Wow , you found an article saying GMOs are wonderful. But is that what the article really said? Do you have any idea what the 268 pages entails? I didn’t read the entire 268 pages, but I can tell you the parts I skimmed through I couldn’t find any evidence supporting the opinions you’ve stated. I’m guessing you made a quick google search and thought the title was compelling. Tell me Vay, what was the most compelling part of the article that really spoke to your heart? Can you answer any of the questions I had posted for you earlier? Do you have any idea what you’re talking about? I thought not
BTW, if you believe the line that GMOs are highly tested and scrutinized by high scientific standards it just goes to show how completely ignorant and gullible you are. Again, please answer my questions if you claim to know anything at all about the subject…never mind, you’ve already revealed how clueless you are
I use it all the time. So the very fate of our planet is at stake and you care care sooooo much that you try to help out “whenever you can” by “focusing on promoting” engagement with others to initiate discussions about how to get people to act… because all of this is so important except when it inconveniences you?
Sorry? What was that? selling your car? was that what you said? No? Oh… then it must be about helping “only when you can.”
I surrender. You’re right. It’s hard to realise that there are people this fucking stupid sitting on the Supreme Court making laws. . . . [/quote]
I’m glad you’ve come to your senses. Promoting a society in which unelected, unaccountable public officials with lifetime tenure usurp the legislative role in additional to their judicial one will only end in tyranny, however well intentioned. Imagine the public policy horrors which would ensue if a dolt like Scalia shed his current position and began engaging in wholesale “judicial activism”?
As a caveat, if and when you do backslide the least you should be willing to concede is that if Supreme Politburo “judges” are indeed going to be allowed to make public policy they should stand for election periodically so there is some recourse if one of them decides to make creationism - or fracking bans - the law of the land.
You can’t prove something is safe; it’s a logical impossibility. That’s why it’s stupid to ban bans.
Back in the day, people thought pesticides were safe. Thirty years later, we found out that 2,4,5-T herbicides may contain dioxins, neonicotinoids kill birds and bees, and that all pesticides tend to result in ever-increasing numbers of damaging pests that survive and evolve resistance. oops! Never mind. Ban a couple of the worst ones, but we don’t want reality to get in the way of profits, do we?
We thought lead in petrol was safe. We thought thalidomide was safe. We thought CFCs were safe. We thought sugar-laden foods were safe. Imagine if there had been a ban on banning CFCs. We would have been utterly fucked; it was hard enough to ban them as it was.
Besides, it doesn’t always matter if something is ‘safe’. People have stopped asking: is this useful? Hydrocarbon fuels are obsolete in all applications except aviation. GMOs and pesticides have no obvious purpose except to make money for the manufacturers. So who cares if they’re safe or not? They’re pointless. States should be allowed to ban anything they like if there is democratic support for such a ban.
Interesting… very interesting… you recognize then that there was a great deal of “scientific consensus” as to what we knew why even just a few years ago and you recognize (oh yes you do) that we didn’t know so much about what we thought we knew so much about after all… yes… interesting… very interesting… but in the meantime let’s all ACT URGENTLY NOW!!! Like Vay!!! :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
K, fred … completely beside the point, but here it is, slowly, one more time, for the hard-of-thinking:
Science works on disproof, not proof. Or even consensus.
AGW does have a lot of scientific consensus behind it, but that’s not (primarily) why we accept it as valid. We do so because nobody has proved, with repeatable experiments, that the hypothesis is false. Since the AGW hypothesis explains all the observable phenomena and makes valid predictions, we retain it as a theory of practical value until conflicting evidence and a better theory is presented.
With pesticides, people assumed they were safe because nobody was looking for evidence that they weren’t. Nobody wanted to imagine that they weren’t. There are also degrees of ‘safe’. Does it cause mass extinctions or instant death if you breathe it? Lovely, it’s safe, we can sell it.
Anyway, we’re talking about technology here, not science, which plays by somewhat different rules. As I said, most people don’t give a shit if something is safe or not. They only care about whether they like it and find it useful. We’ve used cars for 100 years despite the fact that they’re clearly not safe. We burn fossil fuels in them even though we know those fuels are not safe. We accept the ‘not safe’ bit because we’re just enjoying ourselves too much.
