Install Windows posted:It is an inherent evil, as food labeling is supposed to only tell you about things that are bad. If Oklahoma holds a voter referendum, sure, and when it gets overturned due to first amendment concerns I would support that as well. The federal government is set up in such a way that it allows for these sorts of things to happen. We call it democracy. Mo_Steel posted:Can you elaborate on how your conclusion follows your premise? Something being democratically decided upon seems utterly irrelevant to it being "evil" for almost any definition you can put for evil outside of "unsupported by the majority" so I'm not really seeing the connection you're making here. I don't think that labeling GMOs will have negative society impacts that will outweigh the desire of the voters. While I disagree with the people who support those movements in a lot of places, I'm understanding of why so many leftists take a hardline anti-gmo/nukes/technology stance and ultimately it's not the left holding back progress in that arena, but large corporate interests.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
down with slavery posted:The red tape there exists independently of GMO activists and would be there regardless because large corporations everywhere make sure red tape is as hosed up as possible to protect their market. Whether or not it would still be there regardless (there would likely be some, I grant you, but not nearly to the same degree), the primary impetus of excessive regulation is in this case fear of the technology rather than entrenched interests attempting to maintain their market position. down with slavery posted:I never said it was a good idea. I said that if the people democratically decide to add GMO labels, it is not an inherent evil. It's a terrible idea that sets a terrible precedent. If you introduce warning labels for stuff that doesn't need them, either people go into panic mode at the sight of them or they start to ignore warning labels entirely. Neither of these is a good thing, and in that such labeling causes harm with no corresponding benefit, it can in fact be said to be an inherent evil.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 17:38
|
|
Technogeek posted:Whether or not it would still be there regardless (there would likely be some, I grant you, but not nearly to the same degree), the primary impetus of excessive regulation is in this case fear of the technology rather than entrenched interests attempting to maintain their market position. I completely disagree, the regulation was there long before the GMO activists were quote:It's a terrible idea that sets a terrible precedent. If you introduce warning labels for stuff that doesn't need them, either people go into panic mode at the sight of them or they start to ignore warning labels entirely. Neither of these is a good thing, and in that such labeling causes harm with no corresponding benefit, it can in fact be said to be an inherent evil. This I also disagree with and I think the dangers of GMO labelling are being overstated egregiously in this thread.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
I agree with down with slavery to be honest. Sometimes it's necessary to protect people from themselves, but this is not one of these cases. If other people want to avoid eating GMO plants (for whatever reason), why make it difficult for them to make that choice? It doesn't hurt them, it doesn't hurt you. The reason for wanting the capability to make that choice is irrelevant, what matters is that this is a choice that they should be allowed to make themselves since neither option presents an inherent health/safety risk nor effects others besides themselves. Preventing them from being able to make such a choice is just being a dick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:This I also disagree with and I think the dangers of GMO labelling are being overstated egregiously in this thread. I know, it's certainly not like there's precedent for the mandatory labeling of certain foodstuffs based on fear and misunderstanding of the technology used in their production leading to said technology being abandoned despite it having significant benefits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 17:44
|
|
Technogeek posted:I know, it's certainly not like there's precedent for the mandatory labeling of certain foodstuffs based on fear and misunderstanding of the technology used in their production leading to said technology being abandoned despite it having significant benefits. Please do better than the link to a Wikipedia page that doesn't support what you're saying in any way. What societal cost did we incur as a result of labeling irradiated food? Is it worth fighting against the democratic wishes of the people over?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
Technogeek posted:I know, it's certainly not like there's precedent for the mandatory labeling of certain foodstuffs based on fear and misunderstanding of the technology used in their production leading to said technology being abandoned despite it having significant benefits. Claiming that "please allow us to make a choice wether or not to eat this food" equals (or has to imply) that "please abandon this technology" is moving the goal posts. It is possible to add labeling without that leading to the technology behind it being abandoned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
When has labeling ever been used for reasons other than health scares? I can't think of an example. HFCS free, gluten free, fat free, MSG free, etc. Every single time these are used to imply that the food is "healthier". They are a marketing tactic actively exploit a decision that someone has already made against that component in the food. They're often only technically true, and are useless for health or food safety.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 17:49
|
|
Xombie posted:When has labeling ever been used for reasons other than health scares? I can't think of an example. HFCS free, gluten free, fat free, MSG free, etc. Every single time these are used to imply that the food is "healthier". They are a marketing tactic actively exploit a decision that someone has already made against that component in the food. Tobacco products are the first that come to mind (still a health scare, but a legitimate one) Personally, I like the idea of more explicit labels (and not just in regards to GMOs)
