Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013

Genetically Engineered Cannabis yes or no?

  • Total voters
    369
DNAprotection

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
So 94% of all plants soya bean farmers CHOOSE to grow are GM is what you're saying.

Do I even need to go on?
Click to expand...
Frank you have assumed much again.
First I said nothing to that effect and the article didn't have farmer declarations, it only stated a % and then you ran it through your mental filters the only way you know how.
If there was interviews with all the farmers growing such, I think you would find a great many would 'choose' not to get into what inevitably results in the never ending contracts with Monsanto et al that leave them with dead land completely dependent on the chemical regiment required by Monsanto et al crops and which usually results in greater debt for the farmer rather than greater wealth from my understanding.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
DNAprotection said:
Frank you have assumed much again.First I said nothing to that effect and the article didn't have farmer declarations, it only stated a % and then you ran it through your mental filters the only way you know how.If there was interviews with all the farmers growing such, I think you would find a great many would 'choose' not to get into what inevitably results in the never ending contracts with Monsanto et al that leave them with dead land completely dependent on the chemical regiment required by Monsanto et al crops and which usually results in greater debt for the farmer rather than greater wealth from my understanding.
Click to expand...
Oh so the farmers can't plant soya beans from another source?
Monsanto sends round it's boys to "RoundUp" farmers that won't comply?

You're talking nonsensical shite again.
 
echelon1k1

echelon1k1

New Member
Harrekin said:
Oh so the farmers can't plant soya beans from another source?
Monsanto sends round it's boys to "RoundUp" farmers that won't comply?
Click to expand...
To a degree there is precendent. Bowman vs Monsanto In this case I'd be looking at supplier I purchased the seeds from, not the farmer. Cases like this aren't the first, most farmers just don't have the money to take on any multinational, not just Monsanto.

Would you get the shits if you ordered your favourite seeds from a seedbank, expecting quality for a legal commercial grow, instead you realise you've been given a different brand/strain etc..?? I'd be pretty pissed off especially after putting 4-5 weeks of time & $$$ growing a large batch from seed because I would'nt be able to tell the difference between strains when looking at a bag of 200+ seeds...
 
DNAprotection

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
Oh so the farmers can't plant soya beans from another source?
Monsanto sends round it's boys to "RoundUp" farmers that won't comply?

You're talking nonsensical shite again.
Click to expand...
As usual your missing the point again Frank.
When farmers start planting Monsanto crops for example, growing of such crops happens under contracts where not only is the farmer committing to growing only the seed contracted to grow, but also requires the use of whatever chemical regiment that particular crop calls for. After not long the land dies from this type of 'farming' and the farmers end up sort of like drug addicts because their land will no longer produce without the chemically induced crops. A farmer these days cannot afford the down time leaving land unplanted to heal in effort to attempt to escape the Monsanto et al soil killing drug addiction marry go round and so they must renew their contracts just to stay alive.
Our Monsanto et al farmers of today are best compared to heroin addicts.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
DNAprotection said:
As usual your missing the point again Frank.
When farmers start planting Monsanto crops for example, growing of such crops happens under contracts where not only is the farmer committing to growing only the seed contracted to grow, but also requires the use of whatever chemical regiment that particular crop calls for. After not long the land dies from this type of 'farming' and the farmers end up sort of like drug addicts because their land will no longer produce without the chemically induced crops. A farmer these days cannot afford the down time leaving land unplanted to heal in effort to attempt to escape the Monsanto et al soil killing drug addiction marry go round and so they must renew their contracts just to stay alive.
Our Monsanto et al farmers of today are best compared to heroin addicts.
Click to expand...
the whole point of buying the seeds is because they can tolerate the weedkiller just planting the GMO without them would be a waste of money

the soil isnt poisoned from it and the farmer is under no obligation of buying seeds and can (from a reputable source) get them from whoever they want
 
