I despise trendy new-age hippies.

reply to post by johnnysixguns


I can get along with you too, it's mutual respect and I do respect your opinion(s). Honestly, genetically modified food does create surplus, but takes away from the organic essence of the food. Sacrificing quality for quantity.

Originally posted by sgspecial19
reply to post by johnnysixguns

 

I can get along with you too, it's mutual respect and I do respect your opinion(s). Honestly, genetically modified food does create surplus, but takes away from the organic essence of the food. Sacrificing quality for quantity.

Mythbusting

A blog, but points are made.

Originally posted by sgspecial19
reply to post by johnnysixguns

 

I can get along with you too, it's mutual respect and I do respect your opinion(s). Honestly, genetically modified food does create surplus, but takes away from the organic essence of the food. Sacrificing quality for quantity.

The only points I ever saw that were valid nutritionally have to do with shipping commercial vs. organic. Organic generally comes from a closer area, so while its shelf life is shortened, it has less travel time and thus can be bought/consumed faster. That is where commercial loses nutritional value, because it is ripening without taking nutrients from soil.

Which is why I also said in my post, that none of this applies to people who grow their own food or buy locally. None of it really even applied to you, aside from the GMO part. Which has derailed us into an argument that was not the essence of my OP.

REPLY TO SIX-GUNS:

there are caricatures of every demographic & sub-culture... and it is all too easy to "despise" such exaggerations of persona; the heavy-metal nihilist, the snooty rich preppy dude, the vacuous socialite, the self-righteous angry feminist, the thug gangsta rapper, the stinky geek watching Thundercats reruns in his parent's basement, etc. etc. etc.

the point is, it is rather easy to despise a stereo-type. check out some propaganda posters from WWII, both from the German side (portraying jews) or the US (portraying the japanese). check out the illustrations depicting the Native American or African as "savages". these stereo-types are chronically used to spread hate & fear, and to debase any healthy discussion on the real matters at hand.

yes... new agey hippies can be an annoying lot. i know... i am one. watch the show Portlandia for a very humorous poke at this demographic. yet, many of the issues these "hippies" bring up are rather relevant in today's topsy-turvy world, despite their wafting patchouli. just because their demeanor can be irksome, should we jettison their valid concerns? especially when, as a whole, most hippies are pacifist & enviornmentalists at heart.


so easy where you aim your six-guns, 'cause once we get any demographic in our crossfires, we might as well declare war on everybody, and let the blood-letting begin... unless of course, that is what you want.

you seem reasonable, so i doubt that is what you want, but hey... who am i to judge?

Originally posted by johnnysixguns
reply to post by sgspecial19

 

I don't wish hate or negativity on them. I despise them as a character-type, much as girls of my generation have turned to calling everything "fabulous" because of a stupid show about tired-looking middle-aged women. I do wish they would just act like normal, relevant people to make their points rather than attention-seeking buffoons.

And reading your description of yourself, I wouldn't take any issue with your GMO stance, because you wouldn't strike me as a trendy new-age hippie. In which case I would point out that we can agree to disagree, and still get along just the same for it.

Processed food? I have issue with. GMO food? No, I don't. Sure, we can use less pesticides. They also lose nutritional value because they are ripened 'off-the-vine' for the sake of transport. But just the fact that we have a booming world population and shortage of food in countries is where I will always rest my sword in favor of GMO. You can grow a ridiculous amount more GMO food in 1 acre of land than you can organic. So its not even as economically feasible.

And I have tons of respect for people who take their argument, stop crying, and grow their own food. That is taking more initiative and doing more for their cause than I believe a flier or boycott is going to do.

Farming is not the problem. Government is the problem. What if we wear tough in school how to grow our own food? All the land that is used to grow tomato's could be used to grow something else. In my eyes backing GMO's is kind of like backing the war in Iraq to get oil. People are forced to use oil because our Government will not allow any other forum of energy. So we need oil, but should we kill for it? We need food but should we put a evil power full corporation witch objectives are far from what the people want in charge of it? They all ready control our money just imagine what they could do with food control. Monsanto's could (kind of all ready is) be as powerful or more powerful then a Government.
Why replace a problem with another problem.

Originally posted by johnnysixguns
reply to post by Infi8nity

 

So its more important to have the government putting that "USDA Organic" sticker on a product than just reading the label yourself?

