The Big Picture: Feeding Edge

[DVS Storm]

I have studied a lot of biology in my school and it is really interesting. On topic though I hate the conversation about ganetically modified food and "the food with genes". WAKE THE FUCK UP PEOPLE. Every living thing has genes. We can't live or improve without them. I really like the fact that MovieBob made a video about this.

 

[AwkwardTodd]

MENDEL FOR THE FUCKING WIN!!!!!

 

[keserak]

In comparison to crossbreeding, Bob calls using genetic engineering, "simplifying." By his bullshit logic, invasive surgery is the same thing as taking an herbal supplement.

He did not, go back and watch the video again.

Wrong. Go back and watch the video again.

He was simplifying what genetic engineering was by calling it manually changing genes.

Liar. He was calling two things that are very different the same thing. You're actually dissembling at this point: either you didn't read the posts above you which explained the difference, literally dozens of times now, in which case you're not acting in good faith here and therefore lying, or you know the difference and are simply attempting to obfuscate with a direct lie. Either way, it's pointless.

b) Genetically modify seeds with material outside the seeds' species to resist the weed killing toxin.
c) Modify the seeds further for other uses.

And now you are just fear mongering. How does modifying the seeds make them bad? You don't say you just expect us to think it's bad because you put that they were modified. Oooh scary.

Bullshit. You have no idea what you're talking about. You didn't even read the whole post -- nor have you read anything on this forum about the implications of Monsanto's engineering or its actual uses in patent law. Read the post.

I did, it's still fear mongering when you expect us to think they're up to no good just because they're modifying the genes. And stop pretending you're a psychic, you don't know how much I've read.

Bullshit. You cut off my post and ignored the context. You're fearmongering by both trying to literally rewrite my words by pretending a fragment of an argument is a whole argument -- and then using that broken piece of verbiage to accuse me of being part of some sort of insane conspiracy. You'll note I quoted your whole statement while you found it necessary to use only some of my words in order to make your lie stick. But going back to your more recent whopper:

did, it's still fear mongering when you expect us to think they're up to no good just because they're modifying the genes. And stop pretending you're a psychic, you don't know how much I've read.

. . . aaaaaand another lie -- if you did read the posts you'd note that our concern was actual crime and malfeasance -- not the mere fact they're "modifying the genes," a phrase that, based on your insistence in perpetuating mistruths noted above, you either don't understand or are willfully obfuscating. Still, either way, dozens of us have given legitimate complaints about Monsanto on this site, and hundreds of millions more worldwide, and you're playing a game of let's pretend where "dey moddifyin' tha' jeans!" is all you hear.

And stop pretending you're a psychic, you don't know how much I've read.

I didn't use super-powers, I used deductive reasoning. Stop throwing out unsubstantiated accusations. It doesn't take a "psychic" to realize you deliberately cut out portions of a text that refute your position.

I should also point out that you have no sources.

Um -- neither do you. I wasn't writing a term paper, and everything I described comes up on the first couple hits of Google.

It doesn't matter, you make a claim you back it up. I refuse to do your work for you. Although do tell me which of my arguments need referencing.

Um, you made the claim here, so you back it up. Bob put forward a proposition not backed up by evidence, we pointed out he was wrong, you defended him by lying about our position, and then you demanded evidence for . . . I have no idea why. You're the one making a claim, so back it up. I'm not doing your "work" for you, which seems to consist of made-up stuff.

Nor was anything I said manifestly untrue on its face

Then prove it.

By definition, if something is not manifestly untrue, it does not have to be proven manifestly untrue.

You, however, have said things that were manifestly untrue -- as wrong as 2+3 = 47 in a base 10 system. You even made a lie of yourself by throwing out sites as "evidence," below. You, by taking up Bob's banner, undertook the burden of proof here -- and you and he provide none. Hell, you don't even provide logic. But, like any die-hard sophist, you declare that everyone noting that the sky is not, in fact, purple with pink polka-dots be the one to prove it.

Thus, you hope to force your opponent to prove a negative -- an impossibility. But hey, lack of logic hasn't stopped you so far.

You and Bob seriously don't know what "fearmongering" means, do you?

You expected us to question what Monsanto was doing by telling us they were modifying seeds. That sounds scary but tells us absolutely nothing about what the seeds will do or why we should be concerned. That is fear mongering.

Straight-up lie. Read the original post I made, fearmonger. Dozens of people have described the harms at this point.

And posting a bunch of links about people who have banned genetically-engineered crops due to criminal behavior by their creators undermines your point -- however, since your point at this point is to obfuscate and dissemble, maybe you're just being consistent.

Watching fearmongers who don't even know what Round-Up is claim that some shadowy force is fearmongering against Monsanto is high comedy.

For those interested in a scientist instead of Bob and his pack of bullshitters, here was the hit on the first page of google, looking for a very brief overview of only some of the issues at hand:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/interviews/rissler.html

Edit:
And just noticed this:
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/23/wikileaks_cables_reveal_us_sought_to

Monsanto and the U.S. act on a global scale to manipulate and lie to european governments. But, seriously, the problem here is a bunch of crazy phantom activists who must be left unnamed. I suppose we'll hear that the anti-Monsato crowd is a pawn of the Illuminati next.

