Genetically altered food... Corruption agian.. lol

[Aegeri]

If I spray toxins

 

Toxin implies that it has a negative physiological effect on the people or animals that consume it.

 

Again, defend this statement (which you won't, as you have again failed to do).

 

How is it something can negatively effect the environment we live in, and not effect us?

 

Again, defend this statement. Nowhere have I seen GE crops damaging the environment, though it is true that GE crop genes have turned up in native species, such as in Maize varieties in Mexico. These however are not causing damage to the environment, just shuffling genes via genetic drift.

 

for your 'voice of reason' comment. LOL< if you say reason is 'Genetics in foods dont affect us in any way' is reason, heh........ Your not exactly the brightest person I've met.

 

Considering you've not been able to support with good reliable sources any of the science you have claimed, I wouldn't be saying anything about how bright someone else is if I were you.

 

There is also no scientific evidence they are NOT harmful. In this field there is not much conclusive.

 

Wrong.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...t_uids=15499316

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...t_uids=12595137

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...t_uids=12394371

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...t_uids=12045422

 

And many more, with the overwhelming consensus that GE foods are safe.

 

You can now count yourself as officially spanked, and this is without the most recent (2004, I think it was April) article in Nature that essentially outlined what health risks there were and the fact they are well established and well known (as one of my references demonstrates). Overall, my sources are from verifiable peer reviewed journals, you're rubbish is pulled straight out of your rear. I know for a direct fact what is more credible.

 

And yes, before we go any further, there have been HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS of papers published on GE, its safety, its effects on the environment and things like HGT. People like tinfoil wearer up there are flat out lying when they say these things haven't been done or we don't know about them. We do.

[Product of the Cosmos]

Link #1:

 

Proponents of GEOs assert that foods we are now able to produce have greater nutritional value, longer shelf life, better appearance, taste and smell.

 

lol. People who make money off them will say they are safe?! WOW! Real conclusive evidence it doesn't hurt us here.

 

Link #2:

Just says what they are doing. Conclusive eh?

 

Link #3:

 

I agree with its starting statement:

Changes in food production and dietary practices are occurring faster than our understanding of their potential impact on children's health.

 

It keeps saying 'this review covers'.. Uhh, wheres the review? Where is your evidence?

 

Link #4:

 

Thus far, no reports exist regarding allergic reactions to the crops that have been approved for introduction into the food supply.

 

Thus far. I'm talking about conclusive evidence that it's safe. Not an assumption. Where are the facts? Where are the findings? These are just outlines for their plans and speculations.

 

You can now count yourself as officially spanked, and this is without the most recent (2004, I think it was April) article in Nature that essentially outlined what health risks there were and the fact they are well established and well known (as one of my references demonstrates).

 

LOL! You know, we have been using teflon in cooking. And Dupont had insisted it was safe. Now it has been found to cause cancer. We find new things often. I assume you know that. So it's curious how you can say with certainty there is no safety hazard with GE foods.

 

____________________________

 

More on Monsanto. People were talking about the GE pollen going from one crop to another? Well ya, it is. And the farmers who want to grow organic are forced to grow somewhat GE crops that they did not want to. Not so bad, but still screwed up if ya ask me. But how about this

 

! Monsanto has filed MANY lawsuits agianst farmers claiming they need to pay the Monsanto tech fee for using their products, when it just blew on their fields. And many farmers are going bankrupt because of it. More signs of an evil corp. Novus Ordo Seclorum.

[newc0253]

btw which do you think is more jaunty? a tin beret? or a tin sombrero?

 

me, i think the sombrero. helps to protect against the mind control satellite at lower latitudes plus it offers shade protection.

[Product of the Cosmos]

your edit:

 

And yes, before we go any further, there have been HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS of papers published on GE, its safety, its effects on the environment and things like HGT. People like tinfoil wearer up there are flat out lying when they say these things haven't been done or we don't know about them. We do.

 

Your quite foolish to think in 30 years we have mastered the building blocks of life. That we know all of the effects provided by such.

