Those AGAINST GMO - VS - Those For

reply to post by covertpanther


I really wish people could come up with coherent arguments as to why GMOs are "the evils". Instead all that seems to happen is ridiculous appeals to nature, jumping from topic to topic, ignoring valid scientific data and of course just calling people shills.

Originally posted by ARandomAfflictionOfSense
I'm aware aquaponics can grow GMO crops.GMO proponents claim we need them to feed the world I argued we don't. I'm sorry that wasn't clear.

I understand that but that still does not have much to do the subject of GMOs. Just because you can grow food in an aquaponic system does not mean GMOs are bad or dangerous. You could go through your personal things and create a pile of all the things you don't "need", does that mean you shouldn't have them? It's the same as saying I'm against xbox 360 because you don't need it and we have play station after all.

reply to post by covertpanther

Dear covertpanther,

I would really appreciate it if you responded to this post. As I said, I'm neither for nor against GMOs.

I thought about your survey this morning, and a question I had earlier just kept nagging at me. I will assume, for the moment, that you are an honest and reasonable man. If you are, you know you can't take the results of his "poll" to Monsanto, Washington, or Natural News, and expect anyone to treat it seriously. That makes me think you're not going to take the results outside of ATS.

But will you use the results on ATS? I don't think so. Everyone here knows that ATS, in general, disapproves of GMOs, a survey isn't necessary.

So if you don't care about the results, what else is there? Then I had a thought. It gives you the names of the people who voted each way. That's the only thing that makes sense to me. (Assuming this isn't just a stupid star and flag hunt.)

So my question is, what is the purpose of this poll? How do you plan to use the results?

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

 

Its simple really. Reduce the crop yields, reduce the amount of food and you increase the prices. The rest follows in a logical order. People who in many cases live on less than $2 a day would be harmed badly. Imagine what even a 25% rise in food prices would do to the significant part of the world that lives on that much.

That we have finite amount of arable land is a given. That the population is growing is a given.

As to how many would suffer should GM crops disappear right now? It's a certainty that the poorest of the poor would fare the worst of all. I don't think you need anything but critical thinking to know that is true.

I'm more fearful of monopolies in food production and too few people controlling the food supply than I will ever be of GMO's.

news.cornell.edu...


thats for you moderator. You see....just another example of most ppl not really knowing that much at all about the whole food production problem.....


also...drawing comparisons between a gene forcibly injected like a bullet into a dns strand or molecule and a guy crossing two kinds of rice within the limits that nature imposes is so absurd we need a new word for absurd.


also...people who say they have no choice about what they eat are being at best very ignorant or at worst are being intellectually dishonest and misleading about the real situation. The real situation is this.....MOST, like an average of probably 70-80 percent of all the agra-business crops in the US are GMO....therefore...by extension all of the products those crops can be made into and ADDED into other food products are GMO. It really doesnt take that much research online to find out that almost EVERYTHING you buy at a regular food shopping store will have traces to large amounts of GMO in the food product. So please dont tell me you dont have a choice....you have laziness is what you have.....do five minutes of research on line....you can start by using the non gmo shopping guide.....i wont even provide the link....you should use a search engine.

btw...I'm against GMO food for now the way most of the business models are being run.......however....in theory i think its a great idea if we could do science the way its SUPPOSED to be done....with extensive research, experimentation, peer review and the like......what currently passes for science along these lines today is laughable.

screw GMO

reply to post by covertpanther


100% for science and the advancement of genetic engineering in an ethical and contained manner.

100% against slipping it to the public, not labeling it, patenting the end product, and undermining attempts to organically grow your own food locally.

It's a tale that's been told a thousand times before. There are good guys, bad guys, and science. Science is a tool, not a ideology.

Originally posted by Superhans
reply to post by covertpanther

 

I really wish people could come up with coherent arguments as to why GMOs are "the evils". Instead all that seems to happen is ridiculous appeals to nature, jumping from topic to topic, ignoring valid scientific data and of course just calling people shills.

