|
Why don't you tell us about those non-herbicide resistant crops Monsanto makes that go well with round up then?
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 09:07 |
|
|
Buller posted:Why don't you tell us about those non-herbicide resistant crops Monsanto makes that go well with round up then? Uh Bt crops are totally different from Roundup Ready crops in every way beyond both being GMOs so good job impressing us with your knowledge there, champ. I understand people saying that they feel wary of GMOs and worried about systemic issues or whatever, but don't make concrete claims for things you know nothing about because that's really dumb and kills whatever credibility you think you're bringing with your abrasive know it all attitude.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
Buller posted:Why don't you tell us about those non-herbicide resistant crops Monsanto makes that go well with round up then? So what you are saying is: No, you don't know what Bt is, or what Bt crops are. Thanks for proving my point I guess?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 16:05
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:How is this article, in any way, an indictment of Bt crops? I guess the article is against Bt crops in the sense that they might not offer as much improvement vs. non-Bt crops long-term as initially seen since it looks like the targeted organism may be developing a resistance to the Bt endotoxin, thus cutting into the effectiveness of Bt crops if the resistant population keeps growing. Which isn't good, I guess, but this isn't really a concern exclusive to GMOs at all and really applies to any pesticide, especially since Bt toxin has been used since the 60s. And we also don't know how much the mutation for Bt resistance effects the viability of the pests overall, since oftentimes resistance mutations come at the cost of reduced survival fitness in other areas, and this might still mean that there's an overall benefit to Bt crops in terms of reducing pesticide and fertilizer usage (depending on a lot of factors, obviously). And I don't know about a whole lot about the specific mechanism of Bt, but since it's a single protein that only works on a handful of related species at certain stages of development, I doubt Bt resistance is going to create unstoppable "superbugs" that are super in any way beyond being able to survive eating Bt endotoxin better than other bugs. So I also don't see that article as an example of "unforeseen consequences" since what's being reported is a pretty foreseeable consequence that's not really unexpected. And the species involved isn't an unrelated species, it's the pest that was specifically targeted by Bt corn, which is marketed as being rootworm resistant. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Jul 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
Also note that the US has taken some action against the problem. Bt resistance in corn pests is expected to evolve as a recessive trait, so Bt corn fields are required to have non-Bt corn planted nearby, under the theory that genetic drift will prevent an explosion in the Bt resistant population. It's almost like regulatory bodies respond to evidence of possible environmental harm 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
Buller posted:Why don't you tell us about those non-herbicide resistant crops Monsanto makes that go well with round up then? Monsanto's high performance hybrids hold up pretty well against traditional amide herbicides like allidochlor, amicarbazone, beflubutamid, benzadox, benzipram, bromobutide, cafenstrole, CDEA, cyprazole, dimethenamid, dimethenamid-P, diphenamid, epronaz, etnipromid, fentrazamide, flucarbazone, flupoxam, fomesafen, halosafen, huangcaoling, isocarbamid, isoxaben, napropamide, naptalam, pethoxamid, propyzamide, quinonamid, saflufenacil, tebutam and tiafenacil. Btw you still can use glyphosate on non-RR plants, you just need to be very judicious on their use.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:Also note that the US has taken some action against the problem. Bt resistance in corn pests is expected to evolve as a recessive trait, so Bt corn fields are required to have non-Bt corn planted nearby, under the theory that genetic drift will prevent an explosion in the Bt resistant population. It's almost like regulatory bodies respond to evidence of possible environmental harm That isn't required by regulatory bodies, it is required by Monsanto (obviously so they can sell more of their evil seed) and they will revoke your license if you get caught cheating on refuge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Who are the paid/unpaid fanboys who are acting as shills? You, for starters. Solkanar512 posted:EDIT: Am I being a shill for my concern over cases of laboratory arson? Yep, pretty much. Your concern-troll technique is awesome.  You moan about people not debating but you're not even trying to engage with the issues either. The sum total of your 5 posts is whining about labs being destroyed. The vertiable:  to the threads majority:  "Stupid people for not accepting GM". You're not really trying to debate and discuss, engage with people's concerns or understand the issues. You're on your pseudo high-horse about labs.I don't agree with the destruction of labs. But if you read: BBC posted:Genetically-modified crops will "inevitably" contaminate organic crops according to new UK government-funded research published on Thursday. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/371353.stm That you, me, shills and/or any of your "compatriots" are having this discussion is meaningless. The decision is already out of everybodies hands. archangelwar posted:See, you post some I see you've gone for the scattergun approach: try to make your 'opponent' look stupid by asking pointless questions. An interesting tactic. I think you need to work on it though, because you're asking me if I know the answer to your stupid questions when you don't know what a pesticide resistent crop is? GM'd Oilseed rape is a 'Pesticide Resistant' plant Golden rice has been modified to produce a pesticide resistant crop. Tomatoes is an obvious and recent one. Sweet corn is another.  I mean, it's right there in the name!You genetically modify a plant (often with bacteria...more specifically 'Bt' as you mention....even more specifically: Bacillus thuringiensis) to resist pesticides so that you can spray your crop with cheaper and/or better pesticides so the plants themselves don't die. They are...one might say....pesticide resistant  .
