|
The problem with the whole anti-science = environmentalism = left thing is its conflating some loosely related camps into a tightly related camp that doesnt exist. The socialist left is sympathetic with environmentalism, but still sees feeding humans and liberating labor as its prime directive. The environmentalist movement is sympathetic with the socialist left because they share a boogeyman of reckless corporations and perhaps a slightly romantic idealism about unalienated life, but its focus is on trees not people. The anti-science mob is sympathetic with the environmentalist because it sees a world in chaos caused by powerful forces they dont understand and its ruining the land but it is at odds with the climate scientists and , well, all the other scientists in the environmental movement. But the socialist left loving hates the anti-science crowd and sees its anti-modernity as antithetical to everything socialists stand for, and are deeply concerned with the import of conspircy theories from the far right. And the climate change environmentalists have a tendency of being a bit embarassed by some of their dippier supporters, in the anti-science crowd, as well as being nervous about the socialists because that poo poo off message for them. Theres no coherent movement here, and the left is not like the right and able to pretend theres unity where unity does not exist. oh sure you'll find the angries that are trying to be all three and mash socialism ,anti-science giberish and environmentalism into one big mystifying pot, but those people are boorish simple idiots who thrive off anger, not reason. duck monster fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Aug 30, 2013 |
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 18:06 |
|
|
hseiken posted:I went to March Against Monsanto this summer thinking that people were upset like I was that Monsanto was one of the big corporations that you could see abusing the government for profiteering purposes. Surely the amount of money they spent for protection legislation to be snuck through in budget bills and such would upset everyone else as much as it upsets me to see my government continue to play patty cake with lobbyists. I had a sign that read: YOU TOO CAN BUY POLITICANS FOR JUST 6 MILLION DOLLARS! ASK MONSANTO HOW! And had their PR phone number on the sign (someone actually copied the number down, but no idea if they called about it). Thanks for this, by the way. It's good to know not everyone who went to that thing was completely out of touch with the real issues.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
duck monster posted:The problem with the whole anti-science = environmentalism = left thing is its conflating some loosely related camps into a tightly related camp that doesnt exist. I do want to be clear that I'm not saying the entirety of the left is anti-science. I'm certainly on the left after all. I don't know where you're from, but here in the US the socialist left has been beaten up and demonized to such an extent that they have little power compared to the other groups mentioned. Sure the anti-bigotry/LGBT rights folks are making a good bit of head way, but I'm not sure exactly where they fit into your framework. Anyway, as the socialist group (as you describe them) has little to no power, there are few powerful voices to counter all the batshit crazy. What the gently caress do we on the left or as those trained in the sciences do to fight this poo poo? Many of the anti-science folks are otherwise great allies to fight for LGBT or labor rights, and I certainly share their disdain for corporate malfeasance. I just wish they'd take a science class or listen to a scientist when the issue at hand is an issue that science covers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
 U.S. per capita caloric sweeteners estimated deliveries for domestic food and beverage use, by calendar year http://www.ers.usda.gov/datafiles/Sugar_and_Sweeteners_Yearbook_Tables/US_Consumption_of_Caloric_Sweeteners_/table50.xls Just to debunk people who think things like HFCS is most of the sugar used in the US, or that its use continues to increase or similar things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
Can someone repost this thread with sources in the OP? Right now it's just people who like arguing running around moving goalposts, when an OP with six studies on GMOs and public health and news stories about Monsanto's legal arm would add a lot of coherence to the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I don't know where you're from, but here in the US the socialist left has been beaten up and demonized to such an extent that they have little power compared to the other groups mentioned. Sure the anti-bigotry/LGBT rights folks are making a good bit of head way, but I'm not sure exactly where they fit into your framework. Anyway, as the socialist group (as you describe them) has little to no power, there are few powerful voices to counter all the batshit crazy. http://socialistparty-usa.net/platform.html quote:We oppose any new nuclear power projects and call for the rapid phasing out of all nuclear power plants, and a ban on the export of nuclear technology. They're loving anti-irradiation, which is basically the precursor debate to the GM issue in terms of panicky people ignoring the scientific consensus because something sounds scary, except far less excusable because it's been around now for almost a century. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Aug 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
