EPTThats not even going into all the Indian farmers who have committed suicide due to monsanto.If you haven't heard of that do your own research.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3317
| 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. | ||
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4427 Posts
Thats not even going into all the Indian farmers who have committed suicide due to monsanto.If you haven't heard of that do your own research. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
On March 15 2016 13:34 IgnE wrote: I think we should be told not only that the products are GM but also what genes were changed, how they affect the phenotype, and how they differ from other cultivars. Because the average consumer can certainly use that information. It's probably reasonable that it should be available on a website to people who care, but that's a ridiculous requirement for labelling. And, again, if you're to go on this level of a crusade against GMOs, you also need to do the same for the various pesticides and antibiotics used in the production of "normal" food. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Slaughter
United States20255 Posts
I have always been more or less pro gmo since we are just doing what we have for thousands of years except in a more direct manner. I think the concerns from the agricultural side are there and also from potentially "letting loose" GMO organisms and the possibility for disrupting natural ecosystems due to their intrusion. Though Not sure why the consumer needs to know about it? Unless they want to be super hippie and be all natural man~ From a health stand point I remember arguments about allergens due to crossing genes from different species but meh they didn't sound that convincing. Though l think some of the people arguing for the science side are making some pretty simplistic arguments in regards to "mutations happen all the time therefore SAFE". You don't know how that mutation will interact with the human body as it hasn't been tested before. But I am pretty sure they test shit so it makes sense that you can't just mess with genes and its fine. Most of the arguments I heard before were more or less talking about potential long term effects that we can't know yet. I haven't kept up on this issue to know the current arguments that well but I will just say that genetics is evolving really fast. Hell people didn't even know much about epigenetics until relatively recently and the interaction between biology and the environment is still not fully understood, let alone if you are artificially messing with the genome. However that doesn't mean GMO's are dangerous. Hell we have been eating them for a long time already and if you want to get technical we have been using artificial selection to change organisms for consumption for thousands of years. People have been researching this and people have been eating them for what 30 to 50 years now? (lab made GMOs) unless there is a hidden negative health impact that no one has discovered yet (maybe GMOs are the cause of autism increase!  ) | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On March 15 2016 13:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: And the French study a couple of years back that showed mice fed GMO had tumours and reproductive problems? Thats not even going into all the Indian farmers who have committed suicide due to monsanto.If you haven't heard of that do your own research. Those farmers committed suicide for economic and political reasons. A GMO didn't brainwash them into killing themselves. If you want to argue Monsanto is an evil company, you're arguing with the wrong guy. As for testing the genetic-modifications themselves -- of course we should. And it doesn't help a company any to not test them. But provided the tests pass, there is no reason to slap GMO on every produce that has this same modification. I am not saying a genetic-modification can't be deadly. It can. But for all you know, a subtle evolutionary change is happening right now, to a various form of produce, through nature, that will become dominant, and that is going to give us all cancer. Or more likely, the one orange you bought at the store suffered a random mutation and it alone will give you cancer, which is something you can't test for. The concern isn't made more real from engineering. And this GMO cause has replaced more substantive concerns. If we really want to label every concern a person should have with their produce, there are things more substantiated than genetic-engineering. Again, I wouldn't oppose the GMO-label much, if at all, if we actually were labeling these other more noteworthy concerns. I am not against informing consumers. But if we're going to go down the list, to the point we reach "GMO", your label is going to be the size of your genetically-modified over-sized grapefruit. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
On March 15 2016 13:30 Belisarius wrote: I mean, the concern is real. You have to be able to demonstrate that anything you put in does not have harmful effects, and some GMO things do fail that test. The problem is that people don't believe the tests are sufficient. The other, bigger problem is that mutations achieved the old fashioned way aren't subjected to anywhere near the same level of scrutiny, yet are considered safer for no real reason. basically this. the concern/scare for some(many?) is already there. and lol at ghostcom - GMOs will bring peace! well, on to something entirely different and more interesting - like the ever widening chasm between what some republicans think they are, want to be, not want to be. and wouldn't want to touch with a stick because trump made it visible. NationalReview Article Defense This weekend, my colleague Kevin Williamson kicked up quite the hornet’s nest with his magazine piece (subscription required) that strikes directly at the idea that the white working-class (the heart of Trump’s support) is a victim class. Citizens of the world’s most prosperous nation, they face challenges — of course — but no true calamities. Here’s the passage that’s gaining the most attention: It is immoral because it perpetuates a lie: that the white working class that finds itself attracted to Trump has been victimized by outside forces. It hasn’t. The white middle class may like the idea of Trump as a giant pulsing humanoid middle finger held up in the face of the Cathedral, they may sing hymns to Trump the destroyer and whisper darkly about “globalists” and — odious, stupid term — “the Establishment,” but nobody did this to them. They failed themselves. If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy — which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog — you will come to an awful realization. It wasn’t Beijing. It wasn’t even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn’t immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn’t any of that. Nothing happened to them. There wasn’t some awful disaster. There wasn’t a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very little to explain the dysfunction and negligence — and the incomprehensible malice — of poor white America. So the gypsum business in Garbutt ain’t what it used to be. There is more to life in the 21st century than wallboard and cheap sentimentality about how the Man closed the factories down. The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn’t analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul. now that's some seriously tough stuff right there if I have ever seen some. I can relate to a lot of the points, people can be totally malicious and plain bad, though I am not sure that it's completely their own fault. in every case. everywhere at every time and every step of the way. definitely worth the read, very thought provoking. maybe even shocking for some. /discuss | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On March 15 2016 13:48 Doublemint wrote: now that's some seriously tough stuff right there if I have ever seen some. I can relate to a lot of the points, people can be totally malicious and plain bad, though I am not sure that it's completely their own fault. in every case. everywhere at every time and every step of the way. definitely worth the read, very thought provoking. maybe even shocking for some. /discuss National Review thinks the white trash lower class is embarrassing the conservative movement. Pick yourselves up, you mites, and get a real job outside of Kentucky like the rest of us. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20255 Posts