spikenigma fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Jul 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 16:53
|
|
poo poo, which for the most part I can agree with outside the fact that you approached it from the perspective of a pedantic rear end, but then you post what I quoted above, and reveal that you honestly just don't know what you are talking about. 'Pesticide Resistant'? The gently caress is that even supposed to mean? Bt GMOs are not 'pesticide resistant' crops. Do you even know what Bt is? How it works? What it is intended to do? Do you know how it is used outside the GMO realm? How is this article, in any way, an indictment of Bt crops?
|
spikenigma posted:I think you need to work on it though, because you're asking me if I know the answer to your stupid questions when you don't know what a pesticide resistent crop is? No, you're completely wrong. Let me make this as simple as possible: Bt crops have been engineered to create pesticides within their own cells, so that the vulnerable parts of plants contain Bt proteins that are toxic to certain insects. You make them because then the poison is inside the plant so when insects start eating the plants, they get a mouthful of poison and die. That way you don't have to use as many pesticides and the plants are healthier, which increase yields and reduces fertilizer usage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:Yeah, GMO labelling is stupid. Even if you're against GMOs, GMO labelling is stupid. Seriously, it's a bloody foodstuff, if it's unsafe it should be handled by the food regulation authorities - GMOs aren't going to give you extra cancer or anything; there is literally nothing about the GMO status of a foodstuff in itself that would imply a change in how healthy the thing is. That has to be taken, like any other nutrient, on a case-by-case basis as, obviously, certain specific GMOs could be dangerous. America actually does have a specific GMO labeling - all GMO food products that introduce proteins from known-allergenic crops that wouldn't otherwise be present must be labeled as being dangerous for those people. So for example, there's a lot of people who are deathly allergic to peanuts. If you had some tomatoes that for whatever reason included peanut genes as part of their modification, with evidence they could trigger allergic reactions in the people allergic to peanuts, they have to have a warning label saying essentially "This product may harm you if you are allergic to peanuts". And that also goes for products that would say use the potentially allergenic tomato for sauce or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
spikenigma posted:
The article you posted was about Bt corn, which has nothing to do with 'Roundup Ready' or herbicide resistant crops (Bt corn is not 'pesticide resistant'). Bt is an insecticide used to kill a variety of insects, and right this very minute practically every organic farmer in the US is probably spraying their crops with Bt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:No, you're completely wrong. Let me make this as simple as possible: And in the interest of full disclosure, Bt producing plants already existed in the wild. Bt corn was modified to do what other plants already do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:The article you posted was about Bt corn, which has nothing to do with 'Roundup Ready' or herbicide resistant crops (Bt corn is not 'pesticide resistant'). Bt is an insecticide used to kill a variety of insects, and right this very minute practically every organic farmer in the US is probably spraying their crops with Bt. Cream_Filling posted:No, you're completely wrong. Let me make this as simple as possible: In what context did I post that link? He said pesticide resistant crops (or even the concept) didn't exist, I showed it did. I've made no argument about specific types of GM. ...or are you both trying to get me to agree to something by osmosis and then pedant me
spikenigma fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Jul 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
spikenigma posted:You, for starters. Lets see here - one of the huge issues is the fact that the vast majority of GMO research is privately owned, funded and directed by companies who focus on profit to the exclusion of all else. That counts as an issue, right? Yet here we have publicly funded laboratories and field stations being destroyed by the very same people who are pissed off at Monsanto, throwing away millions of dollars and years of research time. Obviously you've never worked in a lab or performed research so you don't have a loving clue as to how difficult it is so you think it's nothing more than a game, but I or anyone else who's had that experience know otherwise. By the way, the arsonists that burned down Merril Hall at the University of Washington were trying to eliminate GMO trees. Of course, the lab in question wasn't using any GMO trees (only transgenic tissue samples) and the resulting fire destroyed research materials regarding environmental remediation and rare plants to be transplanted back into the wild to help restore wild stocks. By the way, the transgenic poplars that eventually came out of the University of Washington absorb heavy metals 100 times better than standard poplars, making them a viable means to help clean up old mining and production sites. But hey, I guess this just makes me a big ol' loving shill, right? As for "whining" about laboratory safety, get hosed. You're talking about my friends and my family who are working in those and similar labs that have to constantly worry about their otherwise ethical and humanitarian research being vandalized and their personal safety compromised because a bunch of loving idiots like yourself cannot be bothered to open up a science book. Quit treating this issue as a joke, and quit normalizing and trivializing the harm that has and will continue to come to those who are working for a better future. It's folks like you that help keep this research in the hands of folks like Monsanto. Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Jul 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