 

[Donne]

Great vid, but there's something I just have to point out.

go to 03:35. listen.
Do you know what I call it?
here's a hint: not defribbulayshun
here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defibrillation

kthxbye

 

[3dgill]

Counter Argument: http://www.hulu.com/watch/67878/the-future-of-food

"The Future Of Food offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind engineered foods that have quietly filled U.S. grocery store shelves for the past decade."

 

[3dgill]

This documentary is probably where keserak obtained his references. Most of his statements mirror this film to the letter.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/67878/the-future-of-food

 

[3dgill]

Were you referencing The Future of Food in many of your statements? If so, then post this link to the movie from hulu.com and state that you're referencing it. http://www.hulu.com/watch/67878/the-future-of-food

Bob is absolutely full of shit.

He is speaking with the air of authority on something he knows less than nothing about. That is, he has so much misinformation that he would actually be better off being completely ignorant.

Let's review the errors.

Selective breeding is NOT the same thing as genetic engineering. Genetic engineering involves using viruses (or other small carriers, such as needles) to modify a species using genetic material from a completely different species. In other words, two species that could NEVER breed in the wild can have materials combined. Viruses can move genetic material around in the wild "naturally," but, in multicellular organisms, this is an incredibly rare event that has only been theorized to have occured. In other words, this is NOT a natural event. In fact, you take genetic traits from plants and fungi and add them to animals. The organisms don't even have to be in the same kingdom.

Bob implied that this was only turning on and off existing traits.

In this, Bob is a liar.*

In comparison to crossbreeding, Bob calls using genetic engineering, "simplifying." By his bullshit logic, invasive surgery is the same thing as taking an herbal supplement.

And oh, let's not hear the "it all exists in nature" canard from some of the posters. Cyanide is naturally occuring -- I invite you to try some. The fact of the matter is, a protein that is excellent in corn won't necessarily be healthy in a trout. Biological systems are exceptionally complex -- they are likely the most complex thing known to man -- and extensive testing would be needed to be certain the chimeric animal is healthy and safe to eat -- testing that Monsanto and the like are dedicated to avoiding.

By the way, the relevant term here is chimera, NOT a hybrid Bob -- and if you don't know what a chimera is, you shouldn't even be in this discussion. Seriously, this is like discussing the Middle East without knowing what Jew, Arab, oil, and the U.S. mean.

But back to that earlier point, it is not the mere existence of a biological agent that makes it "natural," but its relationship with the organism. I can assure you that an octopus contains plenty of chemicals that, if placed in the human bloodstream, would sicken it, and vice-versa. Saying that something is "natural" because it's found in nature is like claiming it's okay to stab you in the head with an icicle. Water is natural, after all, and you're full of it already, right?

It gets worse. The problem with genetic engineering -- which Bob doesn't even understand -- is that it is being used without proper controls and with complete disregard to environmental laws and human saftey. Monsanto, the biggest and most well-known perpetrator, made its fortune by doing the following:

a) Invent a highly toxic weed killer.
b) Genetically modify seeds with material outside the seeds' species to resist the weed killing toxin.
c) Modify the seeds further for other uses.
d) Fail to test the food on animals -- or test the food badly, obscuring animal harm such as increased rate of cancer. (Yep, they'll lie about their own results.)
e) Sell the seed to farmers where the plants will interbreed with wild species, contaminating them.

And the real doozy:

f) If some of Monsanto's seeds get onto your property and you've refused to buy their seed, they will claim your ENTIRE FARM as their own and take the plants you developed via decades of actual cross-breeding, patent the plants, and steal your livelhood.

I'm not kidding. They did this to farmers in Canada and are pulling the same crap in India.

Oh, by the way: if you're in the third world, they'll refuse to let you save your seeds -- you know, what farmers have done for over 20 thousand years. That way you have to buy from them ever year. And they jack the price up. Not that you needed to buy their seed before they started polluting your crops with their seeds.

Needless to say, contamination of some of the oldest crops of mankind could lead to some pretty serious devastation. Monsanto and similar companies are using the entire planet as a laboratory and have no experimental controls. (And again, if you don't know what a scientific control is, you have no business saying anything about genetic engineering. Just to be sure, I'm not saying you shouldn't talk about this: you should. You should look up your terms first, however -- and not spew a bunch of poisonous lies on a popular media site while ridiculing hundreds of millions of people fighting to preserve their lives and jobs.)

It is not genetic engineering to improve crops. It's genetic engineering to exploit the trademark system, a legal system that the framers of the Constitution never expected to be employed as we do today. It is supposed to be illegal to patent living things; Monsanto's bribes changed that.