 

As for your remarks about Tin foil hat wearer.... Childish, but no suprise you would say something regarding my mind as odd, as yours does not work. So mine must seemvery alien to you, I understand.

 

As for newc, as you show I guess your a forum heckler.

 

Good Luck.

[Aegeri]

Link #1:

lol. People who make money off them will say they are safe?! WOW!  Real conclusive evidence it doesn't hurt us here.

 

This establishes you cannot read, have another go at it.

 

Link #2:

Just says what they are doing. Conclusive eh?

 

Yes, that is why we look up what is called the paper 'reference' or the full text of the article, which if you go to a university library, you should be able to easily get a hold of any of these papers. I am on a proxy from my Uni so can do so remotely, but these papers are not hard to find even if access on the net can be difficult.

 

Again, you demonstrate you've never even *read* a scientific article if you haven't been quick enough to realise what I posted links to are the *abstracts* of a full research paper.

 

  Link #3:

 

  I agree with its starting statement:

Changes in food production and dietary practices are occurring faster than our understanding of their potential impact on children's health.

 

It keeps saying 'this review covers'.. Uhh, wheres the review? Where is your evidence?

 

Try looking at the 'full text article' or alternatively looking up the paper reference.

 

Link #4:

 

Thus far, no reports exist regarding allergic reactions to the crops that have been approved for introduction into the food supply.

 

Thus far. I'm talking about conclusive evidence that it's safe. Not an assumption. Where are the facts? Where are the findings? These are just outlines for their plans and speculations.

 

Exactly, that's why these are ABSTRACTS Which is precisely what an abstract does when introducing a full scientific paper.

 

LOL!  You know, we have been using teflon in cooking.  And Dupont had insisted it was safe.  Now it has been found to cause cancer.  We find new things often.  I assume you know that.  So it's curious how you can say with certainty there is no safety hazard with GE foods.

 

I say so because the massive amount of evidence supports my position while your lot jump on the tiny scraps the tabloid news papers sometimes throw out (IE news of the world etc).

 

I suggest reading the full text of the articles I posted, they are there, you may need to go to (shock horror) an actual library or University to find these things out. You know, where these journals typically go anyway.

 

As for newc, as you show I guess your a forum heckler.

 

Alternatively, you could have stated "Newc, as you show I guess you're a forum heckler". Your is not the same as "you're" which, is a common conjunction of "you are". In my off days when I'm not battling the tin foil hat wearing legions, I double as a grammar Nazi.

[Product of the Cosmos]

What is my arguement in your eyes? Do you even understand what I am saying? You say I'm wrong. So I assume you think you do. So what is my arguement?

 

As for the reviews, send me the links. I saw no link in there to them. YOu presented exactly what you said, abstract, non concclusive conjecture. Saying they are true. lol.... Did you even read them? Or did you just read the abstracts?! O_O

 

As for your grammer edit. If you fail to understand the point of text then I guess you must break it down. If you comprehend the text, then the text has served it's purpose. Nitpicking literal text, is not as important as understanding the meaning of the text itself. But I wouldn't expect you to know that as you said your a 'grammer nazi'. lol

[Aegeri]

What is my arguement in your eyes?

 

I understand your argument, what I attack is the scientific basis you have used to make several of your ridiculous statements. None of these you have been even remotely successful in defending.

 

As for the reviews, send me the links.  I saw no link in there to them.

 

Quite frankly, you're blind. If you can't see the huge button on the first two (for example) with "click for full text articles" then you're more than a bit lost. The references to the papers are directly above that.

 

non concclusive conjecture.  Saying they are true. lol....  Did you even read them?  Or did you just read the abstracts?! O_O

 

I know for a fact you only read the abstracts, you just proved that not seconds before You, after all, couldn't even find the link to get to the full text or even that those weren't the entire article.

 

Included for future reference.

 

As for your grammer edit. If you fail to understand the point of text then I guess you must break it down. If you comprehend the text, then the text has served it's purpose. Nitpicking literal text, is not as important as understanding the meaning of the text itself. But I wouldn't expect you to know that as you said your a 'grammer nazi'. lol

 

Two things:

 

1) Writing at least semi-correctly makes you look less retarded.

