EPTI like it, but as a conservative in CA, I still feel the pain.
Edit: the EC as used by most of the states*
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3314
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4866 Posts
I like it, but as a conservative in CA, I still feel the pain. Edit: the EC as used by most of the states* | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On March 15 2016 08:02 Nebuchad wrote: Care to comment on the stark contrast between what the other buffer zones you mention buffer against and the one that we're discussing now would buffer against? to be fair, with Trump becomming Emperor of the US a bufferzone just like South-/North-Korea between US and Mexico might be a thing in the future. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28715 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On March 15 2016 07:38 Plansix wrote: Did I request a warning label? No. I did not. I request a label on the side, near the nutrition inform, simply stating what the food is. Or on the price per pound of the vegetable it is without packaging. I never asked for a warning label, you inferred that to make your argument. I know YOU didn't ask for a warning label - your intention behind the label you request is completely irrelevant to the argument I was making. I stated that a GMO-label would be perceived as a warning label by the uninformed consumer (which is the majority of consumers). EDIT: I mean, if you want to promote a voluntary label which can be used to brand GMO as something positive, by all means feel free. But to me it seems like you are arguing to make said label mandatory and thus you need a good argument which you have so far failed to produce. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11646 Posts
What would be so horrifying about adding a small "May contain GM crops" to that already long list of consumer information? Apparently it is interesting to some consumers. I am generally of the opinion that you shouldn't willfully hide information that consumers want from them, just because you decide that it is not information they need. The basis of capitalism is the ability of consumers to make informed decisions, at which point the free market will deliver the things the consumers want at the lowest price. If a lot of consumers want one type of information, give it to them. If you do not care about that information, ignore it. | ||
|
thePunGun
598 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On March 15 2016 08:27 Simberto wrote: So are all "ingredients" lists "warning labels or useless"? When i buy anything to eat, it will have a long list of stuff that is in it, where it is from, loads of nutrition information, how much fat is in there, how much carbohydrates, a warning that it may contain traces of nuts and other allergy information. What would be so horrifying about adding a small "May contain GM crops" to that already long list of consumer information? Apparently it is interesting to some consumers. I am generally of the opinion that you shouldn't willfully hide information that consumers want from them, just because you decide that it is not information they need. The basis of capitalism is the ability of consumers to make informed decisions, at which point the free market will deliver the things the consumers want at the lowest price. If a lot of consumers want one type of information, give it to them. If you do not care about that information, ignore it. You are conflating multiple things here, so let's take it one at a time: Ingredient lists are there to describe what is exactly in the food (i.e. which compounds. GMO is not a compound, it is a method of production, in fact method of pre-production) Nutrional information was made mandatory by law largely to educate the populace (i.e. you are going to get fat from drinking 5L Cola) and thus mostly for health reasons. Nothing in the nutrional information is going to tell you anything about the production methods used, If you want to include GMO under this, you would once again be making an exception for GMO purely because you feel like it. The warning label is there because otherwise you might actually kill people (and get sued). I think we have already extensively covered why GMO does not fall into this category. The basis of the free market is also to not impose pointless regulations to ensure fair competition. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 15 2016 08:27 Simberto wrote: So are all "ingredients" lists "warning labels or useless"? When i buy anything to eat, it will have a long list of stuff that is in it, where it is from, loads of nutrition information, how much fat is in there, how much carbohydrates, a warning that it may contain traces of nuts and other allergy information. What would be so horrifying about adding a small "May contain GM crops" to that already long list of consumer information? Apparently it is interesting to some consumers. I am generally of the opinion that you shouldn't willfully hide information that consumers want from them, just because you decide that it is not information they need. The basis of capitalism is the ability of consumers to make informed decisions, at which point the free market will deliver the things the consumers want at the lowest price. If a lot of consumers want one type of information, give it to them. If you do not care about that information, ignore it. The ingredients list in the main reason why I think the information should be there. I am not compelled by the argument that any label would be perceived as a warning label. And the increased resistance to any form of labeling only feeds into the public's suspicion of GMOs, even if they are not founded. The "trust us, its fine" argument will never win people over. Edit: The argument is that the majority of people want the labels. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567 And the continued denial of that information only feeds into the problem because the population is skeptical. Either GMO producers need to step up their marketing or face the looming shadow of a requirement to label their food. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On March 15 2016 08:49 Ghostcom wrote: You are conflating multiple things here, so let's take it one at a time: Ingredient lists are there to describe what is exactly in the food (i.e. which compounds. GMO is not a compound, it is a method of production, in fact method of pre-production) Nutrional information was made mandatory by law largely to educate the populace (i.e. you are going to get fat from drinking 5L Cola) and thus mostly for health reasons. Nothing in the nutrional information is going to tell you anything about the production methods used, If you want to include GMO under this, you would once again be making an exception for GMO purely because you feel like it. The warning label is there because otherwise you might actually kill people (and get sued). I think we have already extensively covered why GMO does not fall into this category. The basis of the free market is also to not impose pointless regulations to ensure fair competition. yeah but a lot of people want to have that information for whatever reason. I can tell wether my eggs are from a local farm or from chickens that never saw the light of the sun because they're kept away in cages without ever going outside. That doesn't really make all that much of a difference for the eggs themselves (I'd assume oO), but some people don't want to support the latter and that's totally fine. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28715 Posts
 ). | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 15 2016 08:27 thePunGun wrote: The fall of Donald Trump has been decided by the "OWNERS" of the U.S. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6oN4S47q3M "Plot evil," I just love the title. We already have the thinkprogress and dailykos. Add to that salon, slate, newrepublic. Sure, bring on the young turks! | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
There is no denial of information. There is a denial of arbitrary regulation which would cause an unfair competition because people are idiots. Yes, the marketing departments of GMO-companies should step up their game, but confirmational bias and conspiracies are hard to combat no matter what you do. EDIT: If you can make an equally compelling ethical argument concerning GMO as that against battery chicken then be my guest. Plansix hasn't made such an argument though - his argument rests on a factually flawed foundation (that some people will be allergic to GMO but not "natural" (whatever that means) products). And it is on that basis he wants to impose arbitrary regulations. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + The Media has been better at keeping quiet about how much they are bought and paid for before in this election. But with their constant attacks on Trump, complete dismissal of Bernie and I think they are by far the main perpetrators of "incendiary" rhetoric, they are quite literally trying to get Trump assassinated and incite more violence and racial hatred. The fact that CNN had that man that rushed the stage on their program is actually despicable. They are endorsing violence. The man threatened Trumps life on Twitter. He was big and powerful, and Trump is like 70. He could have legit killed him. And when you're rushing an area with secret service, they are most definitely allowed to kill you. I'm kind of amazed he made it out of there alive. The weirdest thing is that where Freedom of Speech is allowed, Trump does well. Also, Bernie supporters are literally the most rabid "fascists" since the term is being thrown around a lot I've seen in politics in a long time. They've made a religion of democratic socialism and identity politics. And the religious right was really obnoxious to deal with. The new "religious" or "regressive" left is disturbing. Obama's crowd was not quite this rabid. Then again, Bernies supporters are pouring their money and soul into his campaign, and should he lose it will devastate them. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On March 15 2016 09:02 Liquid`Drone wrote: well but GMO is defined as something that which there cannot be any reasonable objection towards, and then people should not have a choice. Caged or uncaged chicken has a moral component (and many people claim they can taste the difference as well! ).people can do stupid stuff. If someone wants to pay more for some non-GMO stuff what do I care for. I don't know if this was mentioned earlier I just got here but what about protected labels that you can put on there, aka everyone who's not using GMO can put some "GMO-free" label on there to get those people to buy it and everything that doesn't have it might as well be considered having GMO products. That happens all the time with all kinds of "green" stuff and should be fine as well? | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On March 15 2016 09:11 Toadesstern wrote: people can do stupid stuff. If someone wants to pay more for some non-GMO stuff what do I care for. I don't know if this was mentioned earlier I just got here but what about protected labels that you can put on there, aka everyone who's not using GMO can put some "GMO-free" label on there to get those people to buy it and everything that doesn't have it might as well be considered having GMO products. That happens all the time with all kinds of "green" stuff and should be fine as well? A voluntary label would be fine (Plansix wants a mandatory one) but completely pointless. We are entering the xkcd "Free" territory. + Show Spoiler + EDIT: I feel bad for drowning Testie  I liked your thought-sharing  | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 15 2016 09:04 Ghostcom wrote: So we should require a mandatory labels on everything that the majority wishes for? In that case I'll consider starting a poll about what should be in your signature... There is no denial of information. There is a denial of arbitrary regulation which would cause an unfair competition because people are idiots. Yes, the marketing departments of GMO-companies should step up their game, but confirmational bias and conspiracies are hard to combat no matter what you