duck monster posted:The problem with the whole anti-science = environmentalism = left thing is its conflating some loosely related camps into a tightly related camp that doesnt exist. This is a great post and it should be quoted whenever someone says something like "You hate Monsanto? Then you must hate science and facts and smart people!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:This is a great post and it should be quoted whenever someone says something like "You hate Monsanto? Then you must hate science and facts and smart people!" I also think that there's much greater unity in leftism between the socialist/environmental/loony contingents than Duck Monster is suggesting, likely due to the polarizing and unifying effects of our voting system. Logically there's tension between their positions, but institutions and organizations (and even people) manage to mash them together anyway, just as American conservatism mashes together religion, racism, and capitalism, which have their own internal disagreements.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:I don't really see how it's much of a counter to that, or at least to the non-strawman version. As hseiken observed, the bulk of the opposition to Monsanto appears to be motivated by a position somewhere on the pro-environment/anti-science spectrum. Agreed, I'm not seeing much difference between this and the rightward alliance of pro-business/religious/libertarian types. EDIT: And seriously, anti-irradiation!? Are you loving kidding me? How far does this poo poo have to go before folks are justified in saying, "take a loving science class"? Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Aug 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:How far does this poo poo have to go before folks are justified in saying, "take a loving science class"? It's already past that line. The problem is the vast majority of people who are otherwise intelligent don't have a functional understanding of biology, chemistry, physiology, agricultural science, etc. Even more concerning, they don't have the ability to discern between pop-sci crap, bought studies, and snake oil sensationalism from, well, science. It's all one big mass of information to be taken as gospel to the average person. Their idea of fact checking is looking to see if the commercial or stock photo has someone wearing a lab coat. Improving science education isn't just getting people to have more trivia memorized by the time they graduate. It's getting people to understand the actual process of science and how to separate the fish from the turds in the bowl. Getting people to understand that an article on Natural News or a Gawker site that takes the results of a study out of context with sensationalism is not equivalent to the peer-reviewed study itself would be at least a start. Count Chocula posted:Shouldn't we care about helping and protecting PEOPLE, not the environment? In the short-term, yes, this works. Helping and protecting people long-term requires ensuring the environment is healthy, though. We've been seeing how this short-term way of thinking has been starting to catch up with us. Industry may support society, but we have to remember that it is the natural world that supports industry. Trying to maintain a pattern of growth that far outpaces the ability of our resources to replenish themselves is a recipe for disaster long-term. In my mind, it's a form of lunacy on par with anti-vaccine and wifi signals=!brain cancer nuts. We're still a part of the natural world and completely dependent on it, no matter how much of a barrier we try to place between ourselves and natural limits.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Agreed, I'm not seeing much difference between this and the rightward alliance of pro-business/religious/libertarian types. Radiation is scary  I read it on naturalnews.com or wherever so it must be true And there goes any willingness to listen to what not-scientifically-illiterate people have to say.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 11:57
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Count Chocula posted:Shouldn't we care about helping and protecting PEOPLE, not the environment? Well the thing is that ACTUAL protection of the environment protects people. blowfish posted:Radiation is scary Yeah the anti-irradiation efforts in the 80s and 90s resulted in food treated as such having to have a clear label of "irradiated food" which scared people off of it and made it commercially unviable in consumer stores (although it still gets used in institutional settings). Things like mandating that anything that might include GM crops must be labeled implicitly seek to do the same to GM foods, with the same ultimate goal of hounding it out of the market. Often with the intention it'll be replaced with "healthy organic" food (which is in no way any healthier or better for the enviroment).