 

2) You did it again as your final sentence should be 'you ARE a grammar Nazi' and not, 'your a grammar Nazi'. Not only did you manage to mangle your grammar however, but you even managed to spell 'grammar' incorrectly just to add insult to injury.

 

Oh well. I knew I shouldn't have bothered.

[newc0253]

As for newc, as you show I guess your a forum heckler.

it beats being the forum village idiot.

[Product of the Cosmos]

Non clickable 'review' and 'review tutorial' is what I see..

 

On one there is a broken link that says full text article.

 

But maybe I did overlook something though. What are you clicking?

 

How about the person who read them, give the facts of what they found.

 

And You say you understand my arguement. So what is it? I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

 

I know for a fact you only read the abstracts, you just proved that not seconds before original.gif You, after all, couldn't even find the link to get to the full text or even that those weren't the entire article.

 

Your point? Did you read them? Answer the question. Of course I didn't. lol.

[Judge Hades]

What the f**k are you bring up wife breeding.  Are you talking about human genetic engineering or food production? Man, get you head on straight or don't post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

uhh. Well a concept is a concept. Selective breeding, is a concept. And is it not what we do when we choose a mate? Just because you can't comprehend something doesn't mean it's very different. Once AGIAN, I'm reffering to synthetically altered GE foods being iffy..

 

In any case, I brought up the Monsanto corp, and facts about them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Again, human beings are not food. We are discussing food, so selective breeding in livesstock is a form of genetic engineering. You might be talking in concept, but I prefer to talk in specifics.

[Product of the Cosmos]

What is my arguement in your eyes?

 

I understand your argument, what I attack is the scientific basis you have used to make several of your ridiculous statements. None of these you have been even remotely successful in defending.

 

As for the reviews, send me the links.  I saw no link in there to them.

 

Quite frankly, you're blind. If you can't see the huge button on the first two (for example) with "click for full text articles" then you're more than a bit lost. The references to the papers are directly above that.

 

non concclusive conjecture.  Saying they are true. lol....  Did you even read them?  Or did you just read the abstracts?! O_O

 

I know for a fact you only read the abstracts, you just proved that not seconds before You, after all, couldn't even find the link to get to the full text or even that those weren't the entire article.

 

Included for future reference.

 

As for your grammer edit. If you fail to understand the point of text then I guess you must break it down. If you comprehend the text, then the text has served it's purpose. Nitpicking literal text, is not as important as understanding the meaning of the text itself. But I wouldn't expect you to know that as you said your a 'grammer nazi'. lol

 

Two things:

 

1) Writing at least semi-correctly makes you look less retarded.

 

2) You did it again as your final sentence should be 'you ARE a grammar Nazi' and not, 'your a grammar Nazi'. Not only did you manage to mangle your grammar however, but you even managed to spell 'grammar' incorrectly just to add insult to injury.

 

Oh well. I knew I shouldn't have bothered.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I spell balogne, baloney. Get over it. It's not relevant.

[Product of the Cosmos]

What the f**k are you bring up wife breeding.  Are you talking about human genetic engineering or food production? Man, get you head on straight or don't post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

uhh. Well a concept is a concept. Selective breeding, is a concept. And is it not what we do when we choose a mate? Just because you can't comprehend something doesn't mean it's very different. Once AGIAN, I'm reffering to synthetically altered GE foods being iffy..

 

In any case, I brought up the Monsanto corp, and facts about them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Again, human beings are not food. We are discussing food, so selective breeding in livesstock is a form of genetic engineering. You might be talking in concept, but I prefer to talk in specifics.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

uhh.. I'm discussing genetics. And who manages them. And humanbeings may be food, just not to you

[Product of the Cosmos]

Anyway, still not answering my Q's. The person who provided the links as if they were fact. Give us an overview of what it covered, as based on facts. You know, the findings, as the 'abstracts' dont give any facts. It seems to me you are talking **** to me for providing in your view faulty sources, and not reading yours all the way(when the damn link is broken), I doubt you even read your own. So prove that you did, and save us all the time, and give us the quotes of the facts provided.

