Hmm I see it as a bunch of fine, upscale wealthy denizens who despise the foolish thoughts of poorer, younger citizens. (sarcastically, of course) Thoughts like, what if we are smoking monsanto gmo ingredients/pesticides in the herb we obtain, burn & breath in? Yea, grow your own, I anticipate you will say. Stop being a lazy liberal, right?
Yes, makes it easier to just ignore people. You know, like the government ignores people & favors the view of the people with the money. But then again, making that statement would also disqualify me from debating with you, wouldn't it? Which begs the question: why even respond if I'm to be ignored for my ad hominem?
If the scientists are the ones raising the alarm, and scientists are supposedly educated, then why aren't their views taken seriously? To any observer it seems that politicians think the ones who understand the science are from the industry (and their lobbyists), since those views have shaped public policy. If the scientists' view were favored, then we'd see legislation restricting monsanto. Does that break through your tea bag bubble, or does this last comment cause you so much anger & frustration that you would dismiss me from the start (like dr sheldon, who was offended by my use of the term, "sheeple")? Sent from my SGH-T769 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Use of the word sheeple usually denotes ignorance or at least extreme bias to one side of an argument. People who have to resort to such fallacies to categorize everyone that doesn't view their opinions or feels on the outside due to their opinions typically can't express or explain their stance properly due to their bias. Your rant on government right now demonstrates this concept. I said this originally with hopes you were just being an extremist to get your point across but could debate your side, but unfortunately that's not what just happened.
[quote name="chili420" post="20105773" timestamp="1401709298"]Hang on here. What's your point? You claim monsanto is so good & socially aware, yet you lament the copyright issues & allergy potential.[/quote] Ummmmm. I never, ever, ever, said or thought Monsanto was good or socially aware. I'm one of the loudest anti Monsanto voices here. Where did you get that? I'm an anarchist. I voted for Obama for his first term. Then Gary Johnson last time. Now I wised up to the fact that voting is pointless. What are you on about? Like I didn't say anything about any of this. You need more than a tin foil hat bro. You are insane All I did was say Sam spade isn't evil for having a crush on a Monsanto employe. Gees dude. PS: Americans don't want ggun.control. they know gun control is the prelude to hitler Sent from my SGH-T769 using Grasscity Forum mobile app[/quote] Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
The problem is that you can't act as though America is the only country in the world who publishes peer reviewed journals. Plenty have been published in the UK and Europe on the matter, and the vast majority have been positive, which is why the EU is slowly lifting regulations.
"Scientists" are the ones raising the alarm as much as Andrew Wakefield did with Autism in vaccines, and the 1% of "scientists" working for big oil who raise the alarm about the non-existence of climate change. I can understand why you wouldn't trust the Science in the US, with all of the Monsanto legislation that the US gov has passed, so look at work from British and European journals. The current consensus among EU policy makers is that we don't know enough to make them safe, but the consensus among scientists in europe is that we need to use them more. Thus, at least on this matter, the science is far less politicised. The British medical journal has some good articles for and against GMOs, it's a good place to start.
If we were to consider the premise that the 'use of the word sheeple usually denotes ignorance or at least extreme bias to one side of an argument', then what of generalizing? how about the inability to maintain a discussion without giving in to primitive impulses and start talking down to people because your highness feels that the subject of discussion is beneath you, nevertheless here you are, says a lot more about you then it does about me. This is the very definition of irony if I ever saw one : I swear, with the rep system gone, practically all the blades that could engage in discussions without indirectly putting others down to give some meaning to their otherwise empty dull and uneventful lives are gone. I miss the days when your brother didnt agree with you, you still saw him as your brother, despite difference of opinion. love your self mankind. embrace all
So there are no studies, just anecdotes, because Monsanto took advantage of the fact that there is a monopoly on justice in large geographic areas, and so all GMO's are bad?
It's not about that. The problem is that, particularly with scientific issues, the "facts" are presented to the public in a hyperbolic, anecdotal manner, as opposed to informing them on the methodological science involved.
out here in oregon there is a specific number of miles between gmo and non gmo crops to try and make sure there is no cross contamination. monsanto was buying farm land right next to other farms, planting their gmo seed next to the other farm and wait for their gmo to spread over and sue the other farm for growing their gmo crops. now that there is the specific number of miles required between crops monsanto is strategically buying up land in these buffer zones so that if you want to start farming you have to grow gmo.
The third world does not need them. GMO's have already destroyed the soils of third world country. Destroying the soil is by far the worst thing you can do if you want to grow crops. Yea they may have pest resistant crops for 5-10 years, and they will all eat. But when that time is up they wont be able to grow anything. Plus they may get cancer from eating it. We dont need GMO's we need to spread education about farming, ecology, organics ect.
Im sorry to burst anyones bubbles either, but world hunger will probably never be fixed. If you create more food for more people so there not starving, then they will most likely have healthier and bigger families(espiecially in poor areas, this is backed up by research which I can show if you dont believe me). then there wont be enough food for the new, bigger generation. Eventually the market will meet the demand, but by then new kids are already being born without food.