US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3312

On March 15 2016 05:56 Plansix wrote:

Costs cut into profits, so they are relevant. If the food is 100% safe, then the information shouldn't be a problem. It should be a boon to the product, since it is safer than non-GMO food. But it sounds like they don't want to spend the money on marketing to dispel these purported myths about GMOs. So they will persist because people don't trust where their food comes from.

On March 15 2016 06:05 ticklishmusic wrote:
There is a very low, but definitely extant, chance that certain GMO's where genes are introduced from various sources can code for proteins which cause allergies for some people. It sucks. However, it's like any number of generally very safe chemicals used in the manufacture of any number of everyday goods but causes a reaction in some people.

To be a little lame, despite what our very wise Founding Fathers said, not every man is created equal. We react to different things in different ways, and in this context this means I have a weird skin condition caused by mystery things and P6 has a mystery spice allergy. I'm fairly sure most people have their own weird little tics and allergies to completely innocuous and unknown substances.

GMO's aren't the problem. Labeling isn't the solution. It's the bewildering complexity of interactions that go into life that science is unable to fully understand, track and document that results in these things. You could just as easily be allergic to tomatoes from Chile instead of Mexico (dunno if they grow tomatoes in those two places, but you know what I mean).

On March 15 2016 06:05 ticklishmusic wrote:
GMO's aren't the problem. Labeling isn't the solution. It's the bewildering complexity of interactions that go into life that science is unable to fully understand, track and document that results in these things.

On March 15 2016 05:59 oBlade wrote:
Perhaps mandatory GMO labeling, if it served to raise the price of food by increasing non-GMO demand, could help raise wages in agriculture and curb the demand for illegal labor.

On March 15 2016 06:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:


I actually think there's something to the 'food is too inexpensive' argument. Obviously I also see the counter-argument and obviously I don't want poor people to starve, but food being this inexpensive does seem to have the adverse effects of a) people waste significantly more (and watching people throw out beef cuz it's two days past expiration date makes me genuinely sad) b) mostly every link in the food industry chain is underpaid.

Can't just increase prices without making other adjustments, but I like the idea at least, of more people being involved in smaller scale food production.

On March 15 2016 06:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:


I actually think there's something to the 'food is too inexpensive' argument. Obviously I also see the counter-argument and obviously I don't want poor people to starve, but food being this inexpensive does seem to have the adverse effects of a) people waste significantly more (and watching people throw out beef cuz it's two days past expiration date makes me genuinely sad) b) mostly every link in the food industry chain is underpaid.

Can't just increase prices without making other adjustments, but I like the idea at least, of more people being involved in smaller scale food production.

On March 15 2016 06:35 Ghostcom wrote:
Hey guys, some people think vaccines causes autism. Sciences has said that it 100% for certain does not. I still think we should accommodate these concerned consumers and allow their kids to get measles. Then we can slowly win them over (or let them go extinct by a modern version of natural selection). + Show Spoiler +

Seriously, you are going to have to come up with a better argument if you want to impose costs on others by making completely arbitrary regulations.

On March 15 2016 06:45 Plansix wrote:

Anti-vaxxers were completely incorrect and caused a lot of damage due to their movement. However, I don't think the master plan of calling them stupid and irrational was that effective in curbing the damage. But I bet if made the people feel good, which is what matter.

If people are concerned what is in their food, mocking them for being irrational just going to make them double down. So as smart as you think you are, you're only doing damage to make yourself feel like you are smarter.

On March 15 2016 05:48 Plansix wrote:

That is fine, but don’t expect people to trust you or anyone else. They are concerned about this and the standard response is: “Trust science, its fine. We have tested things in the past and they have never turned out to be harmful later on.”

The concern over GMOs may not be valid, but telling people to not worry about it isn’t a very convincing argument. The alternative is to label the foods and earn the public trust over team, which is far more likely a more productive, consumer friendly route.

On March 15 2016 06:55 Plansix wrote:
One is people asking for labels on food.

The other is a billionaire that is telling his supporters to beat up protesters and he will pay for their legal bills. And he is running for a job that gives him control of the FBI, CIA, NASA and nukes. And he blames everything on China, mexico and wants to "Make America Great Again".

Gee, wonder why they get treated differently? Maybe cause they are different?

Utah lawmakers are setting aside millions of dollars for a legal showdown with the federal government over control of public lands in a fight fueled by the same rightwing activism that inspired an armed standoff in Oregon.

Republican legislators have earmarked $4.5m in taxpayer funds for a potential lawsuit, which would seek state control of more than 31m acres of land that the federal government currently manages within Utah’s borders.

The substantial budget allocation and the increasingly serious threat of litigation put Utah in a position to be the next frontier in the contentious dispute over public lands in the west, with anti-government activists organizing in recent years to protest environmental and wildlife regulations that they say unfairly restrict ranching, logging and other land uses.

Conservative lawmakers have for months considered pursuing a high-stakes and expensive lawsuit, which officials now estimate could cost up to $14m total. The creation of a formal fund last week marks the first time the GOP-controlled legislature has set aside money for a legal battle that environmentalists say would be a waste of public dollars and, if successful, a catastrophe for wildlife and natural resources.

The push comes as the federal government is aggressively targeting ultra-conservative activists who have staged armed protests against the same kind of land-use regulations that Utah officials hope to eliminate.

Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who refused to pay grazing fees and organized an infamous 2014 standoff with government officials, is now behind bars awaiting trial on a wide range of serious felony charges. His sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy, who led an armed takeover of a wildlife refuge in Oregon to protest the treatment of local ranchers, are also facing prosecution and potentially decades in prison for their demonstrations.

Building on the momentum of the Bundys’ protests – which attracted a number of Utah activists and energized the anti-government movement across the west – state leaders in Utah are hoping to challenge the US government in court, arguing that the state has the authority to regulate public lands.

On March 15 2016 07:04 wei2coolman wrote:

Do you even watch any of his talk? He literally says "I don't blame China, they're like grandmaster Chess players. They're playing the game better than us".

On March 15 2016 07:09 Nebuchad wrote:


I wish I wouldn't have to point out that your quote demonstrates that Plansix portrays Trump's position accurately... If you say that you don't blame China for doing something, it means China is doing it, and it adds the information that you don't blame them for doing it. When you say that Trump blames everything on China, it means China is doing it. That's the same thing.

On March 15 2016 07:10 wei2coolman wrote:

Literally the next sentence is "I blame our people, they don't know how to negotiate. They're politicians not business men."