 

EDIT: The link works now(damn IE). Anyway, I'm not paying 30 dollars for that ****. lol. Thats pretty funny. Did you? Its quite funny to me that you most likely didnt even read your own sources. rofl.

 

 

and agian, to those who say I'm wrong in my arguement. What is my arguement? You have to know my arguement before saying it is wrong with confidence I hope.

 

People come into the convo with IMO stupid judgements and I say they are not thought out and give an alternate view. But my point in posting this is not to say GE food is not safe in a nutshell.

[newc0253]

What is my arguement?

you mean you don't know?

 

You have to know my arguement before saying it is wrong.

and it's your responsibility to state what it is before you start to complain that others don't get it.

[Product of the Cosmos]

UHhh newc, are you saying you dont know what my arguement is, yet you say Its wrong>? LoL. I have given ample opportunity to show what it is, I just think you and others show you don't understand what it is.

[Judge Hades]

Thing is I was stating about food base genetic engineering yet you brought up human Genetic engineering and sorry, if you think that people are food you are seriously f**ked in the head.

 

Like I said, come back and post when your head is screwed in right and not till then.

[Product of the Cosmos]

Hades you said we have been GE'ing our foods for a long time. Hundreds of years. Well if thats true then we have been GE ourselves by picking our mates. Get my head straight?! How about you get your head out of your ass and understand what I'm saying for once hades.

 

There are different methods of genetic manipulation. Your blending them all in one. Naive.

 

And no I dont eat human. But we are genetically having people. And changing genetics I dont think only applies to food for us. Think in a universal mindset instead of an isolated human one.

 

Regardless. America is the big ginea pig as smarter nations wont use GE foods in large numbers.

 

Good Luck.

[newc0253]

UHhh newc, are you saying you dont know what my arguement is, yet you say Its wrong>?

no. i was asking you whether you knew what your own argument was, because you seemed a bit confused.

 

I have given ample opportunity to show what it is, I just think you and others show you don't understand what it is.

you keep claiming that and yet nobody believes you. odd, isn't it?

[Product of the Cosmos]

lol newc. Can you answer the question?

 

 

Me talking about my point of view: "I have given ample opportunity to show what it is, I just think you and others show you don't understand what it is."

 

newc:"you keep claiming that and yet nobody believes you. odd, isn't it?"

 

Nobody believes that I know what my opinion is? lol. How much dodging can you do? Do you actually believe I don't know what my own opinion on this is?

 

If you can't answer the question just don't post about it, or say you can't. But then saying I'm wrong would be pretty naive if you didnt know what I was saying in the first place. LOL.

 

_______________________

 

Anyway, my point of view on screwing with genetics first hand, is we have a very complex world. We have very complex bodies. DNA plays a big role in this. We are major mysteries to ourselves. Our whole intricate system here on Earth is beyond our comprehension at this time. Pretending we know is not smart IMO. If we mess with genetics directly too much it could have very horrible ramifications. Do we know how AIDS came about? How about cancer? Or much of the illnesses we have. We don't. We understand things about them but we don't know their origin as far as I know.

 

A plague is coming in the next 10 years I predict. Possibly from GE stuff, possibly just from exhaustion of rainforests, or possibly from a lab from one of these ****ed up groups on purpose or a mistake. Or maybe a bit of all of those all combined.

 

If we are to modify, I think we should tread lightly, be cautious. Be humble. We are not exactly genetic masters. If we were we would conjure up a cure for aids or cancer easily. Thus is not the case(least publically). Having people like Monsanto being at the helm of GE stuff, is not exactly smart IMO.

 

If we are at a pont where we need genetically altered food to survive, then why have we not implemented hemp into society? Hemp would be the biggest revolution in environmental variables in this generation. It's nutrient mix is perfect for the human body. It helps the soil. Its a tough plant, grows in more places then any plant in the world. Makes just about anything you would ever need. It would replace fossil fuels in a LARGE way. No, dont give me any guff about being efficient and needing to use GE stuff, because we are not efficient.. lol. We are not doing what we can. We are lazy ****s. And I resent that.