Yes Finley, yes Fred, but that was years ago when science was still in its infancy. Any consensus now is very reliable, as opposed to when their daddies were using primitive instruments. They’ve learned their lessons and would never do anything that could put anyone in harm’s way. There are scientists and regulators who dedicate their entire lives to protecting both of you, and they actually love the two of you specifically. If it’s broad-based, wide-ranging, deeply approved, extremely scrutinized, and very highly explicit in its details and conclusions by very serious professional expert scientists (these people are the smartest in the world, you realize that right? They are genius’ who love you), then nothing could possibly go wrong.
Modern processed food and modern agriculture is among the safest sources of food in modern society, because now we have better rules and better science. All the chemicals have important purposes, like making things look and taste fresh and flavorful, preventing insects from making humans extinct, keeping food from decomposing, et al. Besides, They’re going to come out with a new GMO strawberry that never stops growing even after you pick it. Imagine that, a fresh juicy strawberry you can eat from for the rest of your life. Vay gave me that article when he did a google search recently and found out GMOs could offer the world salvation even if he keeps his car. Or maybe it was something I read on wikipedia. Whatever. I really like science, and it makes me feel smart when I agree with what I think might be a consensus.
I’m saying banning bans is a good idea because it blocks anti-science fear mongers from hijacking science and dictating policy. Science already bans things that are unsafe, that’s what regulators are for. Scientists know how to anticipate new evidence ahead of time and incorporate it with their conclusions. We need to let the experts do their job and protect them from bans
I’m saying banning bans is a good idea because it blocks anti-science fear mongers from hijacking science and dictating policy. Science already bans things that are unsafe, that’s what regulators are for. Scientists know how to anticipate new evidence ahead of time and incorporate it with their conclusions. We need to let the experts do their job and protect them from bans[/quote]
You don’t seem to understand how science works. It depends for progress on new evidence. If new evidence is never admissible, nothing ever progresses. Heard of Galileo?
I can’t tell if you actually believe this, or if you’re being sarcastic again.
Seriously, we really need some proper science education in the West. It’s appalling how many people get their knowledge of it from what journalists - liberal-arts graduates - think it is.
As I bent over to smell a pretty little flower, all pink and purple with strands of white and yellow, a mischievous little bumble bee buzzed by my nose. I contemplated the beauty of this social insect and pondered the amazing contributions that bees make to society but then I stopped. What was this? the bee’s buzz was syncopated and atonal… clearly the influence of Bartok or perhaps even Shostakovich? But no! Nearby lay an empty container of Monsanto Roundup… a deadly poisonous toxic foul venomous planet-destroying herbicide… How cruel this corporation for destroying the bee!!! for not enabling it to pollinate the flower!!! for ruining this idyllic Edenic Eden… I sighed with dissatisfaction that was more akin to displeasure and filled with dismay. I watched as the bee buzzed with increasingly erratic arcs… Oh how hateful the money-grubbing bastards who have destroyed earth’s balance to buy plastic containers at Walmart and knock-off Gucci bags on their fat-assed flights to foreign destinations polluting the air and heating the earth! Sadly, I watched as the poor little bee struggled to gain flight, watching it eventually sink to hover slightly over a puddle of oozing ooze!!! It was then that I noticed the bottle of Wild Turkey Bourbon, laying on its side, pouring out its sweet nectar, enticing the bee to focus on promoting efforts to achieve “pollination” through engaging the liquid in the bottle to achieve the urgent action required to feed the hive… So, it was not Monsanto after all but another cause… I had merely assumed that… But no! Back to the point! These evil corporations making alcoholic beverages!!! Don’t they care about the planet!!! Do they want an entire ecosystem (read: the bees) to be drunken louts? EVIL PLANET DESTROYING ASSHOLES!!! We need to ACT URGENTLY TO STOP THEM NOW!!! :discodance:
Exactly ! Even if fracking didn’t contaminate the ground, water sources, and the air (which it does) and we didn’t need the massive amounts of water required elsewhere (which we do) and corporations were responsible and cared about more than just bottom line profit (which they don’t) and if there were no failures and environmental disasters along the way (which there will be) we STILL don’t need the oil and gas anyway. Why is this so hard to understand? We don’t even need the oil and gas in the first place.