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I don't think that labeling GMOs will have negative society impacts that will outweigh the desire of the voters. While I disagree with the people who support those movements in a lot of places, I'm understanding of why so many leftists take a hardline anti-gmo/nukes/technology stance and ultimately it's not the left holding back progress in that arena, but large corporate interests. Does this hold the same way in reverse: if voters vote to not label GMOs and then experts working for the state decide to label them, should they not be labeled or should they be labeled? Whether or not large corporate interests are causing issues in the same field is utterly irrelevant to whether or not using direct democracy to decide product labeling guidelines is a good or bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Tobacco products are the first that come to mind (still a health scare, but a legitimate one) That's not labeling of a specific component in a food, though. The purpose of those is explicitly to dissuade people from using the product at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 17:54
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Does this hold the same way in reverse: if voters vote to not label GMOs and then experts working for the state decide to label them, should they not be labeled or should they be labeled? Not labelled. I don't ever think this would happen though, it's unlikely that people who want GMOs to be labelled would ever get elected if the voters were so strongly opposed. But I don't see a problem with it if it were to happen. quote:Whether or not large corporate interests are causing issues in the same field is utterly irrelevant to whether or not using direct democracy to decide product labeling guidelines is a good or bad thing. I'm saying that it's neither a good or bad thing, it's just a thing that the people can do and I believe having that power is not a bad thing. Xombie posted:That's not labeling of a specific component in a food, though. The purpose of those is explicitly to dissuade people from using the product at all. Fair enough, allergy labels?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
Walh Hara posted:I agree with down with slavery to be honest. There is already a labeling that assures you there is no GMO in your food: it is USDA Organic. The choice is already there to be made. So quit it with your bullshit about choosing here, you can already choose not to. Xombie posted:When has labeling ever been used for reasons other than health scares? Mandatory food labeling? All the time. Mostly the only mandatory labeling you see on foods these days are things like warnings for things in foods that can pose danger to certain subsets of the population. For example, things containing aspartame must have the warning that it is dangerous for people with the condition "phenylketonuria" because digestion of it produces a chemical that is safe for most of the population but can't be handled by those people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Fair enough, allergy labels? No one is allergic to GMO's, though. That's a pretty different circumstance, since it isn't meant to inform the general public, it's meant for allergy suffers who are explicitly looking for it. Gluten free went from the back of the package to the front when a bunch of people up and decided that gluten is bad for you (for questionable reasons). The anti-GMO movement is far more akin to a "front of the package" demand than a "back of the package" one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Please do better than the link to a Wikipedia page that doesn't support what you're saying in any way. That people tend to avoid irradiated food because ATOMZ? If you insist. Here's a thing from the USDA's Economic Research Service: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib-agricultural-information-bulletin/aib757.aspx down with slavery posted:What societal cost did we incur as a result of labeling irradiated food? We lost (insofar as it has a greatly reduced commercial availability for the average person) a means of extending shelf life without using preservatives, thus resulting in higher food prices. down with slavery posted:What societal cost did we incur as a result of labeling irradiated food?Is it worth fighting against the democratic wishes of the people over? Democracy is not a divine command that nothing else matters because WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Whether or not mandatory labeling does more harm than good is not a question where the answer changes because of how many people vote for it being one or the other. Walh Hara posted:Claiming that "please allow us to make a choice wether or not to eat this food" equals (or has to imply) that "please abandon this technology" is moving the goal posts. It is possible to add labeling without that leading to the technology behind it being abandoned. Fair enough, "abandoning" was something of an exaggeration. It would significantly reduce availability, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Xombie posted:When has labeling ever been used for reasons other than health scares? I can't think of an example. HFCS free, gluten free, fat free, MSG free, etc. Every single time these are used to imply that the food is "healthier". They are a marketing tactic actively exploit a decision that someone has already made against that component in the food. They're often only technically true, and are useless for health or food safety. When has labeling ever impacted you in a bad way? Did any of your examples negatively change your life? Again, I really do not understand why so many posters here feel that people are not allowed to make a choice. If the reason why they want to make that choice is stupid/a cause of a health scare, the goal should be to inform them correctly and educate people, preventing labeling does nothing to solve the underlying problem (badly informed people). In the end, it's a choice they should be able to make. If people want to make the wrong choice, you could educate them (but you don't have to, because it does not impact you). edit: Install Windows posted:There is already a labeling that assures you there is no GMO in your food: it is USDA Organic. The choice is already there to be made. Oh, okay, my apologies, I did not know this (due to being a filty European). Walh Hara fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Mar 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 18:01
|
|