And, oh, Bob -- that carrot? The one you thought you were so clever about? Yeah, we know it was genetically engineered due to activists telling us. It wasn't mentioned in the supermarket. In fact, Monsanto and its allies work hard to obscure all genetic engineering information and hope to make its disclosure illegal. This is despite the fact that some of their additions can trigger allergic reactions in humans.

So, if you're allergic to peanuts, imagine it being illegal to label something as containing peanut products. That's you're future.

Seriously, Bob, that carrot gag did nothing to ridicule your target and simply made you look like an ass.

Hell, even his non-science discussion is a doughy pantload. Frankenstein's lack of scientific credentials in the novel was basically irrelevant since accredidation didn't mean much in the 19th century -- but, zounds, it was a big deal in the 20th, hence the change to the movie.

You'd think he'd know that, being a movie critic.



*The vehemence of this reply is due to the fact that Bob was contemptuous of people who have a valid, important concern with the state of the FDA. In short, Bob was belittling people who are working their asses off to save lives and livelihoods in the face of ridiculously irresponsible and, frankly, antiscientific mismanagement. And he did so using out-and-out lies, some of which parallel the lies used by the industries breaking the laws and bribing congress as we speak. I call him a liar because of his confidence; he made blanket, untrue declarations with the intent to persuade.

 

[Space Lion]

Genetically engineering food is about as scary to rational people as the manual engineering of food or in other words cooking your dinner. Eventually we won't even need to kill animals for meat or destroy the countryside to protect our crops from bugs. All because of science, does it still sound quite so scary?

 

[Drake_Dercon]

Sorry for the delayed response, I have my reasons, but at this point only one really matters. In the future, though, I'd like to maintain some civility. There's a really good reason for that and I'll come to it shortly. Just a few issues I'd like to outline first.

snipped for reasons of length

A full response would be unwarranted and against what I'm trying to do, so here's just a few problems I had with what you said (and it's more how you said it than anything else.

1. Spelling citations:
Those really don't help your argument at all. Yes, I noticed them, but no, I'm not going back to correct them because you clearly understood what I meant there.

2. Snipped wacky stuff:
This merely shows a lack of willingness to understand. Being misunderstood is not a foreign concept to me, as sometimes I can say something that appears to be incoherent. Even though all the links have been made in my mind, I sometimes forget to write them out. The point is, if something doesn't make sense, just ask.

3. Cutting up paragraphs:
You cut apart one paragraph as though it was three separate arguments (making it completely nonsensical). If you plan on slandering someone else's argument, please don't rely on such tactics.

4. I was way off on the banana:
Humans share 50% of our DNA with a banana. (Or 65%, depending on your source). A good analogy I found was switching out the pilot of an airplane. It will probably still fly, but probably in a different way.

5. Computer:
This was likely my worst offense to sensibility. I was attempting to make a comparison between computers and invasive species, but that clearly failed.

6. Unreferenced arguments:
That was a bit of trolling, I'm sorry for that. If you want me to reference myself I can in the future, but I'm not going to go back unless you ask me for specific arguments to be referenced. Those posts are over. Nobody reads them unless they're on the first page.

7. The definition of fear-mongering:
"Fear mongering (or scaremongering) is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic, sometimes in the form of a vicious circle."
-From wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (other references available)
If I've ever done this, please let me know where and how. I will endeavor to correct the issue as quickly as possible.

8. Please stop being a dick:
If you have a problem with what I'm saying, make an argument, don't flame. Again, if it doesn't make sense, ask.

Now for the point.
The main issue of my delay was not what to respond with (in fact, you left it very wide open), but how to respond. The nature of this "conversation" has made me think somewhat. I've realized, finally, the relevance of Bob's video.

Let me first make this clear. I never liked the corporations nor the way GM food is being handled. I'm afraid that I haven't quite said that strongly enough, which has led to some very biased counter-arguments. Monsanto specifically has been ruining (and contributing to the end of) lives and livelihoods while also not giving a damn about how their food affects the health of those eating it (one corn species causes impotence, to name an example). This doesn't mean stop eating. This doesn't mean they're out to get us or that they'll kill us all. It means they have problems that people need to draw attention to in order to fix. Note: I haven't found ANY documented cases of GM foods leading to severe adverse health effects on those who have eaten the products (besides the corn one) and risks have been identified by third-party health publications as minimal. Just because they don't give a damn doesn't mean they're actively trying to hurt people. I think the fact that we can do this is really cool, but I also think that it becomes pointless if handled improperly (as is the current situation).

I'll also note that Bob's video, while not factually incorrect, sidestepped this issue entirely. And that's the point.

See, While he my not have realized it at the time of recording, Feeding Edge did draw attention to something very important, and that's that most people don't care. Why? For exactly the reasons he said. There are people (including you and I) on both sides of the argument that have raised this to fanaticism, which has turned this into what many people see as a non-issue.

My logic goes as such:
Which issues are people so fanatical about?
Religion
Politics
...
Essentially things that really aren't worth militancy in a modern world. People disregard religion and politics because the status quo won't change based on who's on top and with tolerance being an accepted form of self-comportment, arguing over religion loses you the respect of your peers. Most people either stop caring or stay out of it because it's a virtual minefield.

