Eggnogium posted:

I don't know why you quoted me, I don't support GMO labeling and that is my actual reasoning.

Solkanar512 posted:

I'm referring to the past, not the future, and gently caress you for telling me I'm "making poo poo up". Here's the arson case at the UW Center for Urban Agriculture, and here's a field of GMO sugar beets being trampled in Oregon. Looks like I get extra credit for keeping my examples in the PNW. Seriously, how did you not at least know about the UW arson?

quote:

As far as funding for scientific research goes, where do you think that money comes from? Do you think that publicly funded scientific research is completely unaffected by the protests of activists, especially when those protests have, in the past, taken the form of destroying established laboratories and field stations?

Sure, the research will continue, as I previously stated.

quote:

It's really not that loving difficult to understand - publicly funded research only happens with the support of the public. Either they support it and their representatives support it as well, or they don't and what little funding is left has to deal with the added risk of extremists harming their crops and laboratories.

twodot posted:

I think it's better to argue that the information (this food may contain ingredients with any number of genetic modifications) is simply of incapable of helping anyone make a rational decision, rather than argue that people are dummies and will make irrational decisions based on that information.

Baronjutter posted:

http://www.kplu.org/post/study-offshore-fault-where-big-one-originates-eerily-quiet

Looks like we're all going to die in an earthquake soon anyways.

Eggnogium posted:

But that doesn't actually refute the argument that "it's just information so what's the harm?" I'm only against it because I believe its presence wouldn't be neutral but actually misleading.

Ardennes posted:

The issue is obviously it isn't enough to make a honest difference, and even then it doesn't have anything to do with labeling. The arson case was 13 years ago btw, and that was more or less around the aftermath of the Battle of Seattle.

quote:

You are assuming they are all the same people with the same cause, if anything it sounds like you have build up "activists" as a monolithic bloc that burns down buildings in their spare time and they haven't had a free weekend in 13 years! You're scaremongering over eco-terrorists who now and days destroy beets, and even then don't have any real public support.

quote:

There isn't any evidence of food research being shut down in either Oregon or the rest of the country. You are building up this idea that ecoterrorists from the late nineties are about to take over and some how stop research being done when I haven't heard of any push about stopping funding. It is a terrible slippery slope fallacy.

CaptainSarcastic posted:

Well, if you don't consider better taste and texture to be a benefit, I suppose.

Solkanar512 posted:

You're going to have to back up that claim with a bit of evidence, given that this particular ELF cell had been committing arsons since 1996. The field trampling was last year, and that happens a lot more often. Funny, you keep telling me I'm just making things up, but now the problem wasn't that I lied, I just talked about something you found to be "too old". Moving goalposts much?

quote:

I use "activists" and "extremists", the latter being a small but dangerous subset of the former. Even then, you really don't seem to understand the harm being done by destroying active research. Not only do you have to trash all of the work being done there, but you also increase the risk for future study. You see the same sorts of poo poo if you work in a lab that deals with animal testing - you pay for extra security, special safety protocols for employees and so on. It doesn't really matter that "it doesn't happen all that often", because there aren't a whole lot of targets in the first place, and once you have a few high profile hits, you've already done most of your damage. This leads to research in these particular areas being harder to find funding for and more expensive to fund.

quote:

As far as funding for scientific research goes, where do you think that money comes from? Do you think that publicly funded scientific research is completely unaffected by the protests of activists, especially when those protests have, in the past, taken the form of destroying established laboratories and field stations?

quote:

No, I'm not. What I am saying is that advocating for and passing poo poo like this makes GMO research less popular because it wrongly treats it as a dangerous, unnatural technology that is dangerous to the point of needing a warning label.

