You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
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?")
"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
You are the one that jumped on my post about ownership and sovereignty with "gmos aren't bad its just patents that do so.", which then led to this cluster-fuck of trying to locate the new comment haha.
Once again, thank you for giving this post the most comments of any post I've made :-)
"You are the one that jumped on my post about ownership and sovereignty with "gmos aren't bad its just patents that do so.", which then led to this cluster-fuck of trying to locate the new comment haha."
It doesn't matter what post it was on, what matters is what the first comment was talking about. Nothing in that comment implies anything about the other parts of your arguments, so stop assuming.
"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.