|
Trabisnikof posted:Do you consider the USA's ban of UAVs to be "anti-science"? If so, then I'll concede within the framework you're using that if the UAV ban is anti-science than so must be any GMO ban. However, I'd contend that such a monolithic definition of science is both anti-science and detrimental to wise policymaking. ... The USA doesn't have a ban on UAVs, though. What the gently caress are you on about?
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 13:17 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:They have a limit on what sort of UAVs you can legally fly as a hobbyist, not so much a ban. That's not a ban though, that's just reasonabel regulation (for the most part, some of it might be unreasonable). There are rules about what and where and whether you can justify it, but they aren't trying to prevent UAVs from being a thing that exists and banning them across the board. Trabisnikof posted:There are tons of papers showing how economically and scientifically valid UAVs are in terms of use and positive impact. But yet, the FAA hasn't approved them because of excuses, thus it must be an anti-science decision. That's the basic logic to prove that any blanket GMO ban is anti-science, so it seems to hold here. They're both technologies (like the person who brought up the ICE). There's no UAV ban though. If there was one, yeah, it would probably be anti-science, if it were rejected on such grounds unless it had good evidence that drones were causing problems, and even then it might still be plain unreasonable or political or anti-science depending on the justifications. Temporary bans while a regulatory framework is set up or reasonable regulations based around what, who, and where, are fine though and not really analagous. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The FAA says that you need an experimental permit to fly a UAV (except for that recent exemption for movies) unless you're the government. The FAA regulations are not bans. The government is actively using them, which hardly makes them banned. They are allowed for hobbyists within certain limits. They are actively working on a regulatory framework to expand the current allowances for civil uses, and they are allowed for civil uses with an appropriate license. None of this is anti-science behaviour. None of this is knee jerk attempts to destroy and cripple the technology in question. Is it is merely an actual conservative approach to building a regulatory framework, and is a great example for the way Europe would be treating GMOs if they were approaching them very conservatively but also scientifically.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
How many US scientists have argued that scientifically, UAVs can be flown safely, and were summarily fired from their position for their scientific stance being opposed ideologically?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Just because there are people motivated by dumb reasons doesn't mean all decisions made by different people about the same topic are made for the same reasons. Hope that helps! Get back on topic geez. The firing of the scientist IS the actual topic, no matter how far it strayed!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Wait, was this guy seriously arguing we'd have cellphones without a space program?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Well, we probably wouldn't have GPS without a space program, I will grant you that, and GPS is kind of a useful feature on smart phones. But cell phone communication does not require satellites or rocket ships. Hah, yeah, I guess this is true. In my mind, the function of a smart phone is pretty tied in with that though, and I wasn't really thinking of how the "basic" features like calling aren't dependent on it. And a cell phone isn't a smart phone, so my bad. Satellite phones and satellite internet and satellite TV are all pretty big deals though. (Note: Not if you're in Europe or most of the US, admittedly)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Wow, when you get proven wrong on something you really just go full throttle and double down, don't you? Is it really just that hard to admit your statement was inaccurate? You'd build up some good will in terms of people believing you aren't an intentionally dishonest agenda-driven crazy person by doing so.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:I'm actually curious what you think the monarch decline is caused by. Every article posted so far has been very clear on this. Farmers killing milkweed. We also know the solution! More milkweed. The argument isn't over the cause or the solution, it's over the method. Mofabio posted:Anosmoman: I actually agree with everything you say? I feel like the only difference between me and the rest of this thread is that I'm actually willing to entertain the option of banning one certain class of GMOs. Nobody else here is - it's apostasy. Several people here have demonstrated a willingness to entertain that option. I entertain a willingness to entertain that option, and when I began reading your arguments I did in fact entertain that option! But then your arguments were thoroughly destroyed by superior counter-arguments, and I decided that in this case banning a GMO is not a solution. The problem is not in the people reading your arguments - it's in the person making them. And I guess it's the fault of other posters who made better ones, but I can see why you'd be disinclined to complain about other people making more sense than you. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Why did they start killing more milkweed in 1996? See figure 1. :yawn: It's irrelevant. The question at hand is "what is the best way to ensure an increase in milkweed numbers", and this constant harping on irrelevant details is a pretty big part of why you've been getting so thoroughly trounced. Whenever you start arguing over things in a way completely disconnected from that central purpose, your arguments look dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:^^ a lot of papers use 1996 as a baseline Again, none of this is relevant. What's relevant is proving that banning HT will lead to the desired increase in Monarch numbers (and others have pointed out why you've failed to do this) AND, simultaneously, explaining why banning HT is better than Absurd Alhazred posted:keep HT but mandate that farmers reduce glyphosate herbicide use so that milkweed density in farmland rises to the range x-y%
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2015 02:29
|
|
And they probably would, unless it was also banned?