[Althernai]

Anyway, my point of view on screwing with genetics first hand, is we have a very complex world.  We have very complex bodies.  DNA plays a big role in this.

 

OK. You use the word 'complex' without any standard, but nevermind.

 

We are major mysteries to ourselves.  Our whole intricate system here on Earth is beyond our comprehension at this time.

 

Hold it right there. Who are you to speak for the entire human race? Are you a biology professor or a researcher? You don't sound like one. You don't even seem to know how scientific papers are referenced. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean everyone else doesn't.

 

Pretending we know is not smart IMO.  If we mess with genetics directly too much it could have very horrible ramifications.

 

Who is pretending? I myself am a physicist-in-training, but I have some close friends who work in labs that deal with genetics and I've spoken to them about this. I know them well enough to tell you that if they claim to know what something does, they know it.

 

Do we know how AIDS came about?  How about cancer?  Or much of the illnesses we have.  We don't.  We understand things about them but we don't know their origin as far as I know.

 

We know how cancer comes about; we just don't know how to stop it. I haven't looked into AIDS but I assume there are some plausible theories about it by now. In any case, I do not see your point.

 

If we are to modify, I think we should tread lightly, be cautious.  Be humble.

 

To be any more cautious than we already are would mean that the researchers doing it are no longer human. It is not our way to tread lightly; it never has been. Mostly because you'd take forever to get anywhere this way.

 

If we are at a pont where we need genetically altered food to survive, then why have we not implemented hemp into society?

 

We are not at any such point, we could do with normal food for a while. It is simply more profitable to use GM foods now. If you don't like it, just buy organic food.

 

P.S. Monsanto is like Halliburton -- generally believed to be evil, but nobody can do anything about them. Its former employees are generally the same people who run government agencies responsible for monitoring it, yes. However, they have a significant interest in actually not releasing anything before it is safe for the simply reason that the US is a country where a company can be sued for not telling people that coffee is hot or that trains run over train tracks. If anything goes seriously wrong, they will be torn apart and no amount of money will save them -- their work affects too many people (more than 10% of the population).

[taks]

Do we know how AIDS came about?  How about cancer?  Or much of the illnesses we have.  We don't.  We understand things about them but we don't know their origin as far as I know.

 

We know how cancer comes about; we just don't know how to stop it. I haven't looked into AIDS but I assume there are some plausible theories about it by now. In any case, I do not see your point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if you don't understand already, i'm sure you soon will, althernai... 99% of PoTC's argument is typically based on logical fallacy (too numerous to list), generally without substance. for example, the above statement is meant to imply that "since we don't know for sure, there must be something sinister going on" or, even better, "since we don't know for sure, then the worst possible reason must be to blame."

 

with a little bit of research, i could probably find a dozen fallacies just with this one quote... he's good at that, no doubt. the flaws in his argument are only exacerbated by the fact that there is very little scientific evidence to back his claims. should he ever decide to provide real evidence of his claims, or attempt to provide valid counter-arguments, the logical problem won't be as devastating to his argument (perhaps even something to be overlooked). until then...

 

this is his standard MO, btw, unchanging and unwilling to do so. pointing out valid science results in "but they're in on it, too" replies. every once in a while, he'll mention something worth discussion, but it's buried so deep within the rhetoric and self righteousness, nobody cares.

 

taks

[Product of the Cosmos]

Hold it right there. Who are you to speak for the entire human race? Are you a biology professor or a researcher? You don't sound like one. You don't even seem to know how scientific papers are referenced. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean everyone else doesn't.

 

lol. Would you say it's far fetched to say we are not masters at knowing what we are? Who am I to speak for the human race? I am one. A sovereign entity. I think it's pretty clear that we barely know about ourselves. If you think we know everything, then you must be dumbfounded every single day when we learn more. lol...

 

Who is pretending?

 

Anyone of this planet, who says they know everything about genetics, is pretending.

 

 

I myself am a physicist-in-training...

 

Good for you, I hope you develop/find/etc and further our knowledge in physics.