Ardennes posted:

You are missing the point...again, the issue is that labeling is not going to bring back a multitude of ELF cells to launch a planned attack against research institutions and launch the hippie-apocalypse. My point was never that eco-terrorism has ever happened, but that labeling is actually going to cause it.

quote:

Wait...

quote:

You didn't use extremists, you used activists very clearly. Yeah you are full of it on that point, and yes the fact it happened 13 years ago does matter especially since we know research has happened since but major attacks on facilities haven't. Ultimately if anything you have linked the "protests of activists" with terrorism.

quote:

The issue is it isn't actually clear it would effect research at all even from the perspective of "popularity" which is very nebulous, and even so you should be angry at Monsanto not hippies. Monsanto by coming into Oregon and flooding the measure with money has made it much more than about GMOs. Unfortunately, as these issues going there seems a complete resistance against criticizing Monsanto's clearly abusive and even undemocratic practices.

Buying results doesn't make your cause popular. If anything I was mostly on the fence until I saw Monsanto clearly bought the election and if anything I digging in my heels because of it.

Solkanar512 posted:

No, it's going to promote within the general public the anti-science position that GMOs are somehow dangerous enough to require mandatory labelling, which may incidentally and over time, lead to a small rise in extremist events. More likely it will make them more unpopular, leading to a lack of support for public research. You're the only one talking about a hippie-apocalypse here.

quote:

What in the flying gently caress does any of this have to do with the safety or usefulness of GMO technology? I mean seriously, we're talking about whole species of food crops potentially being wiped out due to pests and the development of cheap and easy insulin and you're mad that Monsanto defended themselves against hippies making poo poo up about them? You do realize that climate change is a thing, and that adapting food crops is kind of a big deal, right?

quote:

If you're so loving mad about Monsanto doing poo poo, then write a loving initiative to stop them from doing said poo poo. Making GMOs look like they're unsafe in the face of an international scientific consensus just to get at Monsanto (which won't give a poo poo because they're one of the largest non-GMO seed sellers in the world and they'll just make their money back there anyway you idiot) will in the long run cause significant harm.

How many people would still be alive today if hippies didn't spread their anti-science bullshit about the irradiation of meat? Does E. coli ring a bell for you? Salmonella? Listeria? It's not a loving holocaust, but there are real and significant consequences.

quote:

Instead of Monsanto, Cascadian GMOs should be grown by worker-run collective farms.

Ardennes posted:

Tying in "irradiation of meat" into it also doesn't work because GMOs aren't a safety issue, just like fluoridation/vaccinations, two other comparisons that were debunked.

Ardennes posted:

It still doesn't pass the smell test especially since if anything extremist events in the past have soured the public to extremism. It is a sequence of events that requires a bunch of giant ifs, which means to me its likelihood is extremely low and that it shouldn't be a focus of discussion.

quote:

The very issue here is that Monsanto gets a pass for pulling poo poo because they're involved with GMOs, they shouldn't get a blank check anymore than a hedge fund or Lockheed-Martin. Buying an election isn't defending themselves, it is clear manipulation.

quote:

I think giving a Monsanto a free pass on other terrible practices is going to provide more harm than the hokey scenario you made you. Tying in "irradiation of meat" into it also doesn't work because GMOs aren't a safety issue, just like fluoridation/vaccinations, two other comparisons that were debunked.

quote:

Monsanto clearly has a vested interest even if they sell plenty of non-gmo seeds as well. Anyway don't sound like you will brook any compromise there is really no point of continue to talk about it especially since you are working on to school yard name calling. Ironically enough I don't even give a poo poo about GMOs but god drat.

Reason posted:

Hey don't ignore the rest of my post. I think that packaging should include everything, not just GMOs. If my cows were dosed with antibiotics my meat package should say so, if they weren't it should also say so. If it doesn't fit on the packaging it should be available on the internet somewhere. I don't think its unfeasible to provide the consumer with the full of extent of what they're buying especially when so much money is already spent on making packaging look pretty so we buy it.