spikenigma posted:I see you've gone for the scattergun approach: try to make your 'opponent' look stupid by asking pointless questions. An interesting tactic. They're herbicide resistant. There's no such thing as a pesticide resistant plant because there's no need for such a thing; there are plenty of available pesticides that already don't significantly interact with plants.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
spikenigma posted:In what context did I post that link? You claimed Bt crops were pesticide resistant, when what they actually are is mild pesticide producers. We have pesticide producing crops, and herbicide resistant crops.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Lets see here - one of the huge issues is the fact that the vast majority of GMO research is privately owned, funded and directed by companies who focus on profit to the exclusion of all else. That counts as an issue, right? Yet here we have publicly funded laboratories and field stations being destroyed by the very same people who are pissed off at Monsanto, throwing away millions of dollars and years of research time. Obviously you've never worked in a lab or performed research so you don't have a loving clue as to how difficult it is so you think it's nothing more than a game, but I or anyone else who's had that experience know otherwise. I don't think I've disagreed with you on that point. Solkanar512 posted:By the way, the arsonists that burned down Merril Hall at the University of Washington were trying to eliminate GMO trees. Of course, the lab in question wasn't using any GMO trees (only transgenic tissue samples) and the resulting fire destroyed research materials regarding environmental remediation and rare plants to be transplanted back into the wild to help restore wild stocks. By the way, the transgenic poplars that eventually came out of the University of Washington absorb heavy metals 100 times better than standard poplars, making them a viable means to help clean up old mining and production sites. The thing is, you're absolutely right. Burning down publically funded labs for GM crops is pretty bad considering the alternative and considering the people that work there who are, mostly, trying to make the world a better place. I can't fault any of what you've said, except the fact that you're here to debate and discuss. You have a pretty big horse in this race, so yeah. Amarkov posted:They're herbicide resistant. There's no such thing as a pesticide resistant plant because there's no need for such a thing; there are plenty of available pesticides that already don't significantly interact with plants. wiki posted:Herbicides, also commonly known as weedkillers, are pesticides used to kill unwanted plants the Epa posted:According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s definition of a pesticide, YES, a herbicide (or weed killer) IS a pesticide
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
I mean... okay. You managed to confuse an issue by using different terminology than everyone else, and simply repeating it rather than trying to understand what other people were saying. Good for you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
spikenigma posted:
Right, herbicides can be called pesticides. However, that has nothing to do with Bt corn, which is what you posted a link about and you called them "pesticide resistant." And now you are doubling down on your stupidity rather than admitting that you made a mistake, and that perhaps you did not know what you were talking about. Bt corn is not pesticide resistant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
spikenigma posted:In what context did I post that link? No that's absolutely not the claim that was made. You directly quoted the guy you're responding to so we can see that already. Is English not your first language or something? You also really need to cool it with the huge amounts of white space for no reason, because that's just annoying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
Ok, either I've had some sort of stroke or you're all trolling me at this stage .archangelwar posted:Right, herbicides can be called pesticides. However, that has nothing to do with Bt corn, which is what you posted a link about and you called them "pesticide resistant." And now you are doubling down on your stupidity rather than admitting that you made a mistake, and that perhaps you did not know what you were talking about. Syngeta posted:How does Bt corn work? http://www.syngenta.com/global/corporate/en/products-and-innovation/research-and-development/biotechnology/Pages/biotechnology-bt-corn.aspx Amarkov posted:I mean... okay. You managed to confuse an issue by using different terminology than everyone else, and simply repeating it rather than trying to understand what other people were saying. Darn me for using the terminology of the EPA and that everybody else uses 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
You can get corn with Cry1Ab and without PAT. Wou can also get corn stacked with Cry1Ab and RR.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
spikenigma posted:Ok, either I've had some sort of stroke or you're all trolling me at this stage That is how that specific company selects that specific corn in order to determine expression of the Bt trait. Not all Bt corn shares the same selection process, and this is for selection only, not for crop maintenance. You just keep posting poo poo, without any understanding of what it is you're posting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