Xombie posted:No one is allergic to GMO's, though. That's a pretty different circumstance, since it isn't meant to inform the general public, it's meant for allergy suffers who are explicitly looking for it. Gluten free went from the back of the package to the front when a bunch of people up and decided that gluten is bad for you (for questionable reasons). The anti-GMO movement is far more akin to a "front of the package" demand than a "back of the package" one. I'm not trying to justify the label, just to argue that there are warning labels that exist for a reason and food labeling is not the result of unfounded science 100% of the time. Technogeek posted:That people tend to avoid irradiated food because ATOMZ? If you insist. Here's a thing from the USDA's Economic Research Service: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib-agricultural-information-bulletin/aib757.aspx And this is a problem why? quote:We lost (insofar as it has a greatly reduced commercial availability for the average person) a means of extending shelf life without using preservatives, thus resulting in higher food prices. Why does it have greatly reduced commercial availability for the average person? quote:Democracy is not a divine command that nothing else matters because WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Whether or not mandatory labeling does more harm than good is not a question where the answer changes because of how many people vote for it being one or the other. You misunderstand the argument I'm making. Go back and read again. I am not saying that it is a good thing because the people said so. quote:Fair enough, "abandoning" was something of an exaggeration. It would significantly reduce availability, though. Says you
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Walh Hara posted:When has labeling ever impacted you in a bad way? Did any of your examples negatively change your life? I judge thing morally based on their consequences, nothing is a fixed "right" that I will hold above that. If GMO labelling causes people to starve because food is more expensive, then I'm not going to uphold it because "giving people a choice" is not something I value inherently, and is merely a nice thing that has to be weighed against the negatives of doing so. That life-years figure for golden rice seems like a pretty clear consequence to me. In America it would probably be more along the lines of higher food prices, which will hurt the most vulnerable the worst, with unclear benefits outside of that nice feeling of people who want to avoid them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Walh Hara posted:When has labeling ever impacted you in a bad way? Did any of your examples negatively change your life? We're talking about a shift in marketing, which can make significant changes to the food market. "Fat free", for instance, had people convinced that anything with that label was healthier. When in fact that turned out to be the complete opposite of true. Labeling everything doesn't necessarily give people information of substance, and can in fact lead to misinformation. People who are convinced that GMO's are bad can already make an informed decision about where their food comes from without a label. Allergens are the only truly necessary food label. Everything else is just marketing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:I judge thing morally based on their consequences, nothing is a fixed "right" that I will hold above that. If GMO labelling causes people to starve because food is more expensive, then I'm not going to uphold it because "giving people a choice" is not something I value inherently, and is merely a nice thing that has to be weighed against the negatives of doing so. That life-years figure for golden rice seems like a pretty clear consequence to me. In America it would probably be more along the lines of higher food prices, which will hurt the most vulnerable the worst, with unclear benefits outside of that nice feeling of people who want to avoid them. How will labeling GMO food cause (all?) food to become more expensive? How would labeling increase the prises of non-GMO food? How would labeling increase the prises of GMO food? Honestly, "giving people a choice" is only part of the ethical reason why I think labeling is fine, more importantly I just think all requests for information (edit: about food/products) are valid. Witholding information (edit: about food/products) for any reason whatsoever feels wrong to me from an ethical perspective.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Walh Hara posted:How will labeling GMO food cause (all?) food to become more expensive? How would labeling increase the prises of non-GMO food? How would labeling increase the prises of GMO food? The reason that food producers use GMO's is because of a higher yield. If they have to GMO alongside allergens and health scares then people will begin associating GMO as something "bad for you". This means that, from a marketing standpoint, the companies might be better off selling food without using GMO's. That means betting marketing but higher food prices due to lower yield. quote:Witholding information for any reason whatsoever feels wrong to me from an ethical perspective. Just because something is information doesn't mean it is actually informative to any meaningful degree.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
Walh Hara posted:Honestly, "giving people a choice" is only part of the ethical reason why I think labeling is fine, more importantly I just think all requests for information are valid. Witholding information (edit: about food/products) for any reason whatsoever feels wrong to me from an ethical perspective. We shouldn't use the stamp of ideally objective govenment institutions to put focus on something if there is no sound reason to do it. The fact that we can do it and it doesn't directly hurt anybody is irrelevant. We don't put up a new sign or come up with new regulation every time one or more citizens ask for it - we evaluate each demand to determine if it's founded in something concrete and not just feelings or premonitions or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Oh, I was wondering why the office chair I just bought informed me via a helpful label that it is known to the state of California to cause cancer. Way to undercut the impact of the labels on things like tobacco. For those like down with slavery who keep asking why labeling is bad, the artificial controversy causes actual harm. Harm in the form of unused life saving technologies and in the form of making it too controversial to support public research. Calling that "nothing" is absolute bullshit, and needs to be addressed with something more serious than "the D&D hive mind isn't reading my posts". Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Mar 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Walh Hara posted:When has labeling ever impacted you in a bad way? Did any of your examples negatively change your life? The forced warning label on irradiated food drove it out of the mainstream marketplace (because people would see it and think it meant it was radioactive or soemthing similar). This negatively changed everyone's life because food irradiation is an excellent way to preserve and disinfect food without using additional preservatives that might change the flavor/texture, and without straight up cooking it. If we had widespread food irradiation, many of the instances of infected meats and vegetables/fruits over the years wouldn't have happened, since irradiation works quite handily at destroying bacterial contamination. This would have therefore prevented thousands of deaths and millions of illnesses over the timespan. Luckily, irradiation is still somewhat often used for institutional purposes (e.g. food supplies for hospitals, colleges, restaurants), where there is no labeling requirement visible to the end consumer. So its utility still exists there and has likely prevented a lot of deaths and illnesses that would have otherwise occured. Ok then, but seriously it's like right there in foods already. Not to mention that companies that don't practice "organic" but still want to advertise their lack of GMO usage are free to slap "GMO FREE" all over their packaging. There is absolutely no lack of choice to avoid GMOs these days, so arguing for mandatory labeling of it to give the choice is bullshit. Xombie posted:The reason that food producers use GMO's is because of a higher yield. Er, you're neglecting here that all the proposed laws would also require a "contains gmo" label even if the product only sometimes is produced from suppliers using GMO crops. Currently most companies don't choose to use only GMO crops, they'll buy GMO or non-GMO equally likely so long as the then current logistics and prices work for them (so like if you're selling crackers nationwide that you produce in plants in different regions so you don't have to ship them from maine all the way to california, the GMO wheat might be cheaper for your Maine plant one month and non-GMO cheaper in California, then the next month it reverses). So having to switch to non-GMO only suppliers for your product can quite rapidly jack up the costs. Walh Hara posted:Honestly, "giving people a choice" is only part of the ethical reason why I think labeling is fine, more importantly I just think all requests for information (edit: about food/products) are valid. Witholding information (edit: about food/products) for any reason whatsoever feels wrong to me from an ethical perspective. That you might want the information doesn't mean it should be required information on the product. Should we have to put the phone numbers of every farmhand involved with it? That's information about it. Should we have to put what the farmer's favorite band is? Again, that's information about it. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Mar 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Walh Hara posted:How will labeling GMO food cause (all?) food to become more expensive? How would labeling increase the prises of non-GMO food? How would labeling increase the prises of GMO food? Every single vegetable that is consumed that is not Bt or RoundUp Ready that otherwise could have been directly results in greater use of chemical pesticides and requires more land for the same yield. If you think that the existence of labels would not be used as proof to perpetuate negative stigma then you are being willfully obtuse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:
You can't buy irradiated meat, fruit, or vegetables because they're not available due to regulation (most of the European union only allows dried herbs and spices) or because many grocery stores refuse to carry them due to public perception. Edit: People think information from labeling is great, but often refuse to educate themselves on the science behind the label. Anti-GMO activists take advantage of this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
A lot of people have replied with arguments I actually agree with. Clearly I have failed to explain myself, so: I agree completely with the following: - Labeling is unnecessary - The health scare is a bad thing - GMO foods are useful - GMO food is cheaper than non-GMO food - GMO foods should be legally possible - Not all information has to be on the package (although it should be available somewhere if a significant amount of people want access to it) I disagree with the following: - Labeling is a cause of the health scare (instead of the other way around) - Preventing labeling or hiding information is a good way to combat the health scare - Labeling will result in further legislature against GMO foods (no, but the health scare might) - Other people chosing not to eat GMO food is a problem - Other people chosing not to eat GMO food will increase the price of non-GMO food - Other people chosing not to eat GMO food will increase the price of GMO food edit: clearly it is possible to agree/disagree with the same statements as me and conclude there should be no labeling. My only reasons for thinking the request for labeling is legitimate are ethical ones. Walh Hara fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Mar 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Walh Hara posted:I disagree with the following: Stop responding with your feelings and start responding with evidence. People went to great lengths to make analogies to irradiated food, and you're just bashing us over the head with your unsupported opinions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Any argument that justifies mandated GMO labeling on food would be equally valid for mandating labeling of food from farms where the owner really loves Metallica, or mandating labeling of food where the phone number of the company's headquarters includes a "4", or mandating labeling of food where a Muslim was involved, or mandating labeling of food produced on Tuesdays but no other day. And so on. And it again is in direct opposition to the current standards of mandatory labeling, which is that the government should only mandate warning labeling if the product may pose danger to certain populations or the population at large.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Walh Hara posted:A lot of people have replied with arguments I actually agree with. Clearly I have failed to explain myself, so: This is a really lazy, obnoxious, and vacuous way of making an argument. I don't think any of it actually even counts as a complete argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 20:58