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
Radiation is contagious; if you spray vegetables with radiation then you increase the public's chance of catching radiation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:EDIT: And seriously, anti-irradiation!? Are you loving kidding me? How far does this poo poo have to go before folks are justified in saying, "take a loving science class"? Don't shake hands with someone who might have been in a car wreck, tested positive for tuberculosis, had a dentist check up, anything like that. They were zapped with evil radiation and that goo can get on you! People can be fun in groups, can't they? Install Windows posted:Things like mandating that anything that might include GM crops must be labeled implicitly seek to do the same to GM foods, with the same ultimate goal of hounding it out of the market. Often with the intention it'll be replaced with "healthy organic" food (which is in no way any healthier or better for the enviroment). You know, I'm split on this. On one hand, I thought the MSG scare was completely retarded but apparently it was scary enough for some people to have it as a selling point to them on specific foods. I was too young to really understand what the fuss was about when that story was being spread around, I just remember it being a big deal because some dude did one study or something to that effect that it might have long term health issues. To be honest, I never looked up any peer studies to confirm or dispute this. I just remember the "60 Minutes" piece on it and that even today, some random foods are all happy to proclaim "NO MSG!" despite the fact that MSG wouldn't even make that particular food taste better anyway. So in relation to GMO labeling, I get where they're coming from, especially when you add in the FDA members who used to work for companies that develop and distribute GMO seeds. Those two things together seem plausibly fishy to the uninformed. On the other hand, Growing up and watching local news purport stories that seemed to have a good effect or bad effect of random veggies and fruits seemed popular and it the impression it left was, "Well, I'm gonna die anyway, so what?" They'd run stories (none of these are real examples, just generic poo poo you'd see on them) like "Broccoli can be bad for your eyes. Film at 11" and "Cheese...is it really safe? Film at 11." It was like they went down a grocery list and wanted to find some bad aspect backed up with one flimsy study by a scientist or two who had names the anchormen couldn't even pronounce so that all food was bad to the point it might have evolved into this had it kept going: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeTJFzdvS40 GMOs are just another step on that never ending ladder to nowhere in particular. On a similar note, the latest I heard on the 'battle against GMO' war front is that the FDA just approved higher amounts of pesticides can be used on GMOs. Subsequently, the anti-GMO crowd eyes exploded and now they're all blind which means even if the food was labeled, they still can't tell until they push for braille labels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
hseiken posted:On one hand, I thought the MSG scare was completely retarded but apparently it was scary enough for some people to have it as a selling point to them on specific foods. Yeah, but we don't have a law requiring that anything that so much as might contain MSG be labeled as such, even though there are some actual known health risks related to high consumption of MSG (specifically, for people with diabetes). Companies are already free to pimp their no-GMO foods without requiring that everyone else label their products with "Warning: May contain GMO ingredients". A company can claim that their gimmick is "better" than another company's all they want - they shouldn't get to attempt to use force of law to make another company use phrasing that by its very nature implies that the lack of that gimmick makes their product inferior to the baseline.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 06:17
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Yeah, but we don't have a law requiring that anything that so much as might contain MSG be labeled as such, even though there are some actual known health risks related to high consumption of MSG (specifically, for people with diabetes). Companies are already free to pimp their no-GMO foods without requiring that everyone else label their products with "Warning: May contain GMO ingredients". A company can claim that their gimmick is "better" than another company's all they want - they shouldn't get to attempt to use force of law to make another company use phrasing that by its very nature implies that the lack of that gimmick makes their product inferior to the baseline. I'm not sure I understand the argument there. One one hand you're saying non-GMO foods can proudly display that. But as we've seen recently, there have been legislation and lawsuits in similar situations of no-hormone-in-the-cows milk. From Wikipedia: quote:In 2003, Oakhurst was faced with a lawsuit from Monsanto over Oakhurst's label on its milk cartons that said "Our farmer's pledge: no artificial hormones," referring to the use of bovine somatotropin (rBST), a drug that increases milk production and that Monsanto sells.