It would be nice if the US would lead the charge in alternative energy. They have the most money, the most resources, and arguably the smartest tech sector in the world. But they won’t. My guess is 20 years from now the US will be scrambling to catch up. 49% of the population still votes for a party that has senators who think snowballs disprove global warming. Literally, snowballs on the senate floor saying, global warming is a hoax. :loco: 49% of the country votes for a party that at the next Republican primary debate, a large majority of them will say they don’t believe in evolution. I ain’t no damn monkey. If humans came from monkeys, how come there’s still monkeys at the zoo? This is what resonates with 49% of the country.
Do I sense ambivalence? ambiguity? Are you not one of the posters who frequently admonishes the US for taking leadership roles of which you don’t approve and now you want it to lead? Now, if the US has the most money and the most resources and the smartest
tech sector in the world… why oh why do you suppose that it is not leading this effort? Would it have something to do with the word "
smartest ?" and as to corporations making money and caring about profits, er, that is what corporations are supposed to do. They are not NGOs. Yet, they are responsible for funding most of the NGOs… and do we not have enough “focusing on promoting” to “engage in dialogue” to “initiate efforts” that “make a differnce” from the NGOs? Do corporations now need to dedicate themselves full time to such efforts as well? Why then, who will be left to make the money that one would imagine you would be trying to attract in order to “focus on promoting” efforts that will enable them to “maximize the return on their investment” in order to “live out their golden years in comfort,” perhaps by practicing their drive while “living the good life” in a golf course community “because they deserve,” er “nothing but the best?”
I propose that Oklahoma be the first state to have a ban on banning bans. That would give the term “Okie” back it’s sexy ring. Even states like California and New York would envy it’s cosmopolitan image and progressive outlook. Instead of being a giant trailer park plagued by tornadoes, it would become a global trend setter. The possibilities are endless
[quote=“buzzkill1”]Wow , you found an article saying GMOs are wonderful. But is that what the article really said? Do you have any idea what the 268 pages entails? I didn’t read the entire 268 pages, but I can tell you the parts I skimmed through I couldn’t find any evidence supporting the opinions you’ve stated. I’m guessing you made a quick google search and thought the title was compelling. Tell me Vay, what was the most compelling part of the article that really spoke to your heart? Can you answer any of the questions I had posted for you earlier? Do you have any idea what you’re talking about? I thought not
BTW, if you believe the line that GMOs are highly tested and scrutinized by high scientific standards it just goes to show how completely ignorant and gullible you are. Again, please answer my questions if you claim to know anything at all about the subject…never mind, you’ve already revealed how clueless you are[/quote]
Um, first of all, ya kinda skipped over an important part of that post… the part with the statements by over 20 major scientific and health organizations, affirming the safety of GMO’s. I’ve moved that bit for you:
As for that “article”, it’s a report of a ten-year study by the EU government, subsequent to a similar study in the nineties that was nearly as long. And it’s only one of many, many such studies. For example:
In any case, as I said previously, this issue was just a side-point. Not sure what you’re getting all hot about… I’m supposed to be the tree-hugging, butt-hurt liberal who’s afraid of technology, remember? The reason I brought up GE food was simply to say that, although I’m opposed to labeling, I’m also opposed to legislatively banning labeling. Just as I am with banning the banning of fracking. I assume since you apparently support the latter kind of ban, you also support the former?
Er, no. This is the biggest problem with your supposed “gotcha” here. I never said that.
Never. I never said you did. It was just an example of typical conservative permissiveness when it comes to the astounding wrong-doings of their in-group members.
[quote]parroted? oh you mean the part where I directly quoted you to say you were going to “focus” on “promoting” action? Yes, consider that a parroted phrase… it explains the hypocrisy and emptiness of your sentiments far better than anything that anyone else can say… so why did you say it?