Instead of spending billions of dollars on colors and marketing gimmicks like ORGANIC and ALL NATURAL in big huge letters why not make companies spend that money on giving consumers all the information and letting them make informed decisions about what they're eating? Packaging on food products is poo poo no matter how you look at it and its gotten pretty far out of hand. I haven't really heard an argument against GMO labeling that doesn't boil down to "Mah profits" whining from business, can anyone give an actual argument why consumers having more information is a bad thing over all for an entire community?

Kaal posted:

The folks bringing in irradiation are really just giving you a runaround, btw, since irradiation has never been particularly widespread, and that has little to do with the radura symbol (which very few people are aware of and is seemingly quite inoffensive), and everything to do with irradiation being an expense that doesn't yield immediate corporate profits. For the most part, irradiation costs extra money but doesn't do anything that refrigeration doesn't also do, which is why the only industry that has really gotten into irradiation is the dried spices industry.

Solkanar512 posted:

The security issues of working in our funding the type of lab that has in the past been the target of attack is very real. Ask anyone who works with animals, those places tend to be particularly secure.

By the way, if the extremism has soured public opinion, why are these views so close? Why is the scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs completely ignored for whatever garbage is currently being posted over at natural news.

quote:

A free pass from whom? I think they should certainly have the right to defend themselves when others are screaming about how GMOs are going to be the end of the world, but I don't think it meets the standard of "a free pass".

quote:

Just explain to me how, "if you don't like what Monsanto is doing advocate for laws against that instead of trying to gently caress with legit technology" becomes "giving Monsanto a free pass".

quote:

And yes, the two are similar - backers of a labeling law took advantage of the relative unfamiliarity with a technology, scared people about it due to it being a warning label, and now what could have saved lives isn't a practical option anymore. The fact that the role of a GMO isn't primarily safety doesn't matter - it's still using the same technique of mandating a warning label where it's not needed, and we do make drugs from GMOs, so there's your safety issue.

quote:

So if you don't really give a poo poo about GMOs, why don't you instead focus your discussion on the seemingly limitless horrors of Monsanto instead of this anti-science bullshit? Seriously, if you think big agriculture is bad, and it clearly is, then deal with it head on rather than targeting random poo poo associated with the company.

Ardennes posted:

Politically, my issue isn't that even labeling is a good thing but that buying an election to stop it is a worse thing

twodot posted:

I'm not seeing the problem here. Did someone bribe people? Alter a vote count? Did anyone even lie about the issue (who was anti-labeling)? As far as I can tell your argument is that running effective advertising is bad, but if people are so easily swayed on this issue, I'm not seeing the problem.

Solkanar512 posted:

Further more, if people are indeed so easily swayed by simple messaging, then that makes false warning labels more powerful, not less. All the more reason to shut it down.

Ditocoaf posted:

There are thousands and thousands of pieces of information that could be put on a food label. Millions, even. Everything from the toxicity levels of the soil the food was grown in, to the exact kind of metal used in the processing machines, to the ethnicity of the workers who packaged it.

oxbrain posted:

Just because we can't fit it on a label doesn't mean it's impossible to make that information available. I'd love to be able to find out exactly where my food came from.

Ditocoaf posted:

This seems like a red herring in our debate about legally requiring something on food labels.

twodot posted:

I'm not seeing the problem here. Did someone bribe people? Alter a vote count? Did anyone even lie about the issue (who was anti-labeling)? As far as I can tell your argument is that running effective advertising is bad, but if people are so easily swayed on this issue, I'm not seeing the problem.

Ditocoaf posted:

This seems like a red herring in our debate about legally requiring something on food labels.

Ardennes posted:

Even if Oregon's own laws contribute to it, a corporation flooding an election with money is obviously manipulating the political process to their own ends,

quote:

It is a pretty fundamental issue of how a democracy is run, even if you don't bribe people or dump votes, you can still mangle it through legal channels. Hand waving away corporate money in politics as "effective advertising" I think shows if anything a disdain over democracy.

twodot posted:

This is true, but why is it bad? Do you think Oregon's population was tricked or lied to? A corporation managed to persuade some people that they were right, and I don't see why you think that is a problem, especially when it leads to obviously better policy.

quote:

No, it shows I trust voters to vote their conscience, and I don't mind if people change their minds. Claiming the process was "mangle[d]" suggests the result doesn't match the will of the people, which you haven't substantiated.