[3] Monsanto argued that the label implied that Oakhurst milk was superior to milk from cows treated with rBST, which harmed Monsanto's business.[3] The two companies settled out of court, and it was announced that Oakhurst would add the word "used" at the end of its label, and note that the US FDA claims there is no major difference between milk from rBST-treated and non rBST-treated cows.[4] So there indeed was at one point what one might consider a case where a company was 'made an example of' so to speak that if you try to label yourselves in order to separate yourself from us, we're going to come after you because we have the money to do so. This also differs because MSG is natural. It's not science altered nature, it's simply nature. Whereas GMO is altering nature (patents have been sought out to secure the gene manipulation of specific seeds.. http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2013/05/28/monsanto-v-bowman-patents-on-gmo-seeds/) so the direct competition IS nature, not the inclusion of nature or the non inclusion of nature as an ingredient. I think I said what I meant to...I will clarify anything that's muddy. I am poo poo at explaining what I mean sometimes. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
hseiken posted:From Wikipedia: This is drifting a bit from the thread since it's discussing the lovely business practices of agribusiness, and not the horseshit pesudoscience people counterproductively cite as evidence for their awfulness. Still, I can't help but notice the similarity with the idea of allowing companies to label their products as non-GMO or not. Mandatory labeling of GMO foods seems like jumping the shark since we don't have any real connection between ill effects and GMO food on the consumer end. Of course, MSG is a known allergen, and is marked on foods that contain it. Same as wheat, soy, egg, peanut, etc... ingredients. As far as I know, nobody has been proven allergic to foods just because they're GMO in origin. But I do agree. Agribusiness is on par with military contractors and insurance companies in the lovely'n'shady practices department.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 06:40
|
|
|
hseiken posted:I'm not sure I understand the argument there. One one hand you're saying non-GMO foods can proudly display that. But as we've seen recently, there have been legislation and lawsuits in similar situations of no-hormone-in-the-cows milk. You're misunderstanding what the case was about. The major issue Monsanto had was that, in their view, Oakhurst was claiming that their milk did not contain any artificial growth hormones. This would be highly misleading if it were true, since milk from rBST treated cows also does not contain artificial growth hormones.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 06:47
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:This is drifting a bit from the thread since it's discussing the lovely business practices of agribusiness, and not the horseshit pesudoscience people counterproductively cite as evidence for their awfulness. Still, I can't help but notice the similarity with the idea of allowing companies to label their products as non-GMO or not. Mandatory labeling of GMO foods seems like jumping the shark since we don't have any real connection between ill effects and GMO food on the consumer end. I was merely referencing the issues of lawsuits as I think they inadvertently give fuel to the fires that pseudoscience crazies start. They think the lawsuits automatically mean that they're right, so in that I think sometimes the law side of things is valid to discuss. It's like when a lawsuit which prevents bigotry based on the bible gives fuel to the fire of anti-government intervention of whatever (abortions, gay rights, etc.). Because a lawsuit ruled against them, it MUST be because there's tyranny or foul play...it's a loose analogy, but I think it's the same game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:You're misunderstanding what the case was about. The major issue Monsanto had was that, in their view, Oakhurst was claiming that their milk did not contain any artificial growth hormones. This would be highly misleading if it were true, since milk from rBST treated cows also does not contain artificial growth hormones. I think that's splitting hairs, to be frank. Obviously the milk will not contain the hormones injected into the cows, presumably. But it was still an indication that the financial impacts were what Monsanto were worried about as far as the labeling which supported my point that the pseudoscience people and organic crazies think there's dark mysterious meaning to these lawsuits. I don't think consumers really think a lot about what goes into their food in this respect, but it seemed as if Monsanto was battling on exactly what you said: The milk products were identical. However, some people do not want to buy products with such science applied to them and I think that's a right they should be able to exercise. Whether they're superstitious, against bio-engineering or what ever their issue is, it's a consumer right to know exactly what you're getting. One can choose to ignore it if they want, or they can be anal, but the choice isn't there until the label reflects such differences in production. But yes, this is delving into the 'rear end in a top hat vegan bullshit' side of things...and that's a place no one cares to visit. Food Nazi's...the only people you should be weary of when eating out...Luckily, most restaurants provide the silverware before the food, so you have a stabbing utensil ready when they start talking to the wait staff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 06:56
