RE: As long as it's voluntary & non-aggressive, who gives a damn how others live? (a response to @pomperipossa's "So, you're an anarchist?")
"Considering 1000s of years of selective breeding without any major side-effects, vs 3 decades of GMOs with huge increases in autism'
great evidence, but its fucking stupid. Autism hasn't increased, we have better tools to detect and understand it. What was called apsergers syndrome, for example, was only detected in half the people because the most common symptoms of it noticed actually only come out when paired with another mental syndrome that happens in about half of them.
So, wrong and delusional.
"huge increases in autism, digestive issues, cancer, and more"
correlation does not equal causation. The amount of technology in school increased during that time, it must be the source of my cancer.
"Considering 1000s of years of selective breeding without any major side-effects,"
Guess what? You can talk about it after the fact but what would you have said to the first person doing cross-breeding? It saved millions of lives, but you would still be against it wouldn't you.
"as well as soil destruction (clear & direct causation from the pesticides & herbicides these GMOs are created to withstand).."
that's a use of GMO, not the technology itself. Nuclear power could save us from climate change. But it was used in bombs, looks like africa gets to die, oh well.
"'ll definitely take my chances with nature's process over Monsanto's or DuPont's."
Looks like many types of organic food have been proven to be more dangerous to consume and look, unlike you, I have evidence to back up my statement.
You:
Me (many comments before):
You:
Me (in the comment you're responding to):
You're simply being argumentative & combative for the sake of it, and while I'm grateful for all the activity you've given my post, which will most likely get more people to read it, I'm not in the habit of playing chess with pigeons.
"I'm not in the habit of playing chess with pigeons."
then why act as if you had an argument to begin with. I'm not going to bother with your damage control. If you say something make sure you mean it. Otherwise the only reason I can see you posting it is propaganda, in other words so that others think you have substance to your argument and thus believe you.
There was no argument at all until you jumped in simply to start one. This post was me answering questions that @pomperipossa asked based on my personal understandings & observations.. not propaganda, not a claim of any sort of authority. You stepped in and acted as though your personal understandings & observations somehow discredit mine.
"You stepped in and acted as though your personal understandings & observations somehow discredit mine."
thousands of studies > one random opinion on the internet
GMOs were not the topic of my response to him, and again, I clearly stated that I was putting out my own opinions and understandings. Also, there are thousands of studies on both sides of the GMO discussion, you're just choosing to read those that confirm your current beliefs, as humans are wont to do.
" both sides of the GMO discussion, you're just choosing to read those that confirm your current beliefs, as humans are wont to do."
I have never seen a legitimate scientific study against it, and I've searched. Put up or shut up
"But despite these shrill denials, the truth is that there is no more of a debate on the safety of GE crops than on reality of climate change, the scientific consensus on which all these same green groups aggressively defend. And the irony goes deeper: many of the strategies now being employed to demonize GMOs come straight out of the climate denialist playbook. There's the same promotion of false 'no consensus' statements by groups of self-appointed experts. Why, more than 300 "scientists and legal experts" signed a 'no consensus on GMO safety' statement last year, Greenpeace reminds us. That sounds like a lot, until you compare it with the 30,000 "American scientists" who have supposedly signed a petition claiming that there is "no convincing scientific evidence" linking CO2 with climate change, which Greenpeace (rightly in my view) ignores."
here is a link on the consensus:
http://www.ensser.org/media/0115/
This part's just too funny. If they're going for consensus, it's not science.
Exactly. No evidence exists that GMOs do harm, so the only thing anti-gmos can do is challenge consensus. Its just like climate change.
"(we can't draw direct causation because of all the other potentially hazardous technology being thrown around willy-nilly)"
"but that still makes it bad"
It means that they are one of a few variables that have been added, which together have led to many "bad" things. Since none of those variable are actually open to independent research and are protected by the violence of the state, there is no way to know which are causing harm and which aren't.
' Since none of those variable are actually open to independent research"
wrong
" protected by the violence of the state, there is no way to know which are causing harm and which aren't."
then why call out the one all logic shows literally has less of a chance to harm you than random viruses you encounter in your food everyday.
in fact there have literally been thousands of studies, which in total have been more than a trillion meals.
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/
"GMOs as a theoretical science aren't necessarily bad" Nothing is. Its a useless statement. In the context that implies is that the only, or at least majority, of possible use in the future will be "bad".
It implies that the current uses are "bad", but that the science itself is not.
then attack the uses, not the technology with the ability to save millions of lives.
Electricity can kill too if used incorrectly.
The conversation being had was about ownership, sovereignty, and the uses of force/coercion to affect those. GMOs were one small thing that I mentioned as part of a paragraph about the illusion of scarcity of food.
You are attempting to derail it by getting super argumentative about tertiary aspects of one piece of it.
"You are attempting to derail it by getting super argumentative about tertiary aspects of one piece of it."
I literally don't care about the rest of that argument. In fact I agree with much of the conclusion. I don't care about that though, because parts of it are wrong.
If you literally don't care about the rest of the argument, then don't get involved in it. If this was a discussion of GMOs, then your responses would make sense, but that is not the case.
"If you literally don't care about the rest of the argument, then don't get involved in it"
I wasn't the one who brought the rest of it up? That was you?
" If this was a discussion of GMOs, then your responses would make sense, but that is not the case."
What? Are you trying to do a form of ad hominen lmao
"I feel like my response to number 8 covers this one. I would like to point out that food is not a scarce resource as soon as you remove corporations, GMOs, "
also GMOS help produce more food
Industrialized farming will always be less efficient and effective than small-scale, and GMOs only help produce more food when combined with huge amounts of toxic pesticides & herbicides, petroleum-based fertilizers, and using the state to shut down small-scale farmers.
"Industrialized farming will always be less efficient and effective than small-scale, "
uhhhhh wrong
What is more efficient about letting machinery sit there useless the majority of the time?
"MOs only help produce more food when combined with huge amounts of toxic pesticides & herbicides,"
wrong. Drought resistant ones for example are a necessity in many parts of the world.