|
|
Xombie posted:This is a really lazy, obnoxious, and vacuous way of making an argument. I don't think any of it actually even counts as a complete argument. It's the end result of everyone acting like he's saying that labeling GMOs is a good thing. D&D is nigh incapable of appreciating nuance and many of you will gladly start arguing for pages with someone who agrees with you while completely misunderstanding what they are saying the entire time. Is it that hard to say "yeah, labelling GMOs is a bad idea, but if the people directly ask for it via a voter referendum it's not the end of the world" Instead we get wikipedia articles and fear mongering about how GMO foods will no longer be available because of price increases that may or may not exist. Also still open for takers: down with slavery posted:Also, I'd like one of you to comment on the role our political structures played in creating this vehemently anti-corporation/technology environment you see on the left (that is a relatively new thing) down with slavery fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Mar 17, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Is it that hard to say "yeah, labelling GMOs is a bad idea, but if the people directly ask for it via a voter referendum it's not the end of the world" No one ever said it was the end of the world. We've been saying it's stupid and should not happen. People should not be able to ask for it via voter referendum, for the same reason it's been terrible that voters were able to use referendums to pull poo poo like ridiculous restrictions on tax policy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:It's the end result of everyone acting like he's saying that labeling GMOs is a good thing. D&D is nigh incapable of appreciating nuance and many of you will gladly start arguing for pages with someone who agrees with you while completely misunderstanding what they are saying the entire time. I don't care what he believes, making a list of statements about what you agree/disagree with is totally meaningless. It says absolutely nothing whatsoever about an actual argument. quote:Is it that hard to say "yeah, labelling GMOs is a bad idea, but if the people directly ask for it via a voter referendum it's not the end of the world" Instead we get wikipedia articles and fear mongering about how GMO foods will no longer be available because of price increases that may or may not exist. If people don't agree with you it is either because your argument is wrong or your argument is bad. But whining about people continuing to argue with you isn't going to get you anywhere. Xombie fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Mar 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:It's the end result of everyone acting like he's saying that labeling GMOs is a good thing. D&D is nigh incapable of appreciating nuance and many of you will gladly start arguing for pages with someone who agrees with you while completely misunderstanding what they are saying the entire time. No one's saying 'it's the end of the world' people are saying those voters are stupid and wouldn't be so stupid if not for major groups like Whole Foods being run by idiots who legitimately have no clue about biology.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:It's the end result of everyone acting like he's saying that labeling GMOs is a good thing. D&D is nigh incapable of appreciating nuance and many of you will gladly start arguing for pages with someone who agrees with you while completely misunderstanding what they are saying the entire time. Let me put it this way: If a state, via referendum, votes to label foods containing GMOs, the state government should ignore the vote and refuse to label the foods, as it is a net disservice to the public well-being.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Let me put it this way: If a state, via referendum, votes to label foods containing GMOs, the state government should ignore the vote and refuse to label the foods, as it is a net disservice to the public well-being. I would go as far as to say it would be morally wrong for them to do the labeling. EDIT: Though I guess I'm not discounting the good it would do for the bad that would occur from the loss of faith in government. It is harder to say what is right than I gave it credit for, but I still believe the truth lies with my original statement. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Mar 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Let me put it this way: If a state, via referendum, votes to label foods containing GMOs, the state government should ignore the vote and refuse to label the foods, as it is a net disservice to the public well-being. Really? GMO labeling is the cross that the rule of law should die on? At least the hippies just don't know anything about biology.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 22:51
|
|
Deteriorata posted:if a state, via referendum, votes to label foods containing GMOs, the state government should ignore the vote  yes I was hoping you'd go full monty and call for the overthrow of state referendums.Jeffrey posted:I would go as far as to say it would be morally wrong for them to do the labeling. You are insane. Have I gone crazy? Do we not want to live in a democratic society? You're willing to throw away direct democracy for the people over GMO labels. Think about that.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:
Do you think state referendums should have unlimited scope or something? quote:You are insane. Wait, what? Of course I do not want a direct democracy, since when was that insane? archangelwar fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Mar 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
down with slavery posted:
So you think any referendum passed by the public should become law, without the ramifications of it being considered? How about if they violate state or federal constitutions? The will of the people uber alles?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 22:56
|
|