|
|
|
hseiken posted:I think that's splitting hairs, to be frank. Obviously the milk will not contain the hormones injected into the cows, presumably. But it was still an indication that the financial impacts were what Monsanto were worried about as far as the labeling which supported my point that the pseudoscience people and organic crazies think there's dark mysterious meaning to these lawsuits. And people have been able to buy labeled milk is from cows not treated by rbST sense 1994. What you can't do is lie an say that your milk is hormone free or that your milk is rbST free. If you are going to label your milk you have to follow the federal and state guidelines just like every other food label.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 07:31
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:More than that, it really isn't true. Maybe the historical socialist party was pro-science, but current American socialists are largely in lockstep with the pro-environment/anti-science group. Exceptions to that are largely individual, not institutional. Without getting into the rest of the debate, but I had to laugh at this. Socialist party USA is one of a few offshoots from the Socialist Party of America, which in turn was one of several left wing parties in the US. I mean, it may very well be that American socialists really believe anti-science stuff, but using as an example one of the smaller splinters of a small party that was already part of a pretty splintered movement isn't the best way to defend that position.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 08:02
|
|
|
I feel that GMO's should be labelled but I would prefer to know what genes were involved rather than its status as a GMO or not. I do not care for traits which are benign by themselves (like transferring resistance) but I may like to know if BT or another insecticidal measure was used. I also can totally respect someones wish to eat unmodified foods, it is a reason why heritage grains are still commercially grown. Fear of market backlash though is a major concern, and the consumer does not want to absorb the higher risk inherit in organic agriculture (lack of reactive control) on a industrial scale nor make it easier to reach markets (supply chain failures to market the full rotation). These same issues also plague conventional production in different degrees. I'll give you a weird example of consumer push back on organic agriculture. An organic producer I had the privilege of meeting swore that if you grew oats and peas together, the total system would be synergistically greater than if you grew them in rotation. The peas would provide nitrogen for the oats and the oats would provide greater weed control and a stalk for the peas to climb. Complete canopy closure, great for the soil, higher yields but you can't sell it. Combine harvester technology doesn't exist to completely separate the oats from the peas and organic processors would not accept his product due to this contamination. What the dockage on that would be, I do not personally know or if there would even be dockage. The farmer made it sound like he was flat out rejected. This is a second hand account, so I cannot verify it and may be misremembering it, but it showcases a specific example where organic produce is purported to be rejected by the marketplace. Farmers will grow exactly what the consumer wants, provided it is a fair shake. There is no real loyalty to any system, just so long as it pays the bills. As it stands for many farmers, the benefits of switching to an organic production system do not make of for the loss of pesticide and seed savings of a GMO platform. Little, as far as I am aware, is being done by the public to mitigate this. This makes pushes for change in agriculture sound hollow to me and not ground in reality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 11:43
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Without getting into the rest of the debate, but I had to laugh at this. So could you provide a counterexample of a Green or Socialist or Labor party offshoot in the United States that is supportive of the sciences or doesn't at least spout bullshit? Because the rhetoric you criticize is par for the course for any generalist or environmentalist group I've ever seen and your comments come off as really loving lazy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