spikenigma posted:Ok, either I've had some sort of stroke or you're all trolling me at this stage Just to clarify for you: Bt plants have a gene inserted that causes them to produce a chemical that is poisonous to certain pests. They create their own insecticide, as it were. The Bt gene by itself has no effect on the plant's resistance to externally applied pesticides. You can get Bt plants that also have pesticide resistance built into them, but that is not what the Bt gene itself does.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:That is how that specific company selects that specific corn in order to determine expression of the Bt trait. Not all Bt corn shares the same selection process, and this is for selection only, not for crop maintenance. You just keep posting poo poo, without any understanding of what it is you're posting. ...which would all be fantastic, if at any point I'd said: spikenigma in an alternative universe posted:Bt crops are ALL pesticide resistent. You said no bt crops were pesticide resistant, I pointed out that that's incorrect. Like Amarkov, you're now trying to save face. I suppose I should come clean, the only reason I'm keeping this little tet-a-tet going (while I've got time) is because it's a wonderful example of team jersey dog-piling wonderfulness. Like the late 90's when religious debates/dogpiles were all the rage. The catholics and the protestants would dogpile the atheist(s), the catholics don't correct the prots, who don't correct the jw's, who don't correct the mormons because we're all against that one ,dammit. Even when the others spout of stuff way out of their own circle of the venn-diagram. About 90% of people arguing against me have posted rubbish, but you won't correct them. Team spirit in the dogpile and all that. Ok... Deteriorata posted:Just to clarify for you: Bt plants have a gene inserted that causes them to produce a chemical that is poisonous to certain pests. They create their own insecticide, as it were. The Bt gene by itself has no effect on the plant's resistance to externally applied pesticides. "There are no blue busses with a spare tire" *I point out blue bus with spare tire* " the tire does not make the bus blue"Do I bother saying "I didn't ever say that"
spikenigma fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Jul 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
You posted an article about Bt corn, and called them "pesticide resistant" crops. You can try and wiggle the goalposts around and reword your claims all you want. You don't know what you are talking about, you are just googling things.quote:But, even leaving aside the fact that regardless of your pesticide resistant GM crops "life..er..will...er...find a way", You also claimed that Bt crops have the unintended side effect of creating "pesticide resistant" pests (notice how I used the term correctly). Which is misleading at best. quote:"This unrelated species is breeding slightly more/less which could have unforeseen irreversible effects on the eco-system. Halt all sales until we do a proper environmental assessment for our precious and respected customers. No no don't worry, I'll take this hit with the board and the shareholders". archangelwar fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Jul 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
 archangelwar posted:You posted an article about Bt corn, and called them "pesticide resistant" crops. You can try and wiggle the goalposts around and reword your claims all you want. You don't know what you are talking about, you are just googling things. Are you saying there are not Bt corn strains which are not pesticide resistent crops?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
spikenigma posted:
spikenigma posted:You genetically modify a plant (often with bacteria...more specifically 'Bt' as you mention....even more specifically: Bacillus thuringiensis) to resist pesticides so that you can spray your crop with cheaper and/or better pesticides so the plants themselves don't die. This is where you directly stated that inserting a Bt gene makes them pesticide resistant. This is what is false. Bt genes allow you to use less pesticides, but the plant's resistance to those pesticides is unchanged.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
spikenigma posted:
The original quote, which I have repeated for you in case you forgot it, directly states that you believe an accurate description of Bt corn is 'pesticide resistant.' You doubled down on this statement by directly claiming that the Bt trait is for the purpose of resisting pesticides which is factually false. I am not sure if this is some 'argument ad snoozium' where you argue until your opponent falls asleep, but these are factual statements that you have said, that were factually incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 18:15
|
|
|
spikenigma posted:...which would all be fantastic, if at any point I'd said: Yes it's the hivemind making everyone disagree with you instead of you not knowing what the hell you're talking about and making statements that show a clear lack of understanding. Nobody said bt crops can't also be pesticide resistant. But the two are not the same and are unrelated properties, so you can't just use one to refer to the other. Finding an example of a crop that has both properties doesn't cover for the fact that you confused the two because you don't actually have a real understanding of the subject. Seriously, there's nothing shameful about not knowing the specifics of how GMOs work. It just means you can't go off making strong statements when you're completely ignorant of the topic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