If the people that talk about this issue treat it the same way, it won't get any more public attention.

Then there's the mechanics of the issue. Treating it from one angle is a bad idea. So, we'll look at where everyone fits in.

Monsanto: They are a corporation. One based around profit. Honestly, they don't really have a lot of options. Making plants that can't reproduce means they must be overpriced and must be purchased every year, ruining livelihoods. Making plants that CAN reproduce means that the seeds will be spread, causing environmental damage and spreading to other farmers' fields. That farmer's crop might be damaged and worse, the plants aren't theirs to use. The value of the seeds must be reclaimed or a precedent will be set. That doesn't leave them without options, though. They could create plants that grow in isolated environments, with mother plants that grow asexual seeds and gendered seeds. They could sort them and keep the gendered plants for the next crop, selling the asexual ones. This allows them to cut down prices on the seeds. But they won't do it. It decreases profits and it's harder. So they can be faulted there. A lot.

Scientists paid not to do research: Never, ever a good idea. That's like police officers paid to abuse their position. Politicians paid not to act on the change they promised. Media paid to misinform the masses. Me promising I wouldn't do this...

Activists taking up arms: People have found these problems and they want them solved. Now.
Musical recommendation: Revolution

Media: Bad news is good news. There's more money in hearing what the people have to say. The more anti-establishment, the better. Of course the company must be allowed to defend itself. And as wee all know, everyone trusts a corporate exec.

People afraid of change: Whether you like it or not, they're always there. The status quo is a nice place to sit when you're fairly well of where you are. Who says things won't get worse when things change?

People afraid of change in the other direction: Whether you like it or not, they're always there. The status quo is a nice place to sit when you're fairly well of where you are. Who says things won't get worse when things change?

People who like the way things are going: (Not to be confused with people afraid of change in the other direction). People that want to defend these companies because GM foods are good and they don't really grasp the ramifications. That, or they simply think politics doesn't need this, too. Think about it. We have so many problems as it is, do we really need another one? It would make sense if the situation wasn't so bad (not to say that we're in any danger of anything, just that real people in other places are).

People that don't care/don't want to get involved: (Not to be confused with people who like the way things are going). They usually have some opinion, but can see how much people are fighting over this issue and see that maybe it's not so important as they thought, or that, like the people who like the way things are going, think that politics don't need this messing them up, only aren't willing to make politics of it.

The largest problems lie at the top and bottom of that chain, although the parts that will change it most lie near the middle. If the activists calm down and start subtler protests, the goal can be achieved better than the way it's happening now.

Boycott: Don't buy GM foods, convince your friends not to. Join the organic food movement. Pesticides are a problem, too.

Petition: Make an online petition to increase the standard of testing (or join one, I'm sure there's one out there). That would help a lot.

Stop posting on the escapist: Face it, politicians don't even know this site exists (see: California videogame law). It just makes people more indifferent. At least put out a less emotional argument. Try it, it's an experiment

That's all I can think of right now.

You don't have to believe me, but at least keep your arguments civil and as ARGUMENTS, I really don't want any "wtf is this i dont even...". That doesn't help either of us.

No response means you concede.

 

[Schizms]

I recal a funny (-ish, not that good) tv movie called Burgershot where a small burger place needs to combat a big corporation next door. this bigger (huge) burgerplace added nome chemical to make their burgers bigger. really it mould make them "grow". in the end the small burger shot was better becouse their "real" burgers would taste better. i think this is what the fear of people is.
when they think of bio-engenering they think of making bigger or more food by doing things to in chemicaly, wich would make the food less healthy or taste worse.

 

[Micheal Kandeloussi]

thanks man this really opened my eyes.

 

[TheMidst]

Well... Selective breeding isn't exactly the same as what they do to food nowadays. It's true that it can be considered genetic engineering though. But it's not true that what you would call 'modern' genetic engineering is just turning on and off traits. It's much more complicated than that, but of course it couldn't be explained in a short video. In short selective breeding is natural, and 'MGE' is not natural. People may be worried because we don't fully understand it. I don't want to start an argument, just want to clear things up.

 

[TheMidst]

Defibrillation does not, I repeat, DOES NOT bring people back to life. You see it in movies all the time but it's not true. Defibrillation only has the effect of stopping a form of cardiac arrest. Always check facts when making an informative video. Viewers have been provided with false information.

 

[Finnra]

I'm not entirely sold. I might agree with you in essence but this is certainly not the big picture.

This is dumbed down counterarguments to dumbed down arguments.

 

[keserak]

Bullshit. You cut off my post and ignored the context.

I did not. It was part of a list of bullet points, and I posted the entire bullet.

And ignored the bullets before and after that gave it context. Thus, you ignored the context.

I accused you of using fear mongering which isn't even close to a conspiracy.

I pointed out you were creating a conspiracy. Now you appear to be acting deliberately dense. Read the quote again.