duck monster posted:The problem with the whole anti-science = environmentalism = left thing is its conflating some loosely related camps into a tightly related camp that doesnt exist. Despite admitting there is no coherent movement, you've still managed to separate people who take part in the GMO debate into three coherent movements. duck monster posted:oh sure you'll find the angries that are trying to be all three and mash socialism ,anti-science giberish and environmentalism into one big mystifying pot, but those people are boorish simple idiots who thrive off anger, not reason. Neither humans nor animals use reason in their arguments. As countless psychological studies have shown, reason is at best a way of justifying conclusions we have already reached through our emotions, which tend to be more accurate anyway. TheFuglyStik posted:This is drifting a bit from the thread since it's discussing the lovely business practices of agribusiness, and not the horseshit pesudoscience people counterproductively cite as evidence for their awfulness. Still, I can't help but notice the similarity with the idea of allowing companies to label their products as non-GMO or not. Mandatory labeling of GMO foods seems like jumping the shark since we don't have any real connection between ill effects and GMO food on the consumer end. What's wrong with labelling GMO food as GMO when we label organic food as organic? Shouldn't the consumer be allowed to decide which product he wants to buy? amoraxkaka fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Sep 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
amoraxkaka posted:What's wrong with labelling GMO food as GMO when we label organic food as organic? Shouldn't the consumer be allowed to decide which product he wants to buy? It's not required by law for food to be labeled as organic, just that if they are labeled as organic they have to follow certain guidelines.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
amoraxkaka posted:What's wrong with labelling GMO food as GMO when we label organic food as organic? Shouldn't the consumer be allowed to decide which product he wants to buy? It's a warning label for food products that have been shown time and time again to be perfectly safe for human consumption. It's based on the opinions of people who don't know their loving science.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:It's a warning label for food products that have been shown time and time again to be perfectly safe for human consumption. It's based on the opinions of people who don't know their loving science. Plus the term GMO is so broad as to almost be useless as a descriptor. Sure, it tells you that a gene has been inserted, but the genes that people might want to use come from such diverse sources and do so many different things that classifying them all together as one thing is completely unhelpful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
And I'd like to note that we do already have a warning label for GM foods that might cause harm - there is a USDA label that's mandatory for GM foods that would introduce an allergen from another crop e.g. some kind of tomato that added a peanut gene that would make people allergic to peanuts allergic to it. That has to be labeled.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
It'd be cool if you had to make a whole gene sequence available when you sold produce, but I think organic farmers should have to do it too if GMO farmers do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's not required by law for food to be labeled as organic, just that if they are labeled as organic they have to follow certain guidelines. Most food products also come with a description of the ingredients used and how much of a percentage of an average person's GDA or DRI the food will form. As far as I'm aware they're required by law to do this. Why should GMO foods be different? Solkanar512 posted:It's a warning label for food products that have been shown time and time again to be perfectly safe for human consumption. It's based on the opinions of people who don't know their loving science. Shouldn't consumers still be allowed to choose which type of food they would prefer? Most of the people on this forum would say people who choose to buy bibles 'don't know their loving science' either, but they're still allowed to buy them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
amoraxkaka posted:Most food products also come with a description of the ingredients used and how much of a percentage of an average person's GDA or DRI the food will form. As far as I'm aware they're required by law to do this. Why should GMO foods be different? GM corn is corn. That's uh, kind of a checkmate there buddy. If you're scared of GM crops for irrational reasons then you can buy overpriced "organic" food all you want.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
amoraxkaka posted:Shouldn't consumers still be allowed to choose which type of food they would prefer? Most of the people on this forum would say people who choose to buy bibles 'don't know their loving science' either, but they're still allowed to buy them. Yes, consumers should be allowed to choose which type of food they would prefer. They just don't necessarily have the right to compel every company to inform their arbitrary preferences. There are some people who don't want to read things where religion is presented in a positive light; that doesn't somehow mean Barnes&Noble should slap a "contains religious morality" sticker on things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:So could you provide a counterexample of a Green or Socialist or Labor party offshoot in the United States that is supportive of the sciences or doesn't at least spout bullshit? Because the rhetoric you criticize is par for the course for any generalist or environmentalist group I've ever seen and your comments come