 

but I have some close friends who work in labs that deal with genetics and I've spoken to them about this. I know them well enough to tell you that if they claim to know what something does, they know it.

 

I could tell you I know what the heart does, when speaking in certain context. Would I know the entire hearts process? That's a whole diff story. Do you think they would be speaking in context when they say they know something? Like they know +A1, +A2, -A5 = Xdesired effect, but not the entire matrix surrounding the applied change.

 

Ask them sometime if they think they know every possible effect any particular genetic alteration could have, when speaking in short term, long term, etc... Maybe you will be suprised..

 

We know how cancer comes about; we just don't know how to stop it. I haven't looked into AIDS but I assume there are some plausible theories about it by now. In any case, I do not see your point.

 

You mean we know what causes cancer in individuals. How about why it's there in the first place? When and why it started happening in humans, etc.

 

My point is such things are tied to genetics, obviously. Saying we know everything there is to know about genetics is like saying you know html because you know a few simple commands by trial and error, ignorant of the entire system applied. Just knowing how to manipulate certain things within the system. Now unless your system is expungeable you don't go ****ing around majorly with stuff you don't know. You tinker if anything. Tinkering is not changing a few commands and spamming them through the entire system. Now maybe you aren't following me still, in that case you can go back to your normal tin foil comments. lol

 

To be any more cautious than we already are would mean that the researchers doing it are no longer human. It is not our way to tread lightly; it never has been. Mostly because you'd take forever to get anywhere this way.

 

If you are so interested in progress, work to help stop war from happening. As it is our main focus. Sure it has dropped us many practical things in everyday life in the process of constant making of weapons and processes of killing efficiently, but thats just pennies slipping out of the hand of the war resources being burnt.

 

I just don't think it's right to use massive amounts of people, and your one known home planet, as your test subjects. lol. I dunno maybe we have 2 home planets and this one is for ****ing up and testing on(LOL), but it just doesn't seem too logical to do it at the rate and mass that we are doing it at. Maybe our opinions will differ. It's just the way I see it.

 

We are not at any such point, we could do with normal food for a while. It is simply more profitable to use GM foods now. If you don't like it, just buy organic food.

 

Then I guess there goes the comment that it saves peoples lives... lol.

 

P.S. Monsanto is like Halliburton -- generally believed to be evil, but nobody can do anything about them. Its former employees are generally the same people who run government agencies responsible for monitoring it, yes.

 

Wow, someone finally egknowledged this. lol.

 

However, they have a significant interest in actually not releasing anything before it is safe for the simply reason that the US is a country where a company can be sued for not telling people that coffee is hot or that trains run over train tracks. If anything goes seriously wrong, they will be torn apart and no amount of money will save them -- their work affects too many people (more than 10% of the population).

 

Maybe you haven't noticed it but judges are people too. lol. And you can damn well bet every judge in America that could possibly get a case of that magnitude, knows Monsanto well. Just recently a judge ruled in favor of Monsanto for a ruling of 2.9 million dollars, and putting a family farm out of business. They are going around suing people for supposedly using their product on their crops, when it just blows over with pollen. That's pretty ****ing evil if you ask me. Putting family farms out of business by suing them on faulty charges and slowly but surely monopolizing the 'test subjects' food sources by eliminating the farmers who didn't want to useyour product and were forced to?! lol.

 

Halliburton? lol Please.............. They gained 200+ million in phony profits, and were fined 7.5 million. Hmm.... They sure lost a lot on that one!

 

Certain cases will not be heard. This is one of those types of cases if it happened. For example, the former Bob Dole eployee who claims to have conclusive FBI evidence that the Bush admin were involved in carrying out the 9-11 attacks. And is trying to sue them for it. Not being heard! When you have the judge threatening your life on the street, LMFAO! Good luck getting that case, slick.

 

In the event they did go down? A couple of the culprits would fess up, and be prosecuted, and the rest of the affiliations and people would just move onto another corp. How about Enron? Many of them jumped ship early, and landed job in the White House!! LOL. Gotta love America..

[Product of the Cosmos]

Do we know how AIDS came about?  How about cancer?  Or much of the illnesses we have.  We don't.  We understand things about them but we don't know their origin as far as I know.

