Antidisestablishmentarian
Well-Known Member
The title of the thread is a lie. There is no Monsanto protection act. Every article you post that contains those words, is a lie.Exactly what I was thinking about you Frank lol so where are these posts?
Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013
- Thread starter DNAprotection
- Start date
Trousers
Well-Known Member
We can devolve this into a name calling contes, since you are losing the debate.
That is all you have left because you lies have been exposed.
Pretty much everything you have posted has been from a blog. The Natural News has a very clear agenda and the truth is not really important to them. The "studies" you posted are not actual scientific studies.
Here is an example of a lie:
I asked you to reference the study that lie was based on. You still haven't done it. Why? I assume you realize that it is a garbage "study" and not accepted by independent scientists.
If you want to argue semantics by saying, "I wasn't lying, I was just posting a video." You posted a video that is full of lies. You endorse it as truth. That is lying.
You are a liar and a horrible person. I do not understand why you accept blogs and pseudo science as fact and deny the 600 independently funded studies going back 30 some years that say GMO crops are not harmful.
You are obviously unhinged. You post lie after lie as fact. that is lying. You are a terrible person and a liar.
Posting something you haven't read is just dumb.
You are still posting lies and presenting them as fact. You are a liar and a horrible person.
The scientific method hates you and the bullshit you post.
You are not smart enough to understand the difference between a blog and an independently funded, peer reviewed study, much less 600 of them.
you ignorance combined with your willingness to lie and spread lies is crazy. You should be ashamed of yourself. Your parents should have eaten you while your bones were still soft.
I haven't ignored anything. You post stuff without reading it.
You can ramble on about how you figure things out, but you are ignoring the best information in favor of blogs and scare tactics.
It is fine if you want to disregard science, but don't spread your garbage lies. I am embarrassed for you and your feeble, lying mind. You are deep in denial.
So why post it? Do you enjoy spreading lies?
Do you enjoy being an ignorant liar?
Then why didn't you read it? How would you know?
Why do you post lies and present them as fact?
Troll away. You are a liar and a horrible person. you have no interest in logic, reason and especially critical thinking.
You are unable to hold your own in this debate.
Could you please reference the study that you said shows that GMO crops cause cancer/tumors or what ever you claimed?
I assume you will not, because you know it is a lie.
So, do you want to debate, or do you just want to go ahead and turn this into a name calling contest?
Either way, I will crush you.
Have a great day son.
karousing
Well-Known Member
science is wrong though. shit that was concrete gets proven false everyday. science is simply what we are capable of proving using the instruments we have at the time.... think what tools and instruments we will have in 50 years from now... what do you think will still be concrete.....
Trousers
Well-Known Member
This is a philosophical argument meant to support an opinion based argument. This has been covered and is irrelevant.
It just does not make any sense. This is what GMO haters rely on.
What studies do you not agree with?
Why?
Until there is better evidence, I will believe the independently funded scientists over a blog and OP-EDs.
Why would you believe opinions over 600 independently funded studies?
Are you arguing against the scientific method?
I would be happy to debate you on that, but it is not really germane to the subject at hand as it is ridiculous.
It just does not make any sense. This is what GMO haters rely on.
What are you talking about?
What studies do you not agree with?
Why?
The best studies and evidence right now say that GMO crops are not harmful.
Until there is better evidence, I will believe the independently funded scientists over a blog and OP-EDs.
Why would you believe opinions over 600 independently funded studies?
Not exactly. Are you talking about the scientific method? You should look that up.
Are you arguing against the scientific method?
I would be happy to debate you on that, but it is not really germane to the subject at hand as it is ridiculous.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Are you suggesting we sit on our hands because we might know more in 50years?
Should we also not sit on our hands in 50years because in 100years from now even more would be known?
We can only act on the information we have at hand
karousing
Well-Known Member
you guys are really defensive. i am simply stating a fact.
you can take it to mean whatever you want it to.
and no, i dont think we should sit on our hands.
the only way to make new tools and instruments is to use the ones available at the time until we come across new ones.
you guys really need to look at each statement from a neutral point......
you can take it to mean whatever you want it to.
and no, i dont think we should sit on our hands.
the only way to make new tools and instruments is to use the ones available at the time until we come across new ones.
you guys really need to look at each statement from a neutral point......
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Fixed that for you
Facts mean "what ever you want it to"?
What exactly was your "neutral point" about "science is wrong"?
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
scientist used to say cigarettes were good for your health, and DDT was safe as well . . your "here is our unquestionable proof that what your opinion and your choice to know what you feed yourself dont matter" reassurance means very little . . only one man thought the earth wasnt round . . . he was killed for it . . . .funny you guys bring up that argument of the more correct theory vs the one with the most government support
yalls view is at best disconcerting and at worst and bad puppet act . . yall knwo as much as us, which is nothing . . independently funded . . .huh . . lol . . .more like indirectly paid for
if GMO is better , market and advertise it . . .as such
yalls view is at best disconcerting and at worst and bad puppet act . . yall knwo as much as us, which is nothing . . independently funded . . .huh . . lol . . .more like indirectly paid for
if GMO is better , market and advertise it . . .as such
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
science found them to be unsafe in the end through proper testing and reporting data through proper journals
The moment gmo's are shown to be unsafe in same manner you'd have a point
You want to eat organic food there's nothing stopping you.