Do you not understand how bullet points work? Each one is supposed to be something separate, so when you have 'they're modifying genes' as a single bullet point then it means that's a separate complaint.

Each bullet was "something separate": it was a separate fact that built a whole argument. Do you not understand how arguments work? Seriously, how inane can you be? How deliberately childish? You are creating, out of whole cloth, a grammatical rule for bullet points that has no precedent and doesn't even make sense in the context in which you invoke it -- and all to avoid an argument you're pretending not to get.

I'm asking you to back up claims that you made, you should be able to do so. What claims have I made that require outside source? Name one.

You just claimed that there is a conspiracy to illegitimately demonize GMO. That is the point of Bob's post, the post you're defending, remember? You have provided no proof of this -- or anything else, and then you peevishly demand that someone else display proof of your lack of proof, hoping to confuse the issue by demanding proof of a negative. You are engaging in base sophistry. Your side began this argument; now you're whining because you don't want to back up your insane position.

But hey, lack of logic hasn't stopped you so far.

Nor has a lack of a clue stopped you.

Zing! Oh, I am got! But way there guy -- that "lack of a clue" you're talking about -- is that anything like the lack of evidence you have to back up your bullshit position? If so, that kinda brings you down to a position of petty, asinine sniping in order to disguise your lack of a point.

My point was that there are people who are trying to get all GM foods banned, I've posted links to the groups that want to do that and places where they've succeeded and you said they don't exist.

And back to straight-up lying. The point isn't that groups are trying to get GMOs banned -- the point is that those groups blocking importation of GMOs have legitimate reasons to do so. You're deliberately ignoring my posts on the subject so that you can obfuscate Bob's thesis that there is illegitimacy. You're promulgating a conspiracy theory that any and all groups that want to block GMOs have no legitimate concerns.

You're fearmongering.

I fucking named them you dolt. Are you not paying attention?

No, you are lying. You did not name them. You are selectively editing out parts of the contention you don't care for: namely that those concerned with GMOs enough to block their importation into their country have significant and legitimate scientific, economic, and civil rights (e.g., farmer's rights and consumer rights) issues. You're pretending I said "no one opposes genetically modified foods under any circumstances." Again, ironically, you're not paying any attention. You're stating things that aren't true to obfuscate weakness in your argument.

And when that is pointed out, you resort to name-calling.

 

[keserak]

Snipped wacky stuff: This merely shows a lack of willingness to understand.

No, it was mockery of the inanity in your post. A portion of it was completely nonsensical. That's not a slur: I mean it made no sense whatsoever. It communicated nothing.

You cut apart one paragraph as though it was three separate arguments (making it completely nonsensical). If you plan on slandering someone else's argument, please don't rely on such tactics.

The result was not nonsensical. You made a series of completely wrong points, where each wrong point demanded refutation. It is amazing that you call carefully pointing out your errors a "tactic." In fact, this method is usually called Fisking [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking], and is held up as being a way to show one is not obfuscating the point of the quoted individual. So, in essence, you're complaining that a method dedicated to not undermining your point undermined your point -- a position that, unfortunately, obscures the fact that your initial arguments were horrible. To wit: you use a collateral attack on the method used to point out your arguments' errors, but you do not subsequently defend your arguments.

I was way off on the banana: Humans share 50% of our DNA with a banana.

My God man, are you really still not getting this? Did you even read the post? No. It must be concluded that you didn't. You were annoyed by the format of the post and ignored the content. If you had read it, you would have realized:

Banana DNA similarity with humans is irrelevant. Do you understand what that means? The assertion, regardless of its truth or falsity, goes to neither prove or disprove any issue at hand. It's a waste of time. That's the problem.

Example: humans born with tails are examples of atavism. What does this have to do with Bob's movie? The same thing banana DNA does: absolutely nothing.

Now that this section is larger, perhaps you won't ignore it.

7. The definition of fear-mongering: If I've ever done this, please let me know where and how. I will endeavor to correct the issue as quickly as possible.

Bob's animation and posts asserted, without evidence or even logical coherence, the notion that GMOs are inherently good, then proposed that there existed a group of individuals who, due to stupidity and/or an excess of misplaced emotion and without any legitimate basis, were using tremendous power in the U.S. government to undermine the cause of GMOs. His communication served to encourage fear of this nonexistant group -- or, more likely, to generate fear against very real groups that have legitimate and profoundly important problems with GMOs. Note that in the latter case such groups provide a valuable public service, as has been described voluminously upthread. This was fearmongering. You defended Bob's position, helping him fearmonger, thus, you fearmongered in turn.

This was already explained before. Seriously. I need to point out that this is near charity at this point. You could have read all this before.

Please stop being a dick.

You mean like deliberately ignoring entire posts so you can make a point that's already been refuted? That's pretty much being a dick. Could you take your own advise, or at least dispense with the hypocrisy?

I'll also note that Bob's video, while not factually incorrect, sidestepped this issue entirely. And that's the point.

