sweeperbravo posted:

Is it one dick, sucking on apples, or is it apples which suck dick? The ambiguity adds to the value

Phanatic posted:

Ruth's Chris in Ann Arbor ran a promotion for the Michigan game: For every point by which Michigan beat Rutgers, you get a 1% discount.

Michigan wound up beating Rutgers by a score of 78-0.

Still might not be a disaster, buried in the "some conditions apply" fine print it turns out that the discount is capped at 50% and only applies to food, not alcohol. But a 50% food discount still has to put some hurting on a steakhouse.

http://i.imgur.com/sRHCKLZ.gifv

Choco1980 posted:

My dad took advantage of this deal this past week. Apparently it was still an expensive steak at half off. Also apparently the U of M coach was eating there that night too.

Alaois posted:

https://twitter.com/CoachJim4UM/status/786010335677263872

Tofu Terry posted:

I think this is the thread this fits in. My peanut butter doesn't have an expiration date but it does say "PARTIALLY PRODUCED WITH GENETIC ENGINEERING"

Non Serviam posted:

What country is this? Unless they're required by law to label GMOs, I can't see why they'd think saying that would be a good marketing move.

Tofu Terry posted:

I'm in the US, in Georgia specifically. I've never seen this sort of label before but also I got it at one of those "overstock or about to expire" grocery stores.

salty fries make me cry posted:

That makes sense, I've never seen that brand but those units were probably meant for sale in Vermont and they printed it on too many or something. No other states have implemented a law like that yet that I'm aware of.

Krispy Kareem posted:

The Vermont law got co-opted by a last minute watered down federal law. So who knows what that label is about. Maybe the product is also sold in Europe.

stringball posted:

Why do people loving care about gmo's so much? Is there any case ever where gmos ave even does something bad or are people afraid of "playing god with my food and injecting chemicals into it"?

Waffleman_ posted:

People see the word "genetic" and think scientists are shooting apples with mutation rays when we've been genetically engineering food for centuries with selective breeding of produce.

Phanatic posted:

We've also done it by shooting apples with mutation rays. Literally: exposing a bunch of seeds to gamma radiation sources to induce mutations and keeping and breeding the ones that germinated with useful traits. There's stuff on supermarket shelves that was created in exactly that way.

Bertrand Hustle posted:

Why would you name your website after just one of the products you sell?

stringball posted:

Why do people loving care about gmo's so much? Is there any case ever where gmos ave even does something bad or are people afraid of "playing god with my food and injecting chemicals into it"?

I love this picture though

stringball posted:

I wonder if the FDA can/will do something like making the non-gmo labels also include a disclaimer that non-gmo foods aren't proven to be any healthier for or safer for you

Considering they make people put disclaimers on medication and such and aren't afraid to put labels like that on snake oils and other bogus supplements

The outcry would be hilarious but I don't know if they care about the massive shitstorm that would follow

Phlegmish posted:

I think I've seen two somewhat legitimate arguments against genetic engineering. The first is that the companies involved are unscrupulous, which is true but doesn't really relate to the process or the concept of GMOs as such. The second is that it's leading to increased frailty and unsustainability of the plant species involved, beyond the scale of the gradual genetic engineering of the past centuries and millennia, because they are only selecting for things like size and taste without regards to anything else. This actually strikes me as a legitimate concern.

But yes, 90% of the opposition comes from a poor understanding of genetics.

Phanatic posted:

We've also done it by shooting apples with mutation rays. Literally: exposing a bunch of seeds to gamma radiation sources to induce mutations and keeping and breeding the ones that germinated with useful traits. There's stuff on supermarket shelves that was created in exactly that way.

Which is funny because GMO opponents claim genetic modification is more unpredictable unlike the older tools of selection and breeding, when in fact it's far more precise and controllable then stuff like atomic gardens that they have no problem with.

Ralph Crammed In posted:

It was censored, but still. Aside from the problematic nature of having cultivators of apples advertise, as a woman I now associate that brand of apple with the selfish eagerness of chucklefucks trying to get their dicks sucked. I hope there's a alternate ad were some chicklefuck comes out and goes "I like three things - (apple brand), caramel, and getting my box eaten out!"

Phanatic posted:

We've also done it by shooting apples with mutation rays. Literally: exposing a bunch of seeds to gamma radiation sources to induce mutations and keeping and breeding the ones that germinated with useful traits.

Pastry of the Year posted:

Pastry of the Year posted:

stringball posted:

I love this picture though

AgentF posted:

Helps with getting your dick sucked?

Phlegmish posted:

because they are only selecting for things like size and taste without regards to anything else. This actually strikes me as a legitimate concern.

ArcMage posted:

They're also selecting for things like herbicide resistance and natural pesticide production, which often involves inserting genes from totally different plant species, and I was under the impression that that was the major pushback.

Waci posted:

This would be a legitimate concern if it had any basis in reality. If.


That would be the "poor understanding of genetics" part, yes.


Edit: Just for the sake of it, the most common actually-based-on-reason argument against large-scale GMO farming is that plants engineered for drought resistance, natural pesticides, et cetera would have a competitive advantage against wild plants and become a highly aggressive invasive species if they spread into the wild. There are some ideas on how to compensate for that outside of the usual measures for dealing with invasive species (like a modification that would make pollination dependent on human activity or something else found on farms but not outside them), but those solutions of course have their own varied drawbacks (eg. depending on artificial pollination is unfeasibly labour intensive for grasses, but may work fine for something with a smaller number of individual plants).

BattleMaster posted:

They throw a fit about "frankenfoods" but the real horrors are "natural" like how broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, and cauliflower are all the same species and how bananas can no longer breed without human assistance.

Phimosissy posted:

I prefer the toothless dick sucking apples personally

Slime posted:

Ever wonder why you don't really see many farmed plants in the wild? That's because plants that we farm can't actually compete with wild plants and already rely on humans to provide the proper conditions for them. Traits like herbicide resistance are a disadvantage in the wild if nobody's spraying herbicide everywhere. GMOs will be basically the same way.