like its supposed to. it is even german! must be evil. the analogy is good. don't bother me about it. What a fantastic argument. You're not even trying anymore and are just repeating "labeling is bad" over and over. We get that there are costs associated with labeling, but are struggling to see your viewpoint as to why these costs shouldn't be incurred when over 90% of the public wants the labels. 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. Without the background noise, someone reasonable actually could agree with your line of thought. On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls. I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. Such faith. I am moved to tears. Not sure why though. On October 22 2014 06:22 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree. Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Ehhh this doesn't really translate to ballot initiatives. Companies like Monsanto may have plenty of money to spend on political advertisements, and that may sway a percentage of the voting public, but for your example, if 90% of people are pro-labels, I don't think any amount of advertisement from Monsanto's camp could change the inevitable outcome on election day. In the case of ballot initiatives, public opinion literally does have the last laugh.Which may be unfortunate in this case since a lot of people are probably pro-label not because they want more information, but because they actually believe GMO's are harmful to them or their families. In the perfect world, science would talk louder than money or public opinion, but that is not the way our country works. I have no idea what the public opinion in Colorado is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 105 ends up passing on Nov. 4th by a large margin. Hopefully it doesn't affect our agriculture too much... In fact it actually did. Better campaigns with like 3-4 times the amount of money from just a handful of special interest people trumped the campaign of 13k small donators and one big one. the no gmo label campaign had 4 individual(sic!) donors. And then there's this: The No on 522 campaign has a decidedly different kind of backing. For all their TV ads full of amber waves of grain and local farmers, their entire donor list can be counted on your fingers. The top five are the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—a conglomerate of food manufacturers—Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Bayer CropScience, and Dow AgroSciences. Donation details for Washington StateOn October 22 2014 06:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:19 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks." Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks. That's got to be just a (rather obtuse) joke. Right?!... + Show Spoiler + kind of hearing this song in the background while reading some lines disguised as arguments. ("Jonny's an American") :p //edit: god dammit, that's what I get for having no coffee yet. messed up a bit with my own interpretation of the donation, though the link explains it better anyway. Imagine a popular witch hunt where a local rich guy is trying to tell you that it's a provable fact that magic, and by extension witches, don't exist. But... but... he's rich! He must be wrong! But... but... the witch hunt is popular! It must be right! You're effectively deciding right and wrong based upon who the speaker is, rather than what is spoken. I am hearing very clearly. And the GMA (Grocery manufacturing association) is not the rich guy trying to save innocent women from being burned(= the label apparently). When did the faceless multi billion dollar company become the hero, did I miss that meeting? When did the lynch mob become the hero? Did I miss that meeting? Nobody is lynching anybody... or suggesting anything even REMOTELY CLOSE to it. This is a pointless discussion where just different world views are clashing. America is a fascinating and highly diverse country, but when I read things like that I am just glad I am not living there.
I'm not calling it a lynch mob. It's a matter of believing something is true because a group of angry people say so, or looking to the actual facts. Sorry to hear that facts don't matter to Europeans 
|
Since when has transparency become some kind of fringe idea? The lack of transparency in many areas has arguably become one of the biggest problems in developed countries.
@Jonny: You do understand though that most people are not primarily arguing about health concerns, do you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
