Monsanto and Big Food Pull Out the Big Guns

Originally posted by SloAnPainful

Originally posted by Superhans
You noticed that? REally? Probably because you are just bringing it up now... You don't have to make stuff up and make it sound like i was dodging something to post bro.

This is my last true post, considering it's late. He is not making it up, in fact he's pretty spot on.

He did make it up in the context i was talking about. He was saying that i didn't touch the subject like he brought it up and ignored it. Notice how you will not touch the fact that the sky is blue?

Originally posted by Superhans

Notice how you will not touch the fact that the sky is blue?

What?

-SAP-

Wow....

It absolutely blows my mind when I see people defending Monsanto...it really does.

There's already been a lot of posts in this thread highlighting the reasons why they are scumbags but I will just add my 2 cents..

Nature has spent a very long time creating plants that are edible. Who the hell are we to think that we can come in here and mess with these things and not cause problems.

I remember reading reports that GMO corn plants were taking over native varieties in Central and South America (I forget which country exactly) - when we lose biodiversity all we will have are these damn plants and then we will be really screwed.

I grow some chili's and other edible plants at home and I save the seeds for next year - just like millions of farmers etc. I'm sure you are aware of how you can't do that with Monsanto's seeds...it's all about the money.

Don't feed this silly troll (unless it's GMO cookies or something). How does it go in Mortal Combat? "Finish Him".

Originally posted by SloAnPainful

Originally posted by Superhans

Notice how you will not touch the fact that the sky is blue?

What?

-SAP-

edit on 8-8-2013 by SloAnPainful because: (no reason given)

See? That is exactly what happened, he said "notice how" i didn't touch something that was never brought up. I thought i explained that, you get it now?

reply to post by Superhans


You must have explained it badly then. I thought you were taking a personal shot at me... Maybe next time you should post things with a little more clarity and stop assuming people will know, right off hand, what you are talking about.

That's all for me.

Cheers!

-SAP-

Originally posted by SloAnPainful
reply to post by Superhans

 

You must have explained it badly then. I thought you were taking a personal shot at me... Maybe next time you should post things with a little more clarity and stop assuming people will know, right off hand, what you are talking about.

That's all for me.

Cheers!

-SAP-

edit on 8-8-2013 by SloAnPainful because: (no reason given)

It was pretty clear, if you will just scroll up you will see.
And this is the third time you have quit?

Originally posted by burntheships
Wow, so you post misleading statements as lead in to
an article to make it look legit?

You are not invincible here, get a hold of yourself,
before you become a scourge for your cause.

He just came in to pick a fight with people he does not like and derail a topic using the Michael Shermer's 'call them religious nuts' directive which came out in SCIAM two months ago. He has already confused 'organic' promoters with GMO concerned citizens - not even close to the same thing - and that was the peak of his game. Zero knowledge of biogenetics, what a GMO even is, the industry or the legitimate cases involved - and the scientific arguments against the sufficiency of OECD Test Guideline No. 408 and testing standards for cosmetics being used for food. Not one word about an actual knowledgeable or salient issue.

You will find that when the REAL propaganda Big Agra employees show up, and not these scabs, those propaganda people will talk a LOT about "the science." They will declare that running the same 240 day rat death tests, 22 times over and over, equals LOTS of science. It is not. They will imply that all the science was done before the food was released. It was not. They will declare that it is stupid YOU against glorious SCIENCE....!!!

Do not believe a word of it.

Realize when the real paid advocates get here, and they will get here I promise you ...when it comes to having them cite it or explain WHY the science is sufficient - they will not be able to, because their trainers do not understand the science either. Their trainers are fake skeptics and political volunteers, who love the power that the mantle of being 'scientific' affords them, but have never possessed the desire to put in the hard work, study and dedicated career serving actual people and suffering, which would earn this right.

You will find one particular user offing the reason that he does not cite the science, is so that he does not tender the appearance of cherry picking. Well There are only 36 primary argument test studies. And they are all fully public - and to someone who is well versed in science, this is not that difficult a subject to digest at all. Unlike the food it pretends to protect.

In contrast to these shills, I urge all of you to be prepared with the science, read the studies < Food and Chemical Toxicology > and think in a fair and ethical mindset. Don't just be anti-GMO, there are some good GMO applications, and the future is GMO....but make them aware that they have not done their job on the current food and are simply activists and social police, protecting Big Agra from lawsuits, in advance. The science has not been sufficient.

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic

They will declare that running the same 240 day rat death tests, 22 times over and over, equals LOTS of science. It is not. They will imply that all the science was done before the food was released. It was not. They will declare that it is stupid YOU against glorious SCIENCE....!!!

Yes, experiments prove a lot more than "i don't like the way it sounds".

Originally posted by Superhans
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic

 

They will declare that running the same 240 day rat death tests, 22 times over and over, equals LOTS of science. It is not. They will imply that all the science was done before the food was released. It was not. They will declare that it is stupid YOU against glorious SCIENCE....!!!

Yes, experiments prove a lot more than "i don't like the way it sounds".