DNAprotection

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
dna heres a link i know you wont read

anti gmo protester learns the science and changes his view

http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/
Click to expand...
Yes ginja I read and have concluded that there still seems a misunderstanding on your part of what my view is.
I'm not saying this technology won't possibly be useful at some point further down our evolutionary line as a species.
What I'm saying is that we dont know enough about ourselves our environment or the technology to be using such responsibly at this point.
We don't even know enough about possible short term consequences to us or the environment at this point let alone long term possible consequences.
The race is still to get the gold just as it has been for this culture since it landed here...when the bottom line profit margins of a corporation is the overruling concern, all other concerns tend to be overlooked or avoided or denied etc...ginja I'm just saying that from my view our culture having and employing this technology is a little like a stampede of buffalo stomping through a mine field.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
DNAprotection said:
Yes ginja I read and have concluded that there still seems a misunderstanding on your part of what my view is.
I'm not saying this technology won't possibly be useful at some point further down our evolutionary line as a species.
What I'm saying is that we dont know enough about ourselves our environment or the technology to be using such responsibly at this point.
We don't even know enough about possible short term consequences to us or the environment at this point let alone long term possible consequences.
The race is still to get the gold just as it has been for this culture since it landed here...when the bottom line profit margins of a corporation is the overruling concern, all other concerns tend to be overlooked or avoided or denied etc...ginja I'm just saying that from my view our culture having and employing this technology is a little like a stampede of buffalo stomping through a mine field.
Click to expand...
I've just finished the article, and the examples he used, like the "golden rice" (made by and for the public sector) and omega-3 oilseeds (to make fish farming less dependent on wild fish for feed) are working right now. Why push acceptance into the indefinite future? This technology is not the monopoly or hostage of the usual suspects like Monsanto and ADM. cn
 
DNAprotection

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
I post this not because I claim it is 'truth', but because nothing is all 'lies' or all 'truth' and with respect to the subject of the interview, after you wear out your spam option imagine if only the personality splicing part has merit and then fast forward to the same sort of ops having gene splicing capabilities.
Frank you and your keen doctor will love this, cn I caution you not to watch/listen because towards the end might be upsetting for you ;)
One thing that is hard to deny is the existence of non-accountability within our system, especially when it comes to money and power and the nature of absolute power absolutely corrupting those who wield it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MIUgThru7JY

[video=youtube;MIUgThru7JY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MIUgThru7JY[/video]
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
DNAprotection said:
I post this not because I claim it is 'truth', but because nothing is all 'lies' or all 'truth' and with respect to the subject of the interview, after you wear out your spam option imagine if only the personality splicing part has merit and then fast forward to the same sort of ops having gene splicing capabilities.
Frank you and your keen doctor will love this, cn I caution you not to watch/listen because towards the end might be upsetting for you ;)
One thing that is hard to deny is the existence of non-accountability within our system, especially when it comes to money and power and the nature of absolute power absolutely corrupting those who wield it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MIUgThru7JY

[video=youtube;MIUgThru7JY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MIUgThru7JY[/video]
Click to expand...
More "figures of speech" with a sprinkling of twat waffle.

Youtube videos of hippies being interviewed is not a source.

The Monsanto contract is they're not allowed REPLANT seed from this years crop, not that they're permanently forced to use Monsanto products. They can buy seeds anywhere, I buy my Cannabis seeds from lots of different sources and I'm just a small, indoor farmer.

Give us some more hyperbole and paranoid ramblings, GAYprotection, we know you're good for it.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
So 94% of all plants soya bean farmers CHOOSE to grow are GM is what you're saying.

Do I even need to go on?
Click to expand...
i stopped reading at "By Twilight Greenaway"

after i stopped gagging on my own bile, i finished reading that piece of crap, only to discover the "author" has no clue what GMO crops are, how they are developed and that it's impossible to prove anything is safe.

theres always some dimwit who can find a way to injure or kill himself with anything, including toilet seats. NOTHING is safe, and demanding anything be proven harmless before it cn be used will destroy all industry.

but then thats the real goal isnt it?
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
i stopped reading at "By Twilight Greenaway"

after i stopped gagging on my own bile, i finished reading that piece of crap, only to discover the "author" has no clue what GMO crops are, how they are developed and that it's impossible to prove anything is safe.

theres always some dimwit who can find a way to injure or kill himself with anything, including toilet seats. NOTHING is safe, and demanding anything be proven harmless before it cn be used will destroy all industry.

but then thats the real goal isnt it?
Click to expand...
No man, we've to like totally save the planet, man.