Labeling and Marketing

Health benefits outweigh risks

Not as green as you think

edit on 28-7-2012 by johnnysixguns because: (no reason given)

No its just suspicious. The FDA test food, thats why they exist. Maybe they are not testing so they are not held accountable if something does happen. "how could we have know that gmo's cause....we dont test them, Monsanto is in charge of that"

Originally posted by mythos
REPLY TO SIX-GUNS:

there are caricatures of every demographic & sub-culture... and it is all too easy to "despise" such exaggerations of persona; the heavy-metal nihilist, the snooty rich preppy dude, the vacuous socialite, the self-righteous angry feminist, the thug gangsta rapper, the stinky geek watching Thundercats reruns in his parent's basement, etc. etc. etc.

the point is, it is rather easy to despise a stereo-type. check out some propaganda posters from WWII, both from the German side (portraying jews) or the US (portraying the japanese). check out the illustrations depicting the Native American or African as "savages". these stereo-types are chronically used to spread hate & fear, and to debase any healthy discussion on the real matters at hand.

yes... new agey hippies can be an annoying lot. i know... i am one.

watch the show Portlandia for a very humorous poke at this demographic. yet, many of the issues these "hippies" bring up are rather relevant in today's topsy-turvy world, despite their wafting patchouli. just because their demeanor can be irksome, should we jettison their valid concerns? especially when, as a whole, most hippies are pacifist & enviornmentalists at heart.


so easy where you aim your six-guns, 'cause once we get any demographic in our crossfires, we might as well declare war on everybody, and let the blood-letting begin... unless of course, that is what you want.

you seem reasonable, so i doubt that is what you want, but hey... who am i to judge?

I can agree. While I don't wholly support your example of Jews/Indians/Blacks etc example, because those character-types span those ethnic demographics, I do understand where you are coming from, and can agree with your point. I think the problem we're having now is that I am having to defend my stance on GMO food, which was never the real issue. To me, GMO food essentially comes down to "I want to eat this, because I think it is healthier. Because of my stance on that, you are going to starve".

The most bloodletting I would see over my opinion is people frustrated and digging their nails into their palms because I don't agree with them and can also defend my POV.

Like I said.. this came down to a character-type.. not stereotype. Stereotyping, to me, is seeing a black man and worrying he is going to rob me. Or seeing a muslim and fearing he is about to blow himself up. A character-type, is me seeing a duck, hearing it quack, watching it waddle, and calling it a duck, even though a few years ago it was a koala.

reply to post by johnnysixguns


fair enough... and yes, this thread has seemed to stray into the GMO business. threads take on lives of their own sometimes.

i suppose there is a line between character-type and stereo-type, but it is a fine line, IMO, and both are over generalizing and both can be dangerous.

anyhow, peace & love, 'cause that's what a hippy has got to say.

though, to be fair, i do prefer for myself the term~ "Neo-Bohemian".

reply to post by Infi8nity


And to me, GMO is genetically modifying something to enhance it. Yes, I agree government is a problem. I support my country. I DON'T support my government. But at the same time, organic people would not take viable GMO seeds and plant/grow them as they wish, because they are GMO. Correct? Because I have heard that statement made. The use of pesticides and hormones in our food do not directly make something organic, or GMO. They are a separate thing. Which is why I state that I have much more respect for people who grow their own produce, and kill their own meat.

GMO, without government oversight, is nothing but enhancing crops so they yield more. Nutritional value and things like that effected because of commercialism and transport, not genetic engineering.

I will say that I can see where people think I am being ridiculous, but I am not. I just bothered to read a ton about those things while I worked at an organic restaurant, and later went on to manage the production of soymilk and tofu for another company. I also think Kombucha is awesome. But I will always stick by GMO food.

And as far as energy.. yes, alternative energy would be nice. But 1st world countries have petroleum based infrastructure, and with the capital that major corporation generate in petroleum, that isn't going to change soon.

To be honest, I thoroughly dislike having these discussions with people who AREN'T TN-AH because I could be considered a gun-toting 'greeny' in some lights, but I am not. Or red-green. Or some other ideology. There are points you are making concerning energy that I would be for, but at the same time it isn't even viable for people today.

reply to post by mythos


Ha. Well I will be more slack with people referring to themselves as neo-bohemian, until it becomes a new buzz phrase.

Originally posted by buster2010
Anyone with half a brain would want to ban dihydrogen monoxide. And sometimes you have to act a little crazy to wake the sheep up.

dihydrogen monoxide

Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters. The atomic components of DHMO are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.

I find it comical that you got 7 stars for your post saying that anyone with half a brain would want to ban water.

I guess 7 people with half a brain DO want to ban water

reply to post by johnnysixguns

I agree with most of your rant, but GMO??
The problem is not the technology per say, but that it can and IS abused because of greed.
They even alter species so that they can handle more pesticides, which is not a good thing for us who have to eat that crap.
There are studies that show that some GMO food is actually harmful to organs.

I am not saying genetical modified food should be banned, but it should at least be heavily restricted to make sure that there are no negative health effects.

Originally posted by buster2010
Anyone with half a brain would want to ban dihydrogen monoxide. And sometimes you have to act a little crazy to wake the sheep up.

dihydrogen monoxide

Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters. The atomic components of DHMO are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.

Wow.. And there i just lost even more faith in the intelligence of people on this forum.
Not only do you want to ban water, but you got stars for it!!

Originally posted by johnnysixguns
I despise trendy, new-age hippies.