Woefully inadequate testing standards, can always be subjectively critiqued, and fairly so. It is pseudoscience.

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic

Woefully inadequate testing standards

As is using a poll of only 1052 people to state that 93% of the Public Wants GMO Labeling.

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic


That was well put. Thank you. I took a peek at his past posts and you are right, he is simply a bickerer. He is not a paid advocate. He doesn't debate properly and simply picks on other people's wording or context.

Are you serious? That there are really going to be participants paid to promote Monsanto in here? I will be sure to follow every thread in re to these sorts of topics, and would very much like those that are paid advocates to be pointed out to me. That is just crazy! and creepy even!

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic

Originally posted by Superhans
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic

 

They will declare that running the same 240 day rat death tests, 22 times over and over, equals LOTS of science. It is not. They will imply that all the science was done before the food was released. It was not. They will declare that it is stupid YOU against glorious SCIENCE....!!!

Yes, experiments prove a lot more than "i don't like the way it sounds".

Woefully inadequate testing standards, can always be subjectively critiqued, and fairly so. It is pseudoscience.

Well all science should be OBJECTIVELY critiqued no matter how the results look or how the testing is carried out. ANY testing is better than no testing. Testing to disprove a result is a lot better than shouting conspiracy

Originally posted by Superhans
Well all science should be OBJECTIVELY critiqued no matter how the results look or how the testing is carried out. ANY testing is better than no testing.

Your first statement is spot on. Agreed.

Your second statement is incorrect. Filtered and incomplete information is worse than wrong information because the former is not even wrong (in the Feynman sense).

Good response though. Thanks.

Originally posted by Hollie
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic

 

That was well put. Thank you. I took a peek at his past posts and you are right, he is simply a bickerer. He is not a paid advocate. He doesn't debate properly and simply picks on other people's wording or context.

Not wording...logic. And context is important when talking about anything... do you know what that word means?

reply to post by Hollie

Are you serious? That there are really going to be participants paid to promote Monsanto in here? I will be sure to follow every thread in re to these sorts of topics, and would very much like those that are paid advocates to be pointed out to me. That is just crazy! and creepy even!

Here's a wacky theory for you.

How about a member here who has posted | seven | anti GMO | threads | in the last | three | months?

Who's paying them I wonder?

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic


Your second statement is incorrect. Filtered and incomplete information is worse than wrong information because the former is not even wrong (in the Feynman sense).

Good response though. Thanks.

False. Bad tests are beneficial too, since the whole science thing involves peer review and other trying to duplicate experiments. If one bad experiment is published and 100 reproductions of that experiment show the opposite results then we have our result... So even bad testing is better than no testing.
So far in the GMO debates i see tests that show no difference and tests that do no hold up to the peer review process. When a test shows no difference between GMO and non-GMO people who don't like GMOs scream conspiracy and how everyone is paid off but when a test is done that shows non-GMO that is "safer" and then it turns out that the test does not hold up through peer review then people hail the results like they are proof of god. There seems to be a lot of cherry picking on the subject. I am a man of science, and right now there is no evidence to show that GMOs are bad for you and the experiments i have seen support my view.
This is simply a case of people being afraid of technology. One day people will look back on this period and laugh becuase the vast majority thought that GMOs were harmful, the same way we look back and think its silly that there were people who thought the earth was flat.

Originally posted by Hollie


Are you serious? That there are really going to be participants paid to promote Monsanto in here? I will be sure to follow every thread in re to these sorts of topics, and would very much like those that are paid advocates to be pointed out to me. That is just crazy! and creepy even!

That is a stretch. The "you are a paid shill" response really just means
"You are correct and i cannot back up anything what i say with proof or simple logic. So instead of making a coherent or logical counter argument to show you are wrong I am going to just claim that you are paid because you have bested me in logic"
Saying someone is a paid shill is the exact same thing as Christians saying that evolution is the devil and anyone talking about it is an agent of satan, because its not based in reality or logic. Its based off a faith based religious belief.

Originally posted by Superhans

Originally posted by Hollie
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic

 

Not wording...logic. And context is important when talking about anything... do you know what that word means?

No I don't. I have never looked at a dictionary, or any book for that matter, and I barely know how to read or write. Will you be my teacher and educate me with your brilliance?

Originally posted by Superhans

Originally posted by Hollie


Are you serious? That there are really going to be participants paid to promote Monsanto in here? I will be sure to follow every thread in re to these sorts of topics, and would very much like those that are paid advocates to be pointed out to me. That is just crazy! and creepy even!

That is a stretch. The "you are a paid shill" response really just means
"You are correct and i cannot back up anything what i say with proof or simple logic. So instead of making a coherent or logical counter argument to show you are wrong I am going to just claim that you are paid because you have bested me in logic"
Saying someone is a paid shill is the exact same thing as Christians saying that evolution is the devil and anyone talking about it is an agent of satan, because its not based in reality or logic. Its based off a faith based religious belief.

Oh sure. We can discuss Christians. You can educate me in that department too. But first, why do you advocate for Monsanto for free? Why don't they pay you? Did you flunk their exam or something? I am genuinely curious.