EPTOn October 23 2014 05:18 aksfjh wrote:
"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!"
Show nested quote +
On October 23 2014 04:47 Doublemint wrote:
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 04:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
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...
When did the lynch mob become the hero? Did I miss that meeting?
On October 23 2014 04:07 Simberto wrote:
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:
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 22 2014 14:09 Doublemint wrote:
Boy this thread moved quickly.
ad GMO label controversy:
Without the background noise, someone reasonable actually could agree with your line of thought.
Such faith. I am moved to tears. Not sure why though.
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:
That's got to be just a (rather obtuse) joke. Right?!... + Show Spoiler +
//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.
Boy this thread moved quickly.
ad GMO label controversy:
On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
If 90% of the public really wanted the labels they'd vote that way and it would be a done deal. Turns out, when a vote comes up people learn more about the costs and that the benefits are really non-existent and support falls.
There doesn't seem to be a good argument out there for labeling. The only arguments are "right to know" and "it's popular". Both rely on misinformation - the idea that GMOs aren't safe and therefore this is information you need to know.
On October 22 2014 02:47 ZasZ. wrote:
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.
On October 22 2014 00:58 oneofthem wrote:
it is even german! must be evil.
the analogy is good. don't bother me about it.
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.
[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:
If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda.
On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:
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).
On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 (source).
On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that?
[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:
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...
On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:
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.
On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:
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.
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.
[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:
Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks.
On October 22 2014 06:19 DoubleReed wrote:
That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks."
On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda.
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).
[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:
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 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
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 22 2014 14:09 Doublemint wrote:
Boy this thread moved quickly.
ad GMO label controversy:
Without the background noise, someone reasonable actually could agree with your line of thought.
Such faith. I am moved to tears. Not sure why though.
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:
That's got to be just a (rather obtuse) joke. Right?!... + Show Spoiler +
//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.
Boy this thread moved quickly.
ad GMO label controversy:
On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
If 90% of the public really wanted the labels they'd vote that way and it would be a done deal. Turns out, when a vote comes up people learn more about the costs and that the benefits are really non-existent and support falls.
There doesn't seem to be a good argument out there for labeling. The only arguments are "right to know" and "it's popular". Both rely on misinformation - the idea that GMOs aren't safe and therefore this is information you need to know.
On October 22 2014 02:47 ZasZ. wrote:
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.
On October 22 2014 00:58 oneofthem wrote:
it is even german! must be evil.
the analogy is good. don't bother me about it.
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.
[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:
If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda.
On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:
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).
On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 (source).
On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that?
[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:
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...
On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:
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.
On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:
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.
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.
[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:
Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks.
On October 22 2014 06:19 DoubleReed wrote:
That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks."
On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda.
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).
[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!"
D) I want a label because I want more research done on the ecological impacts before I blindly support/purchase GM food.
Also, this is a totally ridiculous conversation.
For novice players, the reinforcing sights and sounds of the slot machine triggered arousal on wins, where the number of credits gained was greater than the spin wager, but also on ‘losses disguised as wins’ where the amount ‘won’ was less than the spin wager. Despite the fact that players lost money on these spins, these outcomes were more arousing than regular losses where no credits were gained. Although these findings involve novice players, the heightened arousal associated with these losses may have implications for the development of problem gambling, as arousal has been viewed as a key reinforcer in gambling behaviour.
Source
But how does one 'disguise' a loss as a win?
Well you just call it a win even if it is a loss. Great labeling right?
Whoops I forgot, certain people only get their panties in a bunch when corporate interests are threatened by labels. If corporations are milking trillions of dollars from people while putting an openly false label on their products, it's just good business...
GM food should have a label. People being too ignorant to understand what it means is not an excuse. I'm fine with starting with a searchable online database of products if they think that would be easier/cheaper. But as a consumer it is totally reasonable to expect to be able to find that information relatively easily before making a purchase.
