A very ambiguous one at that, your own post denotes the equal possibility of the opposite occurring. Perhaps you should also avoid correcting the grammar of others when yours is nothing to gloat about. Says the guy employing typical attention whore tactics. You don't have to post here, it's not like I have a gun to your head. You do realize that Wikipedia is a tertiary source with absolutely no academic validity, right? It's apparent you didn't go to college. I am convinced with your pandering the contents of mainstream media you have never once done any research on your own or without bias.
Wikipedia is fine if it's well cited, as the passages I quoted are. It may not have any academic validity itself, but are you going to sit there and tell me institutions like the American Medical Association and Academy of Sciences have none either?
I don't need to, if you had actually read post #51 instead of just brushing it off and had done as Wikipedia suggests, you would discover articles from scientists whom you've hypocritically ignored raising important questions, solely because it's not in the best interest of your argument to mention them. It must suck fighting a losing battle.
You're right.. I didn't have to post here. But guess what, you didn't have to make this thread.. BlazedGlory didn't have to say he pays attention to scientific evidence.. and you didn't have to automatically assume that he is pro-Monsanto due to defending the concept of GMOs.. and I didn't have to call you out on your blind assumptions.. and you didn't have to respond to me.. so what the fuck is your point? I am here now, get over it dude. Just because you're trying to make people as paranoid and fearful as you are, misery loves company after all, doesn't mean that I am not going to point that out.
Tell me something I don't know. Yeah, but you're the one whose butt hurt because I guess I did something to out shine you because I do believe you said and I quote: Why the sudden change in heart? It doesn't bode well for your credibility, what ever is left of it anyways. Well if you call that defending, he's yet to substantiate anything he's said, and you. Just sitting there blabbing incoherently. Do you even have a point or are you just gonna blatantly troll me now? Actually that was me when replying to your second post, I see you remember things in a convenient manner as well. It's my thread, If I want to I will reply and vice versa. You took the words right outta my mouth. Is that even supposed to mean something? Get over what? Who cares if you're here? I don't. The only one expressing fear would be you with your volatile and inane rambling. Perhaps you didn't get the point when I ignored you the first time, either substantiate your outlandish claims, or gtfo.
No, I was just tired of pointing out the obvious. You let anti-GMO propaganda scare you.. I can't help you overcome your fears via the internet, but it doesn't hurt to try. 12 days is not really a sudden change, much less on the internet.. lol, such a tool. The point is, which has been the point the whole time, is that you've had fear instilled into you over GMOs due to the shitty practices of a select few, mainly Monsanto. That's why you were so quick to jump on his dick as a Monsanto supporter when he didn't say shit about Monsanto. GMOs are not Monsanto.. you're just keeping yourself blinded and emotional to that fact. Uh, this was my first post there kid.. which is where I was talking about calling you out over your blind assumptions. Glad to see you have comprehension skills.. You say you don't care, but.. ..tells me otherwise. So you don't care, but you're going to care enough to comment on it? Makes sense.. What claims have I made other than you being scared of GMOs and blindly lumping them all in with Monsanto? Cause you just need to look over this thread for the evidence to back up my claim of that.. The very first person who said anything in defense of the concept of GMOs, you fire back with a "Monsanto supporter" claim. That right there is proof that you've lumped GMOs in with Monsanto.. It's the internet, you have time to read things and try to employ some critical thinking.. you should give it a shot.
I am tired of you projecting your complexes. It's about time you learned how to construct a logical argument. You'll make much less of an ass of yourself. No need for name calling. M369 - M369
Sorry kid, but you lost the whole "proper debate" the moment you went after someone as a Monsanto supporter when they didn't say a damn thing about Monsanto.. and if you noticed, this is Pandora's Box.. not politics. This topic is a Pandora's Box topic because it's a bullshit topic without much evidence to debate. If you wanted a proper debate, you could of taken it to Politics, but you didn't.. probably cause you knew it doesn't belong in politics. You act like we're supposed to show you research that proves GMOs are safe.. when it's more like a complete lack of research that shows GMOs are bad for your health. I really think you need to work on your self reflection, cause you has none.. if you did, you'd see your own straw mans and slippery slope arguments.
Xenzin wants to be right. Let him be right. You are right Xenzin. Everyone else is wrong and we learned a valuble lesson from you, thanks. NOW CLOSE THIS FUCKIN THREAD!!!!!!
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. No need to close a thread because it goes over your head. I should have listened to my instinct to ignore trolls like Mantikore, their intent is not to debate, but to effusively drivel until their opponent is annoyed into not caring anymore, I have children I know how they are.
Soo, seriously, are you gonna straight up say that you think the consensus of the many leading scientific institutions that I cited are bullshit? Just because there are some scientists who debate against the consensus doesn't mean there isn't an established consensus. There's always debate and questioning in science, that's healthy, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to the consensus. You say my opinion is bullshit, but I'm really just going with the preponderance of evidence, and other people's research so... And for the record, Monsanto does have quite a shitty business reputation, but that's no reason to discard an important technology. It doesn't necessarily have to be Monsanto moving this thing forward.
Most countries have legislation against cannabis because of biased studies. Why should I believe that legislation against gmo's has any more credibility? Popular opinion is not evidence.
This. Legislation should never influence someone's opinion of the scientific objectivity of a topic. The idea itself is nonsensical
It's kind of ironic that this idea has traction on a stoner forum when we know weed legislation is not based on scientific evaluations of the health risks, like governments say. These guys seem to reject all the research that says it's safe as bought off, then latch on to a few flawed studies that agree with their bias. That's called confirmation bias.
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/comprehensive-study-100-billion-animals-finds-gmos-safe-livestock
If you don't include a lil asshole flair in your post, the OP won't respond. He was either looking to have people pat him on the back or fight with those who don't agree.. so if you don't agree with him but don't fight with him, he won't give a shit.
The investigation you cited is also cited and under scrutiny in post #51, which you would have known if you read it. I didn't call it bullshit, those are your words, I do find them quite fitting though. Secondly, it's not "some" scientists, stop hiding behind "the consensus" and adequately retort by quoting an actual argument, stop digressing. I did list them, over a week ago. You've yet to retort, yet here you are, fingers in your ears screaming "la-la-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you la-la-la-la-la-la." Traditional methods have proven themselves for generations, better for us and definitely better for the planet. Even if Monsanto was not in charge, no one should be able to patent mother nature. That's when it stops being about feeding the world and it starts becoming about making some money. No, irony ensued the instant you used confirmation bias to read what you wanted then executed your sub-par retort with association fallacy. It was not only ironic, but hilarious too.
If you want evidence whether or not genetically modified foods detriment your internal system, check this out -- http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/08/06/genetic-modification.aspx Unlike WebMD, Dr. Mercola is an independent trustworthy source.
Lmfao. "independent trustworthy source.". Aware of pubmed brah? Peer reviewed literature? If you trust one doctor why not trust thousands upon thousands of doctors peer reviewed literature?