On March 15 2016 13:49 IgnE wrote: The reason is transparency in the food production chain. Consumers want to know where their food comes from and "vote with their pocketbooks" as the market proponents like to say. People already put "non gmo" on their products. All this all natural shit is silly in my book, just squeezes extra money out of people. They have organic everything now when in reality "organic" just means "idiot tax" for food. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
On March 15 2016 13:53 IgnE wrote: National Review thinks the white trash lower class is embarrassing the conservative movement. Pick yourselves up, you mites, and get a real job outside of Kentucky like the rest of us. totally! (:p) but what that article and discussion about it also entails is that - FINALLY - people get some perspective. it's not just lefties that can be welfare queens. it's also the economically weak south. question is, what came first. the weak "culture" or the economic decline. are they entangled? people need to think about stuff hard and long instead of being quick to judge. I think that's a very good opportunity for the republicans to do so, and come out a better and stronger political alternative to a rather unsatisfying nominee/current front runner from the other side... however painful it may be in the short run. though it's also a bit of pain they deserve to be honest, but that's just me | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 15 2016 13:56 Slaughter wrote: People already put "non gmo" on their products. All this all natural shit is silly in my book, just squeezes extra money out of people. They have organic everything now when in reality "organic" just means "idiot tax" for food. See, on the other hand, i think the "idiot" is the guy buying packed and/or processed meat in the super market. Hows your opinion more true than mine? As a sidenote, natural mutations are actually not entirely random. Instead of stating half truths, people should read up on it first so other people who actually did don't think "what an idiotic blanket statement that is". It's also missing out on the actual fact that biological systems try to suppress mutations. I also don't get the hate of people if someone states "i wanna know what i eat". Does it somehow affect people if i chose my food more carefully? Does it affect someone personally if i'm able to distinguish between GMO and non-GMO food? Even if choosing the product by certain labels is placebo and only for peace of mind, what's your problem with that? | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
| ||
|
Slaughter
United States20255 Posts
On March 15 2016 14:07 m4ini wrote: See, on the other hand, i think the "idiot" is the guy buying packed and/or processed meat in the super market. Hows your opinion more true than mine? As a sidenote, natural mutations are actually not entirely random. Instead of stating half truths, people should read up on it first so other people who actually did don't think "what an idiotic blanket statement that is". It's also missing out on the actual fact that biological systems try to suppress mutations. I also don't get the hate of people if someone states "i wanna know what i eat". Does it somehow affect people if i chose my food more carefully? Does it affect someone personally if i'm able to distinguish between GMO and non-GMO food? Even if choosing the product by certain labels is placebo and only for peace of mind, what's your problem with that? I would say its because your organic meat costs more and has no significant health benefits over non organic meat. http://www.newsweek.com/dirty-truth-about-organic-produce-379464 | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24130 Posts
On March 15 2016 14:15 Slaughter wrote: I would say its because your organic meat costs more and has no significant health benefits over non organic meat. http://www.newsweek.com/dirty-truth-about-organic-produce-379464 Got a giggle when I looked who posted this. Yeah "organic" is often a bullshit buzzword, but quality raised meat has moral and ethical benefits beyond whatever health impacts avoided when compared to factory farming. Polls tightened up quite a bit going into tomorrow. Hoping for some better than expected results. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20255 Posts
On March 15 2016 14:56 GreenHorizons wrote: Got a giggle when I looked who posted this. Yeah "organic" is often a bullshit buzzword, but quality raised meat has moral and ethical benefits beyond whatever health impacts avoided when compared to factory farming. Polls tightened up quite a bit going into tomorrow. Hoping for some better than expected results. If you want ethical meat then you probably shouldn't go for organic you buy in super markets. For that you can support small local farms that have practices like that. "Big Organic" which produces the majority of the shit people buy isn't necessarily the stuff that keeps up with ethical standards. Buying fresh from smaller and local farmers is better for that if you are going from the moral and ethical treatment of animals standpoint. Also giggling why? :x | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24130 Posts
On March 15 2016 15:18 Slaughter wrote: If you want ethical meat then you probably shouldn't go for organic you buy in super markets. For that you can support small local farms that have practices like that. "Big Organic" which produces the majority of the shit people buy isn't necessarily the stuff that keeps up with ethical standards. Buying fresh from smaller and local farmers is better for that if you are going from the moral and ethical treatment of animals standpoint. Also giggling why? :x Talking about meat farming and your name is Slaughter. Nothing nefarious. I agree, some places have markets where you can reliably get such products but you're right about most supermarket "organic" stuff. I mean arsenic is "organic". | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20255 Posts
On March 15 2016 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote: Talking about meat farming and your name is Slaughter. Nothing nefarious. I agree, some places have markets where you can reliably get such products but you're right about most supermarket "organic" stuff. I mean arsenic is "organic". Ah ok. So you said the polls where close coming into tomorrow's primaries? I hope Sanders has a strong showing. What states do you think will be the most contentious? What states would you say would be the ones his campaign really would love to win? | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4427 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
| ||