do. EDIT: If you can make an equally compelling ethical argument concerning GMO as that against battery chicken then be my guest. Plansix hasn't made such an argument though - his argument rests on a factually flawed foundation (that some people will be allergic to GMO but not "natural" (whatever that means) products). And it is on that basis he wants to impose arbitrary regulations. Lets be real clear, I don't give a shit about GMOs for me personally. But I respect the opinions of those who do. I value informed consent when it comes consumer products, especially food. The argument of arbitrary regulation is not compelling because it doesn't do anything for me. Because it is a company saying they don't want to provide information based solely on the concept idea that it might hurt their bottom line. Furthermore, the argument that it is "scientifically proven to be fine" is only compelling if we ignore all the times science has been incorrect about something. If companies making food want to offer the information up without regulation, than that would solve the problem. But if they won't, people are going to keep pushing for regulation because they don't entirely trust GMOs. And the I support a government addressing the concerns of it citizens, even if the scientific community thinks those citizens shouldn't be concerned. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12363 Posts
On March 15 2016 09:05 SK.Testie wrote: The weirdest thing is that where Freedom of Speech is allowed, Trump does well. Also, Bernie supporters are literally the most rabid "fascists" since the term is being thrown around a lot I've seen in politics in a long time. They've made a religion of democratic socialism and identity politics. And the religious right was really obnoxious to deal with. The new "religious" or "regressive" left is disturbing. Obama's crowd was not quite this rabid. I know that it doesn't matter everywhere, but generally, in english, words have meaning. When you say stuff like this, it doesn't suggest that you know the meaning of the words. The notion that someone who supports fascism votes for a candidate that promotes freedom of speech, equality among all people, or a more fair system of election, and more importantly someone who doesn't campaign on fear, is simply put, a fantasy. Those are things that don't fit together. There is no such thing as the authoritarianism of anti-authoritarians. It's not a concept that exists. The phenomenon that you're describing, of SJW going too far, is much more easily explained as a case of people being incorrect. They see a good concept and they're trying to apply it in places where it doesn't belong. A simple example: I think not offending people is a good thing, and so I believe this Halloween mask is a bad idea. The problem with that sentence is that it doesn't make sense for a Halloween mask to be offensive, and so it isn't a bad idea. This is where their logic is wrong. But when you say something like that, you don't score many points on either side. That's why instead, you're going to say that the problem is political correctness, or if you want to go really overboard, authoritarianism. It's not the problem. Not offending people IS a good thing. The problem is being wrong. And I know that you may perceive the notion that it can be easily demonstrated that you're wrong to be an attempt to silence people, but it's not. You are perfectly authorized to continue to be wrong. You shouldn't aspire to it, though. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On March 15 2016 09:24 Plansix wrote: Lets be real clear, I don't give a shit about GMOs for me personally. But I respect the opinions of those who do. I value informed consent when it comes consumer products, especially food. The argument of arbitrary regulation is not compelling because it doesn't do anything for me. Because it is a company saying they don't want to provide information based solely on the concept idea that it might hurt their bottom line. Furthermore, the argument that it is "scientifically proven to be fine" is only compelling if we ignore all the times science has been incorrect about something. If companies making food want to offer the information up without regulation, than that would solve the problem. But if they won't, people are going to keep pushing for regulation because they don't entirely trust GMOs. And the I support a government addressing the concerns of it citizens, even if the scientific community thinks those citizens shouldn't be concerned. So the answer is yes? You think we should require mandatory labels on everything that the majority wishes for? Also, is it more or less than 10 pages ago that you stated that not all opinions should be respected? | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On March 15 2016 08:58 Toadesstern wrote: yeah but a lot of people want to have that information for whatever reason. I can tell wether my eggs are from a local farm or from chickens that never saw the light of the sun because they're kept away in cages without ever going outside. That doesn't really make all that much of a difference for the eggs themselves (I'd assume oO), but some people don't want to support the latter and that's totally fine. This would be more analogous to forcing caged chicken manufacturers to print "caged chicken eggs" on their food. Creating an organization that certifies "GMO-free" (whatever that means) products could maybe work under this framework. But the problem is that would get virtually no traction in the current market, since "organic" is already perceived as synonymous with the term even though it isn't. I mean, it'd be like forcing coffee manufacturers to brand themselves "non-free trade" or whatever. It is not the way these things are typically handled except in cases of real, demonstrated health harm (and look how long that took smoking). Sometimes the speech of a minority needs to be protected against the wishes of the majority. Like if in the 40s or 50s people had wanted to know if the owners of the farms that grew their food were black. This is obviously not that extreme though. | ||
| ||