 

We know how cancer comes about; we just don't know how to stop it. I haven't looked into AIDS but I assume there are some plausible theories about it by now. In any case, I do not see your point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if you don't understand already, i'm sure you soon will, althernai... 99% of PoTC's argument is typically based on logical fallacy (too numerous to list), generally without substance. for example, the above statement is meant to imply that "since we don't know for sure, there must be something sinister going on" or, even better, "since we don't know for sure, then the worst possible reason must be to blame."

 

with a little bit of research, i could probably find a dozen fallacies just with this one quote... he's good at that, no doubt. the flaws in his argument are only exacerbated by the fact that there is very little scientific evidence to back his claims. should he ever decide to provide real evidence of his claims, or attempt to provide valid counter-arguments, the logical problem won't be as devastating to his argument (perhaps even something to be overlooked). until then...

 

this is his standard MO, btw, unchanging and unwilling to do so. pointing out valid science results in "but they're in on it, too" replies. every once in a while, he'll mention something worth discussion, but it's buried so deep within the rhetoric and self righteousness, nobody cares.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

lol. Yes taks, it is clear you have thought about me with your reality hand in hand quite frequently. I'm flattered..

[taks]

that statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

my reality is based on thousands of years of accepted scientific practices including a little bit known as "the scientific method." the latter principle is something you just don't seem to understand.

 

i'm sorry if you can't handle the fact that my reality really is reality. there's a reason the entire rest of the world believes in these practices and it isn't because we're all "in on the conspiracy." it's because they work. plain and simple. maybe some day you'll decide to actually educate yourself with real science and not these trumped up ramblings that you so often choose to cite... till then, i think newc's comment says it best.

 

taks

[Althernai]

Anyone of this planet, who says they know everything about genetics, is pretending.

 

...

 

Ask them sometime if they think they know every possible effect any particular genetic alteration could have, when speaking in short term, long term, etc... Maybe you will be suprised..

Nobody claims to know everything about genetics. We just know enough to do what we are currently doing. You don't research a topic to absolute exhaustion before applying it -- that would take forever. We know enough to be reasonably certain that what we do will work the way we want it to and it generally does. Again, if this was done any other way nothing would ever be made at all. The light bulb was invented long before the development of quantum electrodynamics. Do you think those who made it should have waited until we know everything about the underlying principles to be sure that it was safe?

 

It is not necessary to know every minor detail about a branch of science to develop safe and effective applications of it. The biologists who are doing this are neither madmen nor fools; they know what they are capable of and what they are not.

 

You mean we know what causes cancer in individuals.  How about why it's there in the first place?  When and why it started happening in humans, etc.

Why it is there in the first place? As far as I can tell that is a philosophy question -- it doesn't have a scientific explanation. It started happening in humans probably before they even were humans; I don't see why it should be restricted to humans. The basic phenomenon is that some cells mutate in a way that causes them to reproduce without any limitations. This can occur in all multi-cellular organisms. Humans appear to get it a lot because we live for long periods of time (the longer you live, the higher the chance of a random event happening to you -- although it is not that simple here, cancer has a weird probability curve at very high ages). Also, it is one of the few diseases we can't treat with more or less certainty of success. We have made cancer more common over the past few centuries as a lot of the things associated with technology (both products and pollution) tend to be the agents that cause mutations.

 

I just don't think it's right to use massive amounts of people, and your one known home planet, as your test subjects.

That's not quite what they are doing. They sell stuff to people -- if you don't like their stuff, don't buy it.

 

Maybe you haven't noticed it but judges are people too. lol.  And you can damn well bet every judge in America that could possibly get a case of that magnitude, knows Monsanto well.

 

This won't help them either. There are greater powers in the US than Monsanto and if the latter screws things up with the GM food, these powers will crush them. You just don't mess with people's food...

 

Furthermore, even if the case goes for them, they will still take catastrophic losses. Right now, there is no evidence against GM food. If they screw up, there will be. People are very wary of change and something like this would screw them over in a big way. Many would just stop buying their product.