Ardennes posted:

Why is it the right of a corporation to get involved in the political process period?

quote:

It is a bad thing because corporations have far more wealth than average citizens and can manipulate a result simple through cash and thats what happened. In this case, it sounds like you got the result you wanted but by embracing that type of disparity in power you have also embraced a much worse problem than a label.

quote:

How do voters know if money is shaping the race? Some people changed their minds because money was obviously pumped into the race, and it didn't have to be very many people. It was mangled because an influx of money that in a regulated democracy wouldn't be there, was and changed the result.

quote:

Either you believe that unlimited donations by corporations are a good thing or just in this case it is okay, but either way it really speaks you can't see an issue here with the democratic process.

oxbrain posted:

Blackberries are the terrorist anchor babies for brambles. No fence can stop them.

After growing up on wild blackberries I tried some from the store. I don't know how they managed to remove all the flavor and sugar, but they did.

twodot posted:

I never said it's a right, I'm asking why you think advertising against labeling is a bad thing.

Wait, is your stance "It is bad that corporations have lots of money"? I mean I agree with that, but if they have lots of money they least they can do is spend it on convincing people to vote for obviously good policy. Reflexively voting against whatever side of a measure has the most money spent on it will not fix the problem (or any problem).

Right, I agree the money spent changed the result, it would be pretty stupid to spend money if you didn't think it didn't at least have a chance of changing the result. My question to you is why is the result changing bad? The money referred to here led people to obviously better beliefs. It's a good thing that people can be persuaded to better positions.

Are you trying to have a conversation on campaign finance laws or on GMO labeling? If I were God-Emperor of the USA, there's a variety of campaign finance laws I would change. On the subject of GMO labeling, I'm fine with unlimited donations, if unlimited donations lead people to the insane stance that GMO labeling is a good idea, that's an education problem, not a campaign finance problem.

Ardennes posted:

So basically because it involved GMO then it is all okay?

quote:

I mean this was suppose to be an election not "education" and the problem with the "education" was it was happening during a political process.

quote:

I mean if you changed campaign finance law, would you have a loophole just for GMOs?

twodot posted:

I am ok with corporations spending money to educate people into correct positions, yes. And I certainly wouldn't vote for idiotic measures just because corporations spent a bunch of money on something good.

Huh? People learn things during elections, this is why we have debates and advertising.

In the God-Emperor scenario I would probably ban ballot initiatives, and I would just force state legislatures to do their job. Even if I allowed them, ballot initiatives are very obviously different than running for office, people already know how to vote "yes" or "no", but when voting for people with names, those people have to build a brand that people will recognize.

Ardennes posted:

Why is it the right of a corporation to get involved in the political process period? It is a bad thing because corporations have far more wealth than average citizens and can manipulate a result simple through cash and thats what happened. In this case, it sounds like you got the result you wanted but by embracing that type of disparity in power you have also embraced a much worse problem than a label.

Solkanar512 posted:

Solkanar512 posted:

Look, I don;t know how the campaigns were run in Oregon, but here in Washington State, you ended up with Whole Foods using this as their mascot:



We're on the same page regarding insane abuses in campaign spending and what not, but to say that they should have no right to defend themselves against garbage like this in the public sphere is a bit much, don't you think? Especially since Whole Foods has a staked interest in selling large amounts of non-GMO/organic food and would love to make their competitors look bad.

If you don't Monsanto taking a pro-GMO side, then who should be allowed to? Also, why aren't you bothered by the outside money that came in to support the pro-labeling side?

mod sassinator posted:

Holy LOL, if that isn't pacific_northwest.jpg I don't know what is. Old Volvo (although Subaru would be better), Northface jackets, frivolous service animal (in a god drat grocery store)... yep it checks out.