spikenigma posted:The thing is, you're absolutely right. Burning down publically funded labs for GM crops is pretty bad considering the alternative and considering the people that work there who are, mostly, trying to make the world a better place. You're calling me a shill for Monsanto because I care about the lives of research scientists in general? You know there's a rule against drunk posting, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:What are you referring to? Nothing like this has happened. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/prop-37-defeated-californ_n_2088402.html Here's one article. drat it's hard to find "reliable news sources" for things like thing because of all the activism that surrounds it. I don't disagree with independent news sources but some people don't see them as viable. Let me see if i can find that news story, I read a great synopsis of the case with some quotes from Monsanto Reps. regarding their argument ... drat, well that sucks, it was a great article. I will keep looking for that but for the mean time might as well check out the one I posted. "Illegal" in bunny quotes as the law was not passed. Maybe I could have used better terminology.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 23:44
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:So that totally justifies the destruction of publicly funded research which helps to counter the poo poo Monsano is doing. Brilliant! Not to mention the fact it would endanger innocent lives, but who cares when people on the internet say, right? It's not like I actually know people who have to take security measures because they perform research that a bunch of lazy, ignorant shits don't value because they can't bother to open up a loving science book. I'm defending Monsanto, because I haven't seen evidence that what they do is bad in any significant way. The iPhone I'm typing this on is probably the result of more human misery than what Monsanto causes. They're a company that advances humanity by continuing our project of bending nature to Man's will, the same project that started with crossbreeding animals and plants. How do we get governments to take Eco-terrorism seriously? Many of them seem to support environmentalist and Eco-terror groups.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
Count Chocula posted:How do we get governments to take Eco-terrorism seriously? Many of them seem to support environmentalist and Eco-terror groups. The United States takes them very seriously.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
Puddums posted:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/prop-37-defeated-californ_n_2088402.html Here's one article. drat it's hard to find "reliable news sources" for things like thing because of all the activism that surrounds it. I don't disagree with independent news sources but some people don't see them as viable. Let me see if i can find that news story, I read a great synopsis of the case with some quotes from Monsanto Reps. regarding their argument ... Except that's not at all the same thing. If you wish to label your food as GMO-containing or GMO-free, that's not illegal, quotes or otherwise. What was rejected was a law that would require foods containing GMOs to put this on the label. Even if the kind of thing you're talking about did happen, though, I'm not sure that would be bad. It seems analogous to the treatment of "rBST free!" claims, where you have to add a clearly visible note that there are no actual reasons drinking rBST milk is bad for human health.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:Except that's not at all the same thing. If you wish to label your food as GMO-containing or GMO-free, that's not illegal, quotes or otherwise. What was rejected was a law that would require foods containing GMOs to put this on the label. It'd also require labeling it on any food product that might incidentally be supplied with GMO crops, don't forget that. So essentially any product where the producer doesn't specifically ensure they never used it would have to have the GMO labeling on it. A completely stupid law.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 00:50
|
|
Count Chocula posted:I'm defending Monsanto, because I haven't seen evidence that what they do is bad in any significant way. The iPhone I'm typing this on is probably the result of more human misery than what Monsanto causes. They're a company that advances humanity by continuing our project of bending nature to Man's will, the same project that started with crossbreeding animals and plants. Oh no, governments supporting environmentalism against multinationals, whatever will we do. Are you loving serious at this point? I don't want to bend nature to Man's will and I sincerely hope that anyone who does dies in a lab fire.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 07:32
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:
The retarded rabbit hole goes even deeper with this one. You'll notice that the labels don't say "rBST free," they say "not from cows treated with rBST." This is done because there are no detectable amounts of rBST in milk from treated cows. To go a step further, rBST has no real bioactivity in humans, even with daily injections. We know this because attempts to use cow, sheep, or pig growth hormone for human treatments doesn't work, and the only source of growth hormone for a long time was glands taken from human cadavers. Now, recombinant HGH is produced in E. coli for the treatment of growth stunted children and pro cyclists. quote:
Better hope your kid doesn't get diabetes. Or CF, or PKU or MPV IV, or any other disease requiring meds made with expression vectors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 07:53
|
|
|
acephalousuniverse posted:I don't want to bend nature to Man's will Too bad. We crossed that bridge when we started agriculture; at this point, even some sort of species-wide suicide would bend nature. You can attempt to ensure that this bending is for the best, or you can stick your head under a rock and insist that all the systemic consequences of billions of human beings existing are "nature".
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 07:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 09:07 |
|
norton I posted:
I don't have a kid, I just want lots of people to die. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 07:57
|
|