|
Aluminum cans definitely have a taste (like aluminum foil but not anywhere near as strong, not really bad imo) but I don't think it gets into the soda directly in the actual can since it's not there if you pour the canned soda into a cup and drink from the cup. Or maybe the soda itself overwhelms it so you can really only taste it direct from the can and it's not altering the taste of the soda so much as the taste just before and after the soda, I dunno. Never noticed any sort of taste difference between glass and plastic, though smooth glass does have a better mouthfeel than the screwy plastic ridges.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:mods, ban this sick filth. Maybe that's the real problem with GMOs - they've just got that terrible mouthfeel.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Has there any attempt at pro-GMO branding? Calling their products "Scientifically Designed" or "Progress Oriented" or "Intentionally Designed" or some other meaningless word that gives GMO a positive connotation that could be used as an anti-label to counter the anti-GMO "Organic" nonsense?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Not that I've seen so far. The notion is still sufficiently toxic ( Would "Pro-Science" or whatever actually do more harm than good (I assume you're referring to specific, immediate, short-term goods sales here)? I would imagine most people like to see themselves as pro-science. It seems like something they should at least be experimenting with in niche markets, since doing it is literally the only way for things to become less toxic - I don't think I've ever seen any pro-gmo marketing at all, and without it the organics crowd is pretty much inevitably going to win the opinion war. Surely these big GMO companies must have some sort of long term interests they are willing to try and protect even if they risk a minimum of short-term losses?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 18:35
|
|
) that it'd definitely do more harm than good.
|
twodot posted:I think GMOs are better off advertising the actual effect of the modification rather than fact it's modified. "Grown in previously un-arable land due to a new drought resistant breed" seems a lot better than "We applied random science to this food". (This is not a claim such a modification exists) That seems like it would be worthless, where is the emotional satisfaction there? There is none. Organics aren't labelled as "free of GMOs and guaranteed to only grow under blah and blah and use certain blah and blah's" garbage - all details do is make people lose interest. You can't brag about that to your friends. I do think a dual-labeling of some special fel good version of "Sustainable" would be a great value-add though as complementary labeling. Strudel Man posted:I don't think most people do. We live in an era of great distrust of institutions, the institution of science included. If people wanted to see themselves as pro-science, GMO wouldn't be a boogeyman to begin with. The "I loving Love Science" poo poo is big. None of these people actually really give a poo poo about science, it's just tapping into the feel-good ideas associated with it. That would be the goal of the labeling - something for GMO foods to rival the emotional kick from buying organic. Keep it generic, make it feel-goody, let the public build whatever happy associations they want in their mind (like how everyone assumes that organics are completely pesticide and toxin free, pro-science buyers will probably convince themselves pro-science food is healthier because it's designed to be!). Take control of the labeling, so when people think "do I want the prestige of buying Organic among certain social groups" they also have to think "do I want to be seen as being anti-science?" (because right now, most people do not associate organic with anti-science even if it fundamentally is)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm imagining one of those Mac PC commercials: This is it, exactly, except we need a USDA certified Scientific or something. Its about framing, and right now it seems like the pro gmo people have just completely given up on trying to shape the narrative or apply any sort of counterbranding, letting the organic crowd win by default.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'd really like to not address the anti-GMO "natural" obsession with a similarly meaningless "science!" slogan. Industry can mislead, or harm, or kill, just as easily in the other direction. What does that last bit even mean, and why exactly for the first bit if its something that will actually work? Do you somehow see it making things worse, and if so... how?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Anti-GMO messaging only works on low-information consumers with plenty of disposable income to spare on more expensive organic crops. Isn't a the stuff going on in mainland Europe pretty damning evidence this isn't true? It's low information voters that need to be targeted more than simply low information consumers. If you're limiting your scope to the US maybe things are looking alright, but the US isn't the whole world. Ytlaya posted:many people associate "organic"with characteristics like freshness and, thus, good taste. This didn't just magically happen one day - it was something that was actively pursued by a group of people. Ytlaya posted:I don't think most people would find the idea of mixing up their food with scientific progress to be that attractive. History says otherwise. The current