No, it's not the point. To wit: I don't care about the other stuff you said. I care about the specific issue of Bob's video. I am trying to counter Bob's disinformation. Full stop. I don't seek to expand the issue beyond that, and pretending that all of the above posts and Bob "miss the point" so you can get up on your soapbox about the issue is arrogant in the extreme. E.g., you're being a dick. If you want to discuss GMOs and Monsanto without regard to Bob's communications, make a new thread. I'm not indulging in an off-topic conversation, especially given the incredibly poor grasp of the science involved you displayed upthread -- then conveniently ignored.

Either make a new thread where you can wax poetic about your ideas, or react to Bob, but don't derail.

I really don't want any "wtf is this i dont even...". That doesn't help either of us.

Um, no, it helped me deal with the inanity of your posts. Go back up and read what you said. It was insultingly bad. If you were deliberately trolling, you'd derserve a prize. Please don't post something that makes absolutely no sense in English then blame someone else for failing to have puzzled out your secret twin language. . . and then refuse to even address your own incompetent phrasing and misinformation! That would be being a dick.

And speaking of being a dick:

No response means you concede.

Be more childish here. Seriously. Give it a shot. Try to act more like a four year old here. "I know you are but what am I?" would actually be a step up from this.

 

[maximara]

Selective breeding (I.e with carrots and cows) and genetic engineering are not the same thing. Neither are bad, just genetic engineering isn't just shutting on and off genes its making potatoes provide the correct proteins so they can be used for vaccinations (for human diseases) something which would never happen no matter how many potatoes you bred together.

I'm fine with both, this is more of a definitions thing.

Agreed. Genetic engineering is more like that Tex Avery cartoon "Farm of Tomorrow" where they did things 'we crossed a chicken with an ostrich for bigger drumsticks" only they are mixing the genes of totally different KINGDOMS (plants and animals) and the concern (A very valid one) is that this could cause problems down the road.

Selective breading is eugenics NOT genetic engineering:

Eugenics: "applied science or the biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population."

genetic engineering: "Scientific alteration of the structure of genetic material in a living organism using recombinant DNA, employed for such purposes as creating bacteria that synthesize insulin."

You can't put animal traits in plants with eugenics but you CAN do that with genetic engineering.

I should point out the novel Frankenstein is about responsibility rather then the film's man taking on the role of God. Victor (in the film he becomes Henry for some reason) abandons the monster after creating him and in so doing triggers all that follows. This is the real concern with "Frankenfood"--scientists doing things that once it does comes out of the test tube they either do not or will not want to take responsibility for that they have done.

 

[Drake_Dercon]

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Again, sorry for the delayed response. I know you so love hearing my opinions and this time I really don't have a good reason. [/sarcasm]

First I'd loke to personally thank Father Time for attempting to clarify some of what I've been saying, though I apologise as your aid may well have fallen on dead ears.

On the topic of actually paying attention, keserak, I'd like to ask you what the hell you've been doing. The bulk of my previous post has been completely ignored (you know, the important parts) in favor of attacking me on matters that seem to personally offend you. I can offer proof of this in that some points you have made against me could never have been made had you paid attention to another portion that clarified them. I'm highly insulted at this evidence that, rather than paying attention to what I actually have to say, you skim through it for parts you may want to respond to without even recognizing that there is an issue involved that we both are perpetuating. I'll have you know that I read and reread each of your posts to be absolutely sure I've left nothing out. Hell, you probalbly haven't even read this far, so there's really no point to this paragraph other than taking a swipe at your character. And now I can imagine your face as you go back to read this from the start.

That said, this will be my second-to-last response. I've no wish to drive this problem much farther, especially since nobody's paying attention to your posts or mine (save Father Time, thank you once more for your help).

Snipped wacky stuff: This merely shows a lack of willingness to understand.

No, it was mockery of the inanity in your post. A portion of it was completely nonsensical. That's not a slur: I mean it made no sense whatsoever. It communicated nothing.

You're doing nothing more than proving my own point. If it made no sense whatsoever to you, then how is it within your own rights to call it an ignorant viewpoint? That's why I said to ask if there's something you don't get. We can do this rationally, or we can take swings at eachother until someone gives up. Frankly, I'd prefer to have a real discussion.

Take the time, if you chose to respond to this section, to ask for specific clarification rather than attacking it because it is somehow stupid.

You cut apart one paragraph as though it was three separate arguments (making it completely nonsensical). If you plan on slandering someone else's argument, please don't rely on such tactics.

The result was not nonsensical. You made a series of completely wrong points, where each wrong point demanded refutation. It is amazing that you call carefully pointing out your errors a "tactic." In fact, this method is usually called Fisking [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking], and is held up as being a way to show one is not obfuscating the point of the quoted individual. So, in essence, you're complaining that a method dedicated to not undermining your point undermined your point -- a position that, unfortunately, obscures the fact that your initial arguments were horrible. To wit: you use a collateral attack on the method used to point out your arguments' errors, but you do not subsequently defend your arguments.

So wait, you're saying that because of you, I made sense?