We cant be like, playing God, man.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
DNAprotection said:
As usual your missing the point again Frank.
When farmers start planting Monsanto crops for example, growing of such crops happens under contracts where not only is the farmer committing to growing only the seed contracted to grow, but also requires the use of whatever chemical regiment that particular crop calls for. After not long the land dies from this type of 'farming' and the farmers end up sort of like drug addicts because their land will no longer produce without the chemically induced crops. A farmer these days cannot afford the down time leaving land unplanted to heal in effort to attempt to escape the Monsanto et al soil killing drug addiction marry go round and so they must renew their contracts just to stay alive.
Our Monsanto et al farmers of today are best compared to heroin addicts.
Click to expand...
WRONG!!!!!

too many assumptions.

not all farmers use roundup, not all farmers contract for crops, not all farmers use GMO crops, not all farmers use synthetic fertilizers, and many farmers DO let the ground lie fallow periodically, using their feilds as pasturage between cash crops.

some farmers use a 3 crop rotation, some use a two crop rotation and some grow a particular crop under contract for steady cash. your argument is now a poorly thought out condemnation of farmers who sign contracts with evil corporations rather than trusting the local farmer's market and swanky restaurants to keep his mortgage paid. some farmers grow barley for anheiser busch, some farmers grow wheat for pillsbury (and those contracts require particular cultivars as well) some farmers grow livestock feed, and some grow "biofuel" crops for city slicker cash. contracts and corporations are not evil any more than GMO's are. your beliefs and prejudices about farming have no basis in reality, and if you were the secretary of agriculture, every small farmer in the US would be FUCKED by your faulty beliefs
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
WRONG!!!!!

too many assumptions.

not all farmers use roundup, not all farmers contract for crops, not all farmers use GMO crops, not all farmers use synthetic fertilizers, and many farmers DO let the ground lie fallow periodically, using their feilds as pasturage between cash crops.

some farmers use a 3 crop rotation, some use a two crop rotation and some grow a particular crop under contract for steady cash. your argument is now a poorly thought out condemnation of farmers who sign contracts with evil corporations rather than trusting the local farmer's market and swanky restaurants to keep his mortgage paid. some farmers grow barley for anheiser busch, some farmers grow wheat for pillsbury (and those contracts require particular cultivars as well) some farmers grow livestock feed, and some grow "biofuel" crops for city slicker cash. contracts and corporations are not evil any more than GMO's are. your beliefs and prejudices about farming have no basis in reality, and if you were the secretary of agriculture, every small farmer in the US would be FUCKED by your faulty beliefs
Click to expand...
I'm 115.7% sure he's an "organic farmer" who'd stand to gain.

Read the language in the bill, non-GM is "natural food"?

Sounds like organic twat-waffle to me.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
I'm 115.7% sure he's an "organic farmer" who'd stand to gain.

Read the language in the bill, non-GM is "natural food"?

Sounds like organic twat-waffle to me.
Click to expand...
you giving DNA a level of competence that i don't think he deserves

he man have a tomato plant on the balcony of his apartment block but he's no farmer
 
DNAprotection

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
i stopped reading at "By Twilight Greenaway"

after i stopped gagging on my own bile, i finished reading that piece of crap, only to discover the "author" has no clue what GMO crops are, how they are developed and that it's impossible to prove anything is safe.

theres always some dimwit who can find a way to injure or kill himself with anything, including toilet seats. NOTHING is safe, and demanding anything be proven harmless before it cn be used will destroy all industry.

but then thats the real goal isnt it?
Click to expand...
Keen but flawed perception doc, its not about 'proving' anything 'safe' as you say because nothing is 'safe' and I agree with you there.
This is about the level of possible consequences as I have explained before.
GMO's are not like putting a new model car on the market. If a car goes bad while driving the damage is limited, if a GOM goes bad while in the main stream the effects are impossible for us to even understand at this point and could be devastating to a great many people and who knows what effects over all in term of the environment.
The odds that genetic engineering technology will be used responsibly at this point in our evolution are probably something like billion$ to 1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top