Monsanto's LASSO - found guilty for poisoning (France)

Guy, its your opinion vs anyone elses. That is the circle oyu keep finding yourself in. But I get the feeling you enjoy arguments and bothering people.. Maybe its your creepy avatar?

The above link is a thread about Monsanto's LASSO aka alachlor (herbicide); which poisoned a farmer upon inhalation. The farmer suffered from neurological damage, headaches/migrains, memory loss and other health issues that ended the man from furthering his duties as a farmer.

Is that 'coherent' enough for your argumentive ways?

Anti-GMO people's view = Monsanto, Plants, Food, anti god.

People that known Biotechnology = Medicine, Treatment, Life extension, Transplant, Less waste, Efficient.



The problem is soon as you hear GMO, these people jump to conclusion GMO = Monsanto or GMO = food.

Monsanto is a business not science or speaker for genetic modification.

The future is GMO, Gene therapy.



To the OP, you clearly have a biased opinion when you started this poll, that shows, not only that, it takes two to tango, blaming one side for argument is nonsense.

reply to post by covertpanther

Your response was exactly what i was talking about, personal attack and you just jumped from GMOs to an herbicide as if they were the same thing.

Guy, its your opinion vs anyone elses. That is the circle oyu keep finding yourself in. But I get the feeling you enjoy arguments and bothering people.. Maybe its your creepy avatar?

Or maybe its just a lack of anything to say that has you writing stuff like this.

The above link is a thread about Monsanto's LASSO aka alachlor (herbicide); which poisoned a farmer upon inhalation. The farmer suffered from neurological damage, headaches/migrains, memory loss and other health issues that ended the man from furthering his duties as a farmer.

Is that 'coherent' enough for your argumentive ways?

Not really relevant because we are talking about GMOs and you are posting something basically saying that poison is poison. GMOs are not herbicide, do you think they are? Also the EU banned Alachlor which is the name of the chemical in the herbicide and Monsanto is not the only company that makes Alachlor based herbicide.
Just wondering, what did you think you were going to accomplish by posting that? GMOs are bad because herbicide is poisonous?

For.
75% anyhow. but since its a binary poll, then gonna just side with for.

Originally posted by luciddream
Anti-GMO people's view = Monsanto, Plants, Food, anti god.

People that known Biotechnology = Medicine, Treatment, Life extension, Transplant, Less waste, Efficient.



The problem is soon as you hear GMO, these people jump to conclusion GMO = Monsanto or GMO = food.

Monsanto is a business not science or speaker for genetic modification.

The future is GMO, Gene therapy.



To the OP, you clearly have a biased opinion when you started this poll, that shows, not only that, it takes two to tango, blaming one side for argument is nonsense.

edit on 8/9/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)

I guess you can do a counter thread and get the opposite results by simply asking if ATS is anti or pro science in general

All in the phrasing of course.

i am a leftwing paranond fruitcake, and i get all my info from biased internet forums.
therefore i hate GMO

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle


So cultivating wheat to give bigger yields is different to genetically engineering wheat to give bigger yields is it?

The methods are different but the intent and outcome are the same.

reply to post by covertpanther

Dear covertpanther,

Sorry to bother you again, especially with how busy you've been on this thread, but I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my question found here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
If you'd like to ignore it, just let me know, but the thread is about the poll and you said you didn't want it to turn into a pro-GMO v. anti-GMO fight.

With respect,
Charles1952

My initial reaction would be to say 'no to GMO!', but is this just because of the popular view of the information I tend to read?...

Personally, I don't think GMOs are the evil. I think the lack of transparency, the sneakiness and the monopoly involved are a bigger issue. The fact that people aren't being told straight about their food is something i'm against. The fact that Monsanto seem to be shafting farmers across america is something i'm against.

I'm for GMOs being adequately tested, with well documented and accessible results and labelled food products. If GMO crops will help food crises and is the next step for some people then fair enough...

I think it's unfair to only have two options for the poll. At least having options for 'undecided', 'couldn't care less' or similar would make it more fair. By only having for and against it's only reaching a limited demographic, and i don't think it's a very either or issue.