It is labelled properly
Right.....
What?
It is marketed and advertised to the farmers.... as such
By the time it reaches the store it's just food
You want to fool yourself that your eating something better buy organic
Doer
Well-Known Member
Science is neither right or wrong. That is not even covered in the Scientific Method. Science is about attacking, methodically, the Current Understanding. It is all Theory at the top and below the Theory is the Math and below that is the Experiment. After that is tech. Tech works as defined by the Current Understanding.
So, a lot of what is going on with the hippies is attempting to prove something....to be right about something. Not science.
Us actual, trained in method, science types will never say right or wrong except against the assaulted Theory. You get the Theory accepted in the Understanding, like the Higgs field, you will immediately get that turned upon and attacked. By who? The hungry dogs called brilliant Grad Students.
They will jobs from people. Entire fields are disrupted constantly by Experiment. You have to back the right horse to get going in Science. It is dirty business.
Careers rise and fall on this stuff.
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
possibly poisoning us for a market share of commodities is not ok with me ., . . . and the we just found this out . is not a reasonable excuse to me
so no
my use of the DDT as a point, trumps any caution you throw into the wind
who conducted these independent studies, i missed that page
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
itsGMO food, and i deserve a right to know . . .bottom line, in a open market if you goign to peddle your whares be ready to accept public backlash when they find out what is actually in them
kinda like MSG
or pink slime
transparency should be easy if your product is safer healthier and more economically and fiscally responsible(as they claim)
do you think we dont need to knwo or shouldn't know or its not important to you so it shouldn't be to me
im trying to Advocate for more transparency your trying to fight for what in regards to not advertising GMO'ed products?
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
who conducted these independant studies that prove all teh glory to the GMO foods, a simple link would suffice . . .
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Possibly poisoning?
Absolutely no evidence or even a mechanism for the poisoning to occur?
Cool story bro
Nonsense it's just hysterical blovating by yourself to hide the fact you have no evidence against gmo
Scientists
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
DDT, nutra sweet, pringles fat blocker chips(made in teh 90) made you shit yourself all Gov approved untill not
um, your they feed it to us so its safe argument is so easily turned into ky jelly, i dont even know where to start
the ramifications of these products on our society is not known, the FDA feeds us corn by products in every thing, def not good for us and they admit it!
PINK SLIME FDA approved . . . your point is moot in light of what is already on the market, approved by the very entities you that approve all this other shit
im asking for transparency(my personal beliefs are irrelevant) your saying why
and now im wondering why is it you dont care what others are tricked into eating
the percentages dont lie, if we knew it was all GMO(which all corn is and soy and whesat is on its way) people wouldnt eat it
but they dont advertise that, and FDA ORGANIC is a facade
so much of the process is allowed to be not organic its just a giant lie
um, your they feed it to us so its safe argument is so easily turned into ky jelly, i dont even know where to start
the ramifications of these products on our society is not known, the FDA feeds us corn by products in every thing, def not good for us and they admit it!
PINK SLIME FDA approved . . . your point is moot in light of what is already on the market, approved by the very entities you that approve all this other shit
im asking for transparency(my personal beliefs are irrelevant) your saying why
and now im wondering why is it you dont care what others are tricked into eating
the percentages dont lie, if we knew it was all GMO(which all corn is and soy and whesat is on its way) people wouldnt eat it
but they dont advertise that, and FDA ORGANIC is a facade
so much of the process is allowed to be not organic its just a giant lie
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
can you source the study or not . . . .
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
at one time their was no evidence that DDT caused birth defects either
Cigarettes were healthy and promoted by doctors
MSG was thought to be healthy
for fucks sake
pizza is a vegetable now
your they tell us so its right methodology means very little
how many sugar alternatives have been forced on to the market only to be taken off years later for cancer or bith defects risk\
PINK SLIME is MORE THEN edible its been a main stay for probably over 20 years
explain that
Cigarettes were healthy and promoted by doctors
MSG was thought to be healthy
for fucks sake
pizza is a vegetable now
your they tell us so its right methodology means very little
how many sugar alternatives have been forced on to the market only to be taken off years later for cancer or bith defects risk\
PINK SLIME is MORE THEN edible its been a main stay for probably over 20 years
explain that
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
If you want warning stickers first I suggest you show harm to be warned against. I will not advocate scaring consumers on the whim of woefully misinformed idiots
There is already a labelling system that should guarantee gmo free food
It's called 100% organic
Why is that not good enough for you?
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Your asking for the studies that show cigarettes unsafe?
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
but its not 100%, they use non organics in teh process . .the qualifications for organic have become less organic as of late so more people can make money
look it up, the FDA organic labeling system is fucked up
scaring misinformed idiots .. . .huh....you say its unequivocally better then the same product . . .. shoudl be easy to prove then huh
but the fact is that its not proven
or the results would be transparent
how long after DDT was used did they know it was bad for you and how long did it take to get it off the shevles
13 years after it as known to be deadly, 23 years after it was thought to be deadly and 40 years after it was created
it was also thoguht to be a break through and it was a farce created by those who made the most money off it
40 years for proper testing, which was observe, as DDT effects are easily seen .. . . . .whats that about scientific method . . . . .should have been obvious . . . huh
when money is at stake, the public's safety seems to always be the last concern