No, I'm not talking about people who buy locally, or grow organically. I'm talking about the types who would sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide, just because someone shoved the clipboard in their face.

I'm talking about hypocritical, egotistical, whiny, "Everyone in the world needs to have a canvas bag for their groceries while I shove this flier in their face" types.

The type who are against genetically altering produce so that it yields more, just because its "unnatural", nevermind the hunger that goes on around the world. The type who think anything irradiated will cause you to get cancer and damage your chromosomes.

These people can generally be spotted by their "original" tattoos consisting of flowers, farm animals, and pop-art iconography. The 00 gauges in their ears and the cute nose ring, set to accentuate the obnoxious "hand-woven" sweater that cost $38.

Generally under-weight, their lanky frames and Buddy Holly glasses, the aura of "green" that radiates from their presence, you get the sense you're being accosted by Gumby. An anorexic-Hulk.

They generally will not eat meat, sticking to the "nuts, fruits, leaves, and roots" ideology. If you eat a burger, you're accosted. They will pay high dollar for organic coffee while they whine and ridicule you over the damage Foldgers is doing to the rainforest.

I could go on and on.

If you think someone should round all these people up, coat them in vegetable oil, and let them swim in plastic bags, we probably think the same.

First off your avatar makes you look like a dick, no offense. Secondly, GMO foods are KILLING PEOPLE. Use your head and do your research before you go talking about world hunger. It's the LAWS that prevent people from growing organic foods, plain and simple!!!

Originally posted by juleol
reply to post by johnnysixguns

 

I agree with most of your rant, but GMO??
The problem is not the technology per say, but that it can and IS abused because of greed.
They even alter species so that they can handle more pesticides, which is not a good thing for us who have to eat that crap.
There are studies that show that some GMO food is actually harmful to organs.

I am not saying genetical modified food should be banned, but it should at least be heavily restricted to make sure that there are no negative health effects.

Eh.. and as much as I will always defend GMO, I do see your point.

I was accused in this thread of having low self-esteem, hating people, and various other things. Thats not really the case. I have an idealized notion of what we and technology can be. You summed up my view (without swaying my opinion) in your first line. Realistically, more GMO work is done so that they're not just 'handling' more pesticides, but that they themselves can be more resistant to pests. A lot of pesticide use is bad, and I agree with that. Altering something so that it is 'naturally' (or you could say genetically) more resistant and higher yielding is a plus, imo.

Like I think I said somewhere else.. genetically altering something doesn't damage "us", so much as pesticides and herbicides do. From my first hand experience on the consumer/business end, that is where the differing line is. Herbicides and pesticides (and further into hormones and antibiotics in commercial vs free-range meat) is where the line is drawn between good and bad. A GMO fruit or vegetable, when grown under ideal conditions, is no more or less dangerous than an organic. Its what is being done during the growing that matters. And I won't even go into some of the things that are stated in the links concerning organics and pesticides, just because its a moot point, IMO. Whether its organic or commercial, its treated with things that are less than beneficial, if not dangerous to people.

I think one thing that stands out here is that we are all anti-corporate.

reply to post by WiindWalker


No GMO food has been linked to anyones death. I have done my research, and as stated, will post sources towards the species that caused the GMO uproar, which was soy. If you can cite sources to the contrary, I would like to see them.

And yes.. I know exactly what my avatar implies.

Jelly?

Originally posted by johnnysixguns
reply to post by WiindWalker

 

No GMO food has been linked to anyones death. I have done my research, and as stated, will post sources towards the species that caused the GMO uproar, which was soy. If you can cite sources to the contrary, I would like to see them.

And yes.. I know exactly what my avatar implies.

Jelly?

edit on 28-7-2012 by johnnysixguns because: (no reason given)

Organ damage to rodents. I wonder if that will happen to humans. Add to the fact that the whitehouse supports GMO, and their advisor is talking about human depopulation! You do the math.

www.treehugger.com...

Some one help me out...

What is the difference between hippies, new-age hippies, new-agers, vegans, hippsters, etc?

From what I have witnessed, these folks are generally non self sufficient but claim some sort of independence from the 'system'. I guess that includes the ecosystem and/or any form of biology other than in a parasitic role.

Actually, I am glad for them.When the Zombies come, they can stand there and try to snob the undead into changing their myopic views on how the food chain works. This should give the rest of us time to make our escape.

reply to post by WiindWalker


I didn't really need to look much further than the linked source, though I may read it later.

Do I trust my government? No? Do I believe everything they put out is just to sheeple me into doing something harmful? No. So for you to state that the WH putting it out is basis for it being bad is just ridiculous.

I am not a rat. And also, I would like you to post your source for that organ damage. As I have no doubt it is true, I also wouldn't have qualm with placing a wager that the amounts tested in said rats were 1) SIGNIFICANTLY higher than what can be expected for general human consumption 2) It has ZERO to do with the fact that is was genetically modified, and more with the way it was grown and processed.

Now I will read your link, and respond accordingly.