The result was entirely nonsensical. "A banana shares 5% of human DNA" bears no meaning when not followed by the "snipped wacky crap" (a portion that you didn't understand and therefore ignored). This "fisking" you refer to is actually defined as a (and I'm quoting from a dictionary entry) "point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story". While I'll allow that it can be used in posting (in fact, it's exactly what we've both been doing this whole time), you CANNOT take apart three portions of the same point in order to render it meaningless and then say you were fisking.

I do not defend my single argument because there was no legitimate point made against it. Even if you had successfully separated it into three comprehensible points and responded to each one accordingly, I could not qualify your responses as counter-points.

And I did, in fact, state that testing has been vastly inadequate thus far, so don't give me any of that crap.

I was way off on the banana: Humans share 50% of our DNA with a banana.

My God man, are you really still not getting this? Did you even read the post? No. It must be concluded that you didn't. You were annoyed by the format of the post and ignored the content. If you had read it, you would have realized:

Banana DNA similarity with humans is irrelevant. Do you understand what that means? The assertion, regardless of its truth or falsity, goes to neither prove or disprove any issue at hand. It's a waste of time. That's the problem.

Example: humans born with tails are examples of atavism. What does this have to do with Bob's movie? The same thing banana DNA does: absolutely nothing.

Now that this section is larger, perhaps you won't ignore it.

Thank you for actually making a point. I can respond to this much better than "wtf i dont even...".

The reference to the banana was made to show that we aren't terribly different from everything else (and neither is anything else terribly different from anything other than itself... I'm being confusing again, aren't I?). If a species can be modified by making subtle changes to its genetic structure, why shouldn't it be? I can see many uses for this technology. However, it should be used responsibly and I consider its current employment a deep insult to both science and invention.

This relates to Bob's video in that he made a similar point, which I just took a step farther. The point of the video (at the specific point I am referencing) was that "this is a fascinating technology, why shouldn't we use it?". What he dodged was the issue of complete disregard for anyone other than the large corporations dominating the GM crop industry. One argument to the exclusion of others so as not to concede point. If I considered this an actual debate, I'd be doing the same.

7. The definition of fear-mongering: If I've ever done this, please let me know where and how. I will endeavor to correct the issue as quickly as possible.

Bob's animation and posts asserted, without evidence or even logical coherence, the notion that GMOs are inherently good, then proposed that there existed a group of individuals who, due to stupidity and/or an excess of misplaced emotion and without any legitimate basis, were using tremendous power in the U.S. government to undermine the cause of GMOs. His communication served to encourage fear of this nonexistant group -- or, more likely, to generate fear against very real groups that have legitimate and profoundly important problems with GMOs. Note that in the latter case such groups provide a valuable public service, as has been described voluminously upthread. This was fearmongering. You defended Bob's position, helping him fearmonger, thus, you fearmongered in turn.

This was already explained before. Seriously. I need to point out that this is near charity at this point. You could have read all this before.

So the mightily informed pays charity to the poor that clearly has no idea what he's babbling. The great keserak so decrees that any and all supporting anything said by anyone he/she doesn't like must be associated with them unconditionally. The ignorant must be enlightened so that he may understand his evils. Get off your horse.

Bob asserted that people were acting irrationally, not with stupidity. There is a massive distinction and I can safely say that there is very little rationality in this whole issue (see: my last post, please). This notion was not that GMOs are good, simply that they are not evil (irrational: anything not evil must be good). These "evil activists" are actually completely normal people. They are rationally angry about how these technologies have been abused, people hear these and become afraid of the technologies. This is the massive "pull" you were referring to. The unmanipulable will of the people directed at the wrong locations because nobody is pushing them in the right direction and not doing anything terribly productive (yes, I do consider the outright ban of genetically modified foods unproductive, thank you very much). None of those statements made anyone more afraid of anything, so I find it a pathetic attempt at fearmongering, even if it was.

While I cannot speak for Bob's own opinions, I can chose to defend certain good arguments and not be associated with any perceived Monsanto worship (exaggeration, don't even think about responding to me because I exaggerated). I have stated time and again the abuse genetic modification and I honestly wish that you didn't ignore that because I have defended other points.

Please stop being a dick.

You mean like deliberately ignoring entire posts so you can make a point that's already been refuted? That's pretty much being a dick. Could you take your own advise, or at least dispense with the hypocrisy?

I have not ignored other posts. If you had paid attention, I have been speaking to actual issues besides making arguments against your own statements. I'd say you could try taking your own advice and some of mine: I realise wholeheartedly my occasional tone of condescention, I am making an effort to regulate that, but it is difficult while you can't stop being incredibly rude in each statement you make. "Dear lord, what kind of pathetic moron is this?" is not the way to enter any form of discussion, which is what I am asking you to stop doing. I would like to be able to speak decently about this.

I'll also note that Bob's video, while not factually incorrect, sidestepped this issue entirely. And that's the point.

