Poll: GM food.... wait.... what?

[Gudrests]

Its greenpeace....They are domestic terrorists to put it bluntly....It's a hippie thing. I don't understand them

 

[ultimateownage]

I still fail to understand how Greenpeace is more respected than PETA.

 

[Exterminas]

It is about the money

Greenpeace makes money by claiming stuff like this is dangerous. They only make money as long as they can keep claiming that. They only can keep claiming it, as long as there is no study disproofing it.

So they simply try to stop this kind of research, simply because it would infringe on one of their cash-cows.

Greenpeace has longe seized to be the small guy, fighting Goliath. They are woth more than fucking Shell.

 

[Madman123456]

Ok, so People are rummaging around in the Genetics of everything since forever. Instead of breeding animals with traits we like and hoping the offspring will carry the same traits we could learn to use more accurate methods.
Instead of a Hammer we could use a scalpel.

Greenpeace says its wrong, because its not natural or something, i don't know.

Frankly, we can not afford being picky with this. One may argue that companies are being greedy when experimenting to make cheap gm food. But they aren't deliberately trying to kill us. Not because they love us all so much, but because it would be bad publicity.

Mother Nature on the other Hand does provide things that are made to kill when eaten. Mother Nature has some difficulty providing enough Food for all the People around. We are quite many.

Greenpeace doesn't seem to see that; maybe they do not want to. Aside from the Fact that they take the law into their own hands whenever they see fit while the big Business at least tries to conceal it if they do so and doesn't see itself as Heroes that save the world while doing it, the way of Greenpeace is just as dangerous as the Way they seem to think humanity is going right now.

 

[nekroskoma]

no, they destroyed corporate property

also i think the GM food debate is pointless since most of the foods and animals we eat now are technically modified already

srsly ever seen what wild corn looks like (hint not very appetizing), and orange carrots are genetic anomalies that caught on.

 

[oppp7]

The negative attitude towards GMs, from what I've heard, is based around ignorance and fear(strangely enough...). Of course, that was from someone who researches it, so bias may be an issue. Overall, though, GM seems to have no serious problems compared to normal shit we eat, and organic food is just a money making scheme.

As for animal testing, don't really care. I mean, shit, in the last few months I've pretty much stopped caring about them completely, only noticing it when it reaches Michael Vick levels.

Edit: Sorry about that, mods. Just testing to see if self reporting gets me a certain badge.

Mod Edit: I don't think reporting gets you any badges at all... Unless I missed a memo.

 

[Zakarath]

Wait, Greenpeace still does things?

 

[Loop Stricken]

By and large, Greenpeace appear to be staffed completely by stupid arseholes. Of course they were wrong.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

I am apparently one of 4 people who thought it was right... I unfortunately have a soft spot for those who take dramatic action and their beliefs into their own hands. Breaking the law doesn't = immorality.
I don't like dramatic action in the form of terrorism, although then again Guy Fawkes and V also gain my respect. Huh.

Yes! Let's destroy these research crops, kept in an enclosed environment, so there's no risk of accidental release of seeds/spores! Damn those people in Third World countries, we will not stand for this bullshit with interfering in nature, consequences be damned!

The "purpose" of laws is to force those who would normally be immoral into choosing the moral choice, for fear of repercussion. At least that's what it should be, unfortunately the law isn't perfect both because designing a perfect and universal set of laws that will always lead to the morally decent option is impossible, and because the law has often been subverted and used for other purposes.

The point that I was making is simply that "it's illegal" is not a valid point to make when you are arguing that something is morally wrong. The poll and the OP were asking whether GreenPeace was "in the right", but many people simply responded with posts along the lines of "They broke the law." and that's it. GreenPeace's actions would be morally wrong even if they weren't against the law.

Just wondering, what form of morals are you arguing from?

Something like relativism? Or absolutism? Or objectivism?

Regardless, they did break the law, and thus, deserve to get punished. Again, you don't get to pick and choose what laws you want to follow if you want to belong to a society

I'm arguing from my own morals, which I've developed myself from my own experiences, as I believe everyone should. My worry is that there are people who don't really have their own morals, they simply have the law and act selfishly apart from that (and there are many people like that). These are the kinds of people who are immoral within the confines of the law. When you consider the law to be the same thing as morality, you are likely a very bad person (at least from my perspective).

A morally "good" person will probably never have reason to break the law, but they will also have their own rules that they follow regardless of the law. They will do kind/good things even when the law doesn't demand them to do it. Doing a favour for a friend (or anyone else) is something that I would consider a "good" thing to do, but the law certainly doesn't demand it. Insulting or ridiculing someone else is something I would usually consider a "bad" thing to do, but the law doesn't prohibit that either.

I wouldn't steal, or murder, or threaten people even if I were allowed by law. Essentially what I'm saying is that I don't follow the law, I follow my morals (which, since I'm a half-way decent person, happen to be entirely within the confines of the law), and I believe all good people should be following their morals rather than the law. The law exists to limit those without morals, not to replace morals. This is why they have no value when deciding whether something is "right" or not.

Of course I do agree that as you say "they did break the law, and thus, deserve to get punished.". I just don't think that has anything to do with the morality of their actions.

All very nice and dandy, thinking up your own moral system and COMPLETELY CHANGING TERMINOLOGY to make it mean what you want it to, but don't expect others to abide to that changed terminology bit. In the right is a phrase often used to imply a legal issue, not just moral ones. So it's completely valid to say they are not in the right, since they broke the law.