…Not feeling stung so maybe I am unsure as to which remark you are referring.[/quote]
Um, according to your “direct quote” of me, you were “parroting” right-wing talking points. Specifically:
‘the climate’s changed before!’
‘they used to grow grapes in England!’
'there’s been no warming since ‘98!’
Sorry if you somehow confused other stuff I said with “right-wing talking points”… though I’m not sure how that could be very confusing
So I say? So are you disputing this? Then please, just show me up by providing some proof of a moral agent acting in the universe to police people’s internal consistency.
No, again, I never said that. If you’d actually read what I wrote instead of mis-characterizing it (as usual), you’d know that is not what I meant.
Oh. My. God. After how many times you mocked me with some ad hoc apostle’s creed just because I trust the collective assessment by hundreds of experts of over 9,000 pieces of research, it just takes the cake for you to ask me this. But in any case, I say “religious” because it’s pretty obvious that this is a deep-seated proclivity that stems from tribal affiliation and ideology, and has little to do with causes and effects in the real world.
Aint no way on Earth she’s gonna let me get rid of it, is what she has to do with it. Never been married, I take it?
Yes, I am concerned. And yes, I am doing “things”. Just not the things you think I should be doing. Above, I said as much, and I’ve said basically the same before… not that you pay any attention. I use public transportation whenever I can. I’m very careful about energy usage. Everything in my place is the most energy-saving we could get. Looked into getting solar panels, but apparently the government won’t subsidize them because part of our construction is illegal. I’m obsessive about not wasting and teach my daughter likewise. I also donate regularly to the Nature Conservancy and Earthjustice.
Now of course none of this is any of your goddamn business, and you’ll find ways to mock me regardless. Like I said, mud-slinging and squid ink are what y’all are best at. But here’s the kicker: NONE OF THIS IS RELEVANT TO ANYTHING. I could be the biggest hypocrite in the fucking world and it wouldn’t matter to the argument we keep having. Asserting so is a blatant Ad Hominem fallacy.
Why should it sting? I never claimed to be morally superior to you. That was never relevant to the argument, though no conservative on Earth seems to be able to wrap their heads around this fact. (I notice even Rowland’s chiming in now to wag his finger at me!) ‘Sure, there’s a mountain of evidence that the Earth is warming, human emissions are responsible and this is mostly a very bad thing, but I’m gonna argue anyway, because, goddamnit, Al Gore flies a private jet!!!’
And you shouldn’t make fun of my cousin. He and others like him are your voting base.[/quote]
And your response was this:
I use it all the time. So the very fate of our planet is at stake and you care care sooooo much that you try to help out “whenever you can” by “focusing on promoting” engagement with others to initiate discussions about how to get people to act… because all of this is so important except when it inconveniences you?
Sorry? What was that? selling your car? was that what you said? No? Oh… then it must be about helping “only when you can.”[/quote]
…in which you continued undeterred in your fallacious, Ad Hominem line of argument. Why am I not surprised.
I imagine that you are often surprised. In fact, I’ll bet that your daily existence involves a series of surprises, most of which are no doubt unpleasant. What I am NOT surprised about is that you write so much and say so little. When are you going to do something rather than “focus on promoting” the same? Again, the irony of all of this is that Buzzkill and I (childless and vehicleless) are doing far more to meet the exacting standards that are based on your concerns regarding a warming planet than you, yourself, are. Not that this surprises me. No, not in the least.
I imagine that you are often surprised. In fact, I’ll bet that your daily existence involves a series of surprises, most of which are no doubt unpleasant. What I am NOT surprised about is that you write so much and say so little. When are you going to do something rather than “focus on promoting” the same? Again, the irony of all of this is that Buzzkill and I (childless and vehicleless) are doing far more to meet the exacting standards that are based on your concerns regarding a warming planet that you, yourself, are. Not that this surprises me. No, not in the least.[/quote]
…and he STILL doesn’t get it. Kudos on cherry-picking a single line of text, by the way! :bravo:
I ain’t no damn monkey. If humans came from monkeys, how come there’s still monkeys at the zoo? This is what resonates with 49% of the country.