rhetorical landscape around food was not always the dominant one. QuarkJets posted:Also, people who mistrust science enough to buy organic aren't going to suddenly favor GMOs just because you put a "certified by science" sticker on the label. That's not really how science works anyway; you can't say "this is definitely healthy". That's not how "organic" works either, but the anti-gmo folks didn't let them stop them. The point is to disrupt the organic marketing and political mindshare campaign by providing a meaningful counter-narrative. (and yes, some portion of them will, because a portion of non-dedicated organic buyers simply want the "best" and there's no counter-narrative to the organic narrative that they are, in fact, the best) Discendo Vox posted:I invite you to the other half of my world. The opposite of the natural fallacy is no more good, and no more meaningful, than the natural fallacy itself. The goal is education and information, not facilitation of false marketing. I'm aware that it's a cargo cult. And the labeling would, sure, promote the scientific fallacy to the idiots that are prone to embracing fallacies - but it could also be a useful tool for helping them make better choices if, like with the organic label, additional positive requirements were rolled into it. Most importantly, anyone buying into the organic labeling isn't going to respond to "education and information" - you don't convince someone with facts, you convince someone by giving them an emotional justification for being receptive to facts (and then providing those facts)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Also, there's the price issue I think I mentioned. People naturally tend to assume more expensive things are of higher quality. Price is arguably a bigger factor than the organic label when talking about the sort of consumers who always want the highest quality products. So price the science-labelled foods for more money, and sell the equivalent unlabelled foods for cheaper like they are now? I'm not proposing that all foods containing GMO's have the label... just carving out a market niche with a handful of premium-priced ones.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Buller posted:It also annoys me that you guys keep saying "That is farming not GMO" when you then keep bringing up that you think EU are stupid for not allowing GMO farming. what the gently caress, haha, this cant be what you actually intended to write is it? GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Cage free eggs is fine, that's a moral argument not a scientific one, though you gotta look past the label because it doesn't mean poo poo. I am happy to pay a premium for companies that treat their animals well, but the label itself I mostly a marketing gimmick. Also Bayer is buying Monsanto? But Bayer is all the evil stuff people accuse Monsanto of being! How am I supposed to defend them now? (Half joking)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
Does Bayer really not hold any pharma monopolies? That seems pretty unlikely, but it could be true I suppose. Fishmechs argument that monopolies only count for entire industries and not particular services is pretty stupid, regardless, although I sort of lost track of what the original argument was so maybe its appropriate here, I dont know For the shipping thing, eat local is a heuristic and people should stop treating it as anything but.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So I see you're one of those types who would declare nearly every company in existence a monopoly then? Surely you realize how useless that makes the term? Fishmech I know you loving being really stupid about things like this, but this is dumb even for you. You are managing to make yourself look stupid on a page where Mofabio is posting. Its sad. But, no. I am not one of those types who would declare every company a monopoly. Just someone who realizes what a monopoly actually is, which you, apparently, are not. Normally I would to make a persuasive argument here with factual citations and poo poo but lol, its fishmech, you would just ignore my pointa in favour of making pedantic attacks against something I never said.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Thanks for proving the one point I made, I guess? I dont think Monsanto has monopoly anything, and I honestly have no idea whether or not Bayer has any actual monopolies, I am just suprised if they really dont because being an exclusive provider of the only worthwhile treatment for a condition is a pretty desireable thing in the pharma field and they seem like a big company. But yeah sure whatever you said, you win lol no company is ever capable of a monopoly unless they own the entire industry whatever
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:What exactly is your definition of monopoly and how does it apply to Monsanto in this discussion? The normal one, and it doesnt.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 13:17 |
|
|
fishmech posted:But I'm glad you admitted that you're just trying to be contrarian, and aren't interested in discussing actual monopolies. I didnt and I'm not, I am but not with you, you are as wrong about this as you were about the last thing, hope that helps. Also nice job on moving the goal posts to "even if they do have one it doesnt matter" just in case, very elegant way to establish a fallback position where you were right all along, because you are nothing if not utterly predictable
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 22:55
|
|