Also: even from a moral standpoint: destroying other people's property isn't a nice thing to do, is it?

 

[TheAmokz]

Greenpeace is one crazy organization but its not even half as bad as sea shepherd.

 

[Moromillas]

I disagree with the people saying that because their actions were against the law, they were the wrong thing to do. What is legally correct and what is morally correct are sometimes two very different things, and stating that something is illegal is not the same as stating that something is wrong.

What then is the purpose of laws, dear reader, if people get to pick and chose which ones they will obey? Or perhaps that's not what you are saying.

It's not as if this is an "iffy" law. They broke into a person's property and destroyed that person's property. It's very reasonible to say "This is wrong and illegal. Let them fry".

I think that what was trying to be said was that you shouldn't follow "law" blindly, or use it as the sole compass for right and wrong. Law is a funny little fickle thing that can easily change with the times, or be changed by those that have enough political influence. lunncal is quite right to say laws are not always morally correct.

I'll give you an example. I like to use the smoking example.

Say you're a smoker right, what chems you wanna take is none of my business, but anyway. So there's this law: You have to stay a least 4 metres away from an entrance to a public place or business. Which is fair enough right? If a cop just happened to walk by you could get a fine. But, you keep a fair distance from the others not because you might get a fine, but because it's morally correct to do so. There could be someone with asthma that wants to enter, or someone pregnant, or even hay fever maybe. These (I believe) should be the only reasons why you stand a good distance away from the entrances, not because of some fear of punishment.

Edit: lots of spelling in that, it's late at night.

 

[DEAD34345]

All very nice and dandy, thinking up your own moral system and COMPLETELY CHANGING TERMINOLOGY to make it mean what you want it to, but don't expect others to abide to that changed terminology bit. In the right is a phrase often used to imply a legal issue, not just moral ones. So it's completely valid to say they are not in the right, since they broke the law.

No need to get angry, I'm pretty sure that what was meant in the OP and the poll was a moral sense of right and wrong rather than a legal one, because it is a fact that what they were doing was illegal, and thus "wrong" in the legal sense. If I was wrong about that then fair enough, but I don't think I was... besides which even if that were the case I don't see how I have changed any terminology. Yes "right" can be used referring to a legal right, but that's not the kind of "right" I was talking about.

Also: even from a moral standpoint: destroying other people's property isn't a nice thing to do, is it?

I agree, it was morally wrong. I voted "completely wrong" in the poll and I said that I thought what they did was wrong on my first post, and each post afterwards... what's your point?

 

[ShindoL Shill]

they were wrong because 1. its illegal and 2. they probably did it so they couldnt be proven wrong by the study.
and if it werent for GM crops, we wouldnt be able to grow plants in certain countries. you cant say 'you shouldnt import x fruit from z country' and then say 'you shouldnt GM x fruit so you can grow it in y country'.

 

[Uszi]

Genetic Modifation has been happening for ages. It's the next step up from Selective Breeding and Cross Breeding. Now instead of having to selective breed they can select the traits they want and don't want.

No it's not. It's something different altogether. They may both attain the goal of change in a plant or animal but the process makes all the difference. Think of it this way: A nail and a screw are both fasteners. Yes? A screw is more advanced than a nail. Yes? Do you dive a nail with a screwdriver or a screw with a hammer? No. A nail is not a screw. A screw is not a nail. Anyone who tells you so is woefully misinformed.

Actually, I'm inclined to agree with what the first person said, based on what I've read and learned at University.

Your analogy with screws and nails is a bit too simplistic to adequately represent the whole controversy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies]

And I'm not even sure it makes sense---is a screw really more "advanced" than a nail? And what does it matter that you use different tools for different hardware? You also don't use a screw driver to type on a keyboard or drive a golf ball. I don't follow your argument at all.

If anything your argument seems to appeal to some notion that living organisms can be divided into discreet categories based on intrinsic properties. Which doesn't really apply to living things, much less crops that have been engineered by humans through selective breeding to not look anything like what they used to.

For instance, did you realize that broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower and collard greens are all the same species of plant [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassica_oleracea]?

 

[k-ossuburb]

Snip

Oh, awesome. I didn't know it's also possible to add in genes as well as alter/subtract them. This pretty much makes GM food a hell of a lot more useful in the long term.

 

[k-ossuburb]

Actually, I'm inclined to agree with what the first person said, based on what I've read and learned at University.

Your analogy with screws and nails is a bit too simplistic to adequately represent the whole controversy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies]

And I'm not even sure it makes sense---is a screw really more "advanced" than a nail? And what does it matter that you use different tools for different hardware? You also don't use a screw driver to type on a keyboard or drive a golf ball. I don't follow your argument at all.

If anything your argument seems to appeal to some notion that living organisms can be divided into discreet categories based on intrinsic properties. Which doesn't really apply to living things, much less crops that have been engineered by humans through selective breeding to not look anything like what they used to.

For instance, did you realize that broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower and collard greens are all the same species of plant [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassica_oleracea]?

Yeah, look at what we did to the banana:

This is a wild banana:

This is what we have selectively bred it to be:

There's obviously other examples, but I just love how different the banana has become when compared to its "wild" counterpart.

 

[Gwarr]

Aren't the no seed oranges GM? Then , hell , VIVA GM FOOD!