No, it's not the point. To wit: I don't care about the other stuff you said. I care about the specific issue of Bob's video. I am trying to counter Bob's disinformation. Full stop. I don't seek to expand the issue beyond that, and pretending that all of the above posts and Bob "miss the point" so you can get up on your soapbox about the issue is arrogant in the extreme. E.g., you're being a dick. If you want to discuss GMOs and Monsanto without regard to Bob's communications, make a new thread. I'm not indulging in an off-topic conversation, especially given the incredibly poor grasp of the science involved you displayed upthread -- then conveniently ignored.

Either make a new thread where you can wax poetic about your ideas, or react to Bob, but don't derail.

I'd say you should care. True, I am attempting to expand the issue beyond Bob's video, but so are you. By making these corporations a part of the issue, it has been expanded. Farther expansion serves only to acheive the same effect: making a small change to the issue's scope so that it can be looked at from a more comprehensive perspective. Point and laugh at my soapbox all you like, it just gives me a good view of the crowd I'm speaking about, not unlike yours.

I said that Bob dodged the greater issue that you're addressing. He was not factually incorrect, simply ignoring the corporations that you seek to involve. You involve Monsanto, so I involve the people observing the issue (which were already recognised by your posts to some degree).

As far as derailing from Bob's video, I fear I was misunderstood. What I meant was that's HIS point. His point was that there are people acting incredibly irrationally about this and that needs to be dealt with before it can be handled properly, such as I percieve it. Regardless of how you choose to look at it, one cannot disregard the fact that Monsanto was ignored by the video. So what was the point if not that? I'm fairly sure at this point that it was the people who are handling the issue poorly. In that respect, I had barely diverted from the actual topic. I'm not sure what your interpretation of the video was, but from what you'd let on, I'm inclined to think we're actually talking about the same one. Gasp! Does that mean we're actually having some form of discussion? Never...

And just because I am terrible at explaining things doesn't mean I don't know anything about them, it just means that I need you to ask for clarification in order to get my point across or I won't be understood at all. If you have a problem with that, you're fully welcome to ignore me.

Next: for my last post, I'll make everything as clear as I possibly can without questions asked. Just stop being so offensive.

I really don't want any "wtf is this i dont even...". That doesn't help either of us.

Um, no, it helped me deal with the inanity of your posts. Go back up and read what you said. It was insultingly bad. If you were deliberately trolling, you'd derserve a prize. Please don't post something that makes absolutely no sense in English then blame someone else for failing to have puzzled out your secret twin language. . . and then refuse to even address your own incompetent phrasing and misinformation! That would be being a dick.

I get it! It's like one of those anger balls! tell your psychiatrist it isn't working. Then ask for clarification or give a damned counter-point. Your argument is meaningless if it doesn't qualify an argument.

I'm not blaming you for me being confusing. If I said something that didn't make sense, you can usually guess that it made sense to me, just that I didn't do a very good job of explaining it. When I say "ask for clarification" I mean to tell me specifically what parts seemed completely out there, so I can correct my own mistakes. Help me help you help me. (See what I did there? that's where you could ask for clarification.)

This is only an insult to you if you make it that way.

And speaking of being a dick:

No response means you concede.

Be more childish here. Seriously. Give it a shot. Try to act more like a four year old here. "I know you are but what am I?" would actually be a step up from this.

Do I need to actually say the word sarcasm now? Who would actually be self righteous enough to say that in earnest? No, not me, put your finger down.

I was attempting to lighten the mood after what might have been an excessively serious topic. If I made a bad call, then I made a bad call. I really don't think it's quite as important as

the point.

but god forbid that should get in anyone's way.

 

[spartan231490]

Selective breeding (I.e with carrots and cows) and genetic engineering are not the same thing. Neither are bad, just genetic engineering isn't just shutting on and off genes its making potatoes provide the correct proteins so they can be used for vaccinations (for human diseases) something which would never happen no matter how many potatoes you bred together.

I'm fine with both, this is more of a definitions thing.

I was going to make the same point. I believe that selective breeding is a part of genetic engineering, but it certainly isn't all of it. Genetic engineering can also, in addition to making potatoes into a vaccine, can do things like put disease resistant genetic material from one species of crop, into another.(they've been doing this with corn recently, so does that make it carrot-corn, or potato-corn or whatever-corn?)

 

[Bre2nan]

While a farming dynasty can, say, breed the perfect sheep for their benefit, Monsanto and others genetically engineer crop and vegetables to dominate the market.
They even go so far as to "unsex" plants so that they don't produce new seeds which have to be bought for a hefty price every damned year again and sustainability and independence go overboard.

I only fear the day when Monsanto's Sardaukar-crops have eliminated all and every "organic" AKA traditional alternative and some African farmers have to go Fremen on His Imperial Highness' corporate ass.

I was wondering if someone would bring up the whole Monsanto thing.

A lot of the controversy doesn't come from the fact that genetic engineering is taking place, it's that greedy asshole corporations can take advantage of what can be done with modern genetic engineering to eliminate all competition. Stuff like this is why people don't like GMOs nowadays, not simply that it is being done by scientists in laboratories.