off as really loving lazy. The entire "is the left anti-science" argument is nothing more than petty tribalism (as would a "is the right anti science"), and if we are going by "really loving lazy," learning a bit about the American left is not really that hard. We can start by how very few actual leftwing parties exist, in no small part because of a harsh crackdown on any and all traditional left, anarchist or labor affiliated parties. And as such it is meaningless to claim that any of them represent the "left." But if you are really that interested in it, neither the communist party, USA nor the social democrats, USA have single mention of GMOs in their websites. Not that they are actually representative of the left either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:The entire "is the left anti-science" argument is nothing more than petty tribalism (as would a "is the right anti science"), and if we are going by "really loving lazy," learning a bit about the American left is not really that hard. We can start by how very few actual leftwing parties exist, in no small part because of a harsh crackdown on any and all traditional left, anarchist or labor affiliated parties. And as such it is meaningless to claim that any of them represent the "left." But if you are really that interested in it, neither the communist party, USA nor the social democrats, USA have single mention of GMOs in their websites. Not that they are actually representative of the left either. How loving long have you been on this forum to make that claim that I don't know a thing about what passes for the left in the United States? Have bothered to check my loving posting history?! Now answer my loving question.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:How loving long have you been on this forum to make that claim that I don't know a thing about what passes for the left in the United States? Have bothered to check my loving posting history?! Am I supposed to be impressed by your posting history or any of that? None of that makes posting a passage from the smallest offshoot from one of the smallest leftist parties in the US evidence of any crap. As for your "loving question," perhaps reread my post, because there are two examples of parties with platforms that say nothing about gmos. joepinetree fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Sep 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Am I supposed to be impressed by your posting history or any of that? None of that makes posting a passage from the smallest offshoot from one of the smallest leftist parties in the US evidence of any crap. As for your "loving question," perhaps reread my post, because there are two examples of parties with platforms that say nothing about gmos. Then you're ignoring the efforts and public statements of major actors in the environmentalism movement. The whole loving point about discussing anti-science movements on the left is to call out to the science folks who are busy yelling at the right about climate change deniers and creationists and point out that "hey, we have some loving house cleaning here". So in essence, it's the opposite of tribalism because most of the folks here are willing to criticize folks who otherwise agree with them on other policy issues. But please, go on and tell us all about how these problems simply don't exist by redefining them away, I can't wait to hear about it!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Am I supposed to be impressed by your posting history or any of that? None of that makes posting a passage from the smallest offshoot from one of the smallest leftist parties in the US evidence of any crap. As for your "loving question," perhaps reread my post, because there are two examples of parties with platforms that say nothing about gmos. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Sep 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:GM corn is corn. That's uh, kind of a checkmate there buddy. This. If you label stuff as GMO the buyers will be uninformed and that will screw GMO use. At the end of the day it's corn and there is no danger to the consumer (in fact it's likely less dangerous than the 'normal' corn because lower pesticide use etc.). If the populace was more informed, sure, tell them it's GMO. At this stage, people still think GMO gives you cancer (literally), so labelling is not a wise option. 10-20 years down the line, if the government wants to make a general advisory that 'hey, 90% of the corn you guys ate was GMO and clearly didn't make you sick. This was backed by hard science. Now you see how good GMO are, we can label them so you can preferentially select them in stores'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 18:06 |
|
amoraxkaka posted:Most food products also come with a description of the ingredients used and how much of a percentage of an average person's GDA or DRI the food will form. As far as I'm aware they're required by law to do this. Why should GMO foods be different? Not if they're making dumb choices out of ignorance. Giving people input into scientific decisions leads to things like falling vaccination rates and tooth decay due to a lack of fluoride. We can't improve humanity if Luddited are allowed to gently caress things up.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 04:05
|
|
