EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 873
| 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. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On February 13 2014 08:28 oneofthem wrote: not sure why you addressed me with that since i'm not against gmo at all lol. notice i referred to crop genetic engineering as a critical advance I think his reading comprehension is waning a little.  To rephrase what you said, there needs to be more research of how we should genetically modify seeds which is funded by the public, instead of large corporations. In this sense, we wouldn't have to deal with a "Monsanto," or they would be declawed a bit at the very least. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On February 13 2014 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote: no... they tell farmers that if they want to grow certain corn they have to pay for it. Edit: if a store says a TV is $100 they're not saying you can't have it  The disturbing thing about GMO patenting is that eventually their strains may take over the world (not trying to be hyperbolic) and in order to eat or grow your own food you have to pay money to a corporation. Vis a vis freedom of the basics of life is pulled from under our feet. There are just some domains which should be excluded from this kind of reach, and kept free for all people. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24154 Posts
As mentioned the limited genetic variety would yield an unsustainable susceptibility to disease. The big problem being that it wouldn't be a problem at all until it was already a catastrophe. Also the intentional inhibition of propagation is just dumb for such a resource, provided they aren't an invasive species. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On February 13 2014 09:26 Roe wrote: The disturbing thing about GMO patenting is that eventually their strains may take over the world (not trying to be hyperbolic) and in order to eat or grow your own food you have to pay money to a corporation. Vis a vis freedom of the basics of life is pulled from under our feet. There are just some domains which should be excluded from this kind of reach, and kept free for all people. It's 2014 kid, almost everyone already buys food from a corporation | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On February 13 2014 09:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote: It's 2014 kid, almost everyone already buys food from a corporation More prevarication...Would you rather live in a world where you can plant and grow your own food, being self-sustaining, self-reliant, being CONSERVATIVE, or would you rather be trapped in taxes on your bare life essentials? Do you realize that your response is a piss-poor argument that not even a half-baked first year undergrad philosophy student would make? Or do you just not care about freedom? | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On February 13 2014 09:46 Roe wrote: More prevarication...Would you rather live in a world where you can plant and grow your own food, being self-sustaining, self-reliant, being CONSERVATIVE, or would you rather be trapped in taxes on your bare life essentials? Do you realize that your response is a piss-poor argument that not even a half-baked first year undergrad philosophy student would make? Or do you just not care about freedom? Dude this is real life, not philosophy class. You can always plant your own food and try to be self-sustaining if you really want. Most people don't want that - they want to be part of the modern world, as do I. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Obamacare had its second-best enrollment month in January, adding more than 1 million people to its rolls, much improved from the law's rough opening months. The drop was expected after December's key enrollment deadline, but didn't slow the sign-ups as much as anticipated. The 1.1 million enrollments as of Feb. 1 bring the law's total to 3.3 million -- still behind its projected totals ahead of the Oct. 1 launch, which had anticipated that many sign-ups by the end of December. But after the law signed up a fraction of its expected enrollees in October and November -- before HealthCare.gov was declared fixed -- it's continued positive news for the law, administration officials said. According to the Washington Post's Sarah Kliff, January was the first individual month that Obamacare beat its pre-launch projected enrollment. Source | ||
|
_-NoMaN-_
Canada250 Posts
On February 13 2014 08:21 Wegandi wrote: Oneofthem, there's been plenty of research on GMO, and none of it has returned evidence that GMO's are harmful to human health. This is why I chuckle when I hear people on the centralized side calling those on the decentralized side anti-science (or whatever). Between the anti-vaccine, anti-GMO, anti-Nuclear, anti-technology (technology killing jobs! jobs! jobs!) people....brings a chuckle at the hypocrisy. Oi vay! Anyways, the issue of Monsanto is separate from GMO's. I'm just tired of people conflating the two. GMO's have nothing to do with their business practices, just like weed has nothing to do with Mexican cartels. Weeds not harmful because cartels mercilessly kill people, just like GMO's aren't harmful, because Monsanto is a ruthless fascist entity. Im sorry, but GMO is precisely the problems with Monsanto's business practices. The argument that GMO are harmful to human health is just a red herring. Its all about controlling the food supply through patents on gene sequences. Edit. Also weed has everything to do with drug cartels. or, to be precise; the illegality of weed. In the same way, its not GMO that is bad per se, but that it is the private property of a multinational corp. | ||
|
ey215
United States546 Posts
Out of curiosity, anyone know if the projected enrollments were for picking a plan or actually paying for and getting health insurance? I know the 3.3 million number is people that have picked a plan, but the administration claims it doesn't know how many have actually paid or were previously uninsured. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On February 13 2014 10:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Dude this is real life, not philosophy class. You can always plant your own food and try to be self-sustaining if you really want. Most people don't want that - they want to be part of the modern world, as do I. (I'd expect a better argument from you than some stoner in first year phil "it's 2014 kid" isn't even at that level) Even when a company owns the patents for every seed? That's what I was talking about. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 13 2014 13:30 ey215 wrote: Out of curiosity, anyone know if the projected enrollments were for picking a plan or actually paying for and getting health insurance? I know the 3.3 million number is people that have picked a plan, but the administration claims it doesn't know how many have actually paid or were previously uninsured. Wasn't the whole argument for reform in the first place that 50 million people were without insurance? Signing up just 3.3 million is still pretty bad. And yes, that 3.3 million will include at least some people that previously had insurance. Some are dropping their employer-provided plans and going onto the exchanges for various financial reasons. Also, there are still people that are uninsured that just don't care and aren't interested in getting onto the exchanges. This is why many are predicting that there will have to be a bail out of insurance companies at some point. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On February 13 2014 12:40 _-NoMaN-_ wrote: Im sorry, but GMO is precisely the problems with Monsanto's business practices. The argument that GMO are harmful to human health is just a red herring. Its all about controlling the food supply through patents on gene sequences. Edit. Also weed has everything to do with drug cartels. or, to be precise; the illegality of weed. In the same way, its not GMO that is bad per se, but that it is the private property of a multinational corp. Frankly.. patenting genetic sequences is FUCKING ludicrous, unless it's a synthetic sequence designed by someone resulting in something that did not exist before -- a completely new piece of genetic material. Even then it needs to be truly novel, and not just a silent alteration. Eventually we'll get it right, once policy makers catch up. And they are. In human genetics steps are being made, sort of. See Myriad Genetics and the recent retraction of their patents on BRCA1/2 breast cancer implicated genes. But even then, there's still a ways to go, because in that case, it's just the genomic DNA that is now unpatented, while 'man made' complementary DNA, which is necessary to actually conduct experiments, remains patented | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On February 13 2014 13:47 Roe wrote: (I'd expect a better argument from you than some stoner in first year phil "it's 2014 kid" isn't even at that level) Even when a company owns the patents for every seed? That's what I was talking about. Is owning a patent for every seed even legally possible? Edit: And I mean plausibly. Not in a future hypothetical. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 13 2014 14:06 FallDownMarigold wrote: The whole point of genetic engineering is to synthesize something new using recombination that hasn't existed before. Naturally occurring sequences for crops aren't patentable. Furthermore, no interested observer would even have a clue to distinguish anything truly novel or make distinctions on what constitutes slight alterations. Ludicrous notion.Frankly.. patenting genetic sequences is FUCKING ludicrous, unless it's a synthetic sequence designed by someone resulting in something that did not exist before -- a completely new piece of genetic material. Even then it needs to be truly novel, and not just a silent alteration. Eventually we'll get it right, once policy makers catch up. And they are. In human genetics steps are being made, sort of. See Myriad Genetics and the recent retraction of their patents on BRCA1/2 breast cancer implicated genes. But even then, there's still a ways to go, because in that case, it's just the genomic DNA that is now unpatented, while 'man made' complementary DNA, which is necessary to actually conduct experiments, remains patented The Myriad Genetics court case was on naturally occurring human genes, and determined its separation of that gene from surrounding did not constitute something patentable. If and until we start mucking with the genetic code of humans (perhaps as part of cloning research), then we might have analogous circumstances to GMOs. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On February 13 2014 16:48 Danglars wrote: The whole point of genetic engineering is to synthesize something new using recombination that hasn't existed before. Naturally occurring sequences for crops aren't patentable. Furthermore, no interested observer would even have a clue to distinguish anything truly novel or make distinctions on what constitutes slight alterations. Ludicrous notion. The Myriad Genetics court case was on naturally occurring human genes, and determined its separation of that gene from surrounding did not constitute something patentable. If and until we start mucking with the genetic code of humans (perhaps as part of cloning research), then we might have analogous circumstances to GMOs. er.. when i said "But even then, there's still a ways to go, because in that case, it's just the genomic DNA that is now unpatented, while 'man made' complementary DNA, which is necessary to actually conduct experiments, remains patented", did you miss it? or not understand it? utterly no clue what you mean by "Furthermore, no interested observer would even have a clue to distinguish anything truly novel or make distinctions on what constitutes slight alterations. Ludicrous notion." what are you trying to say exactly..? sounds like an argument from a genetics perspective! so, no biologist has a clue how to distinguish novel sequences among 'natural' background...? erm.. by 'slight alteration' i mean swapping a nucleotide such that the codon change is silent with regard to the structure of the translated protein -- effectively a 'slight alteration' with no actual functional difference, although still readily detectable among non-altered sequences. this 'slight alteration' would certainly, and with your definition's endorsement too, constitute 'something that hasn't existed before', yet it certainly should not be patentable! your confusion aside, from a medical ethics perspective, that there remains a patent on cDNA (re: not gDNA) for BRCA1/2 may be argued to be wrong -- it's what researchers actually utilize in studies on these genes at the bench and in clinical diagnostics, and it is absolutely relevant on at least the same level of importance as any GMO crop issue. MG didn't identify the gene, they certainly didn't make it, yet they currently own rights to the use of its cDNA! i think it's actually a much nastier issue than any GMO fuss oh and i can guarantee you that human genomes will be 'mucked with' long before they're 'mucked with' for 'cloning research'. genetic intervention to correct genetic disease before it manifests will precede 'cloning research', whatever you meant by that buzzword. fun times ahead! | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On February 13 2014 08:21 Wegandi wrote: Oneofthem, there's been plenty of research on GMO, and none of it has returned evidence that GMO's are harmful to human health. This is why I chuckle when I hear people on the centralized side calling those on the decentralized side anti-science (or whatever). Between the anti-vaccine, anti-GMO, anti-Nuclear, anti-technology (technology killing jobs! jobs! jobs!) people....brings a chuckle at the hypocrisy. Oi vay! Anyways, the issue of Monsanto is separate from GMO's. I'm just tired of people conflating the two. GMO's have nothing to do with their business practices, just like weed has nothing to do with Mexican cartels. Weeds not harmful because cartels mercilessly kill people, just like GMO's aren't harmful, because Monsanto is a ruthless fascist entity. Mix up nuclear, "technology" and GMO in one sentence. It's true there's been plenty of research on nuclear and none of it has returned evidence that it is harmful to human.... Nice argumentation, I understand it all now, we have to let technology do its course because it is not harmful to human, and it's not guns that kill people it's people. | ||
| ||
