It's only provocative if I strike a nerve. And yes, I must make that reference at every opportunity.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
are you going to make a tedious reference to hipsters in every single 'serious talk' thread you start?
great way to start a debate: being provocative.
you've been raised well.
I was under the impression that GMO foods are "bigger" than organic.Kimmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
squirrels prefer organix
no, it's provocative because you open a 'debate' by immediately denigrating any dissenters or disagreement as being confined to several pejorative labels - "hipsters", "jobless", "internet activists". your rhetorical 'technique' (if you could even call it that) is to pre-emptively put down anyone who holds a different opinion from your own implied position. that's not 'debate'. it's not 'serious' talk to continually make recourse to childish labels like 'hipster', either. you really expect people to come out and debate you in a sensible, reasoned manner when you basically sleight anyone who is anti-GMO? you're obviously only going to get combative replies if you open your 'discussion' with that tone.Nyte wrote:
It's only provocative if I strike a nerve. And yes, I must make that reference at every opportunity.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
are you going to make a tedious reference to hipsters in every single 'serious talk' thread you start?
great way to start a debate: being provocative.
you've been raised well.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-31 10:15:04)
I am master troll.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
no, it's provocative because you open a 'debate' by immediately denigrating any dissenters or disagreement as being confined to several pejorative labels - "hipsters", "jobless", "internet activists". your rhetorical 'technique' (if you could even call it that) is to pre-emptively put down anyone who holds a different opinion from your own implied position. that's not 'debate'. it's not 'serious' talk to continually make recourse to childish labels like 'hipster', either. you really expect people to come out and debate you in a sensible, reasoned manner when you basically sleight anyone who is anti-GMO? you're obviously only going to get combative replies if you open your 'discussion' with that tone.Nyte wrote:
It's only provocative if I strike a nerve. And yes, I must make that reference at every opportunity.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
are you going to make a tedious reference to hipsters in every single 'serious talk' thread you start?
great way to start a debate: being provocative.
you've been raised well.
you are decisively second-rate.
We don't really know.Nyte wrote:
Are they bad? Are they good?
Monsanto are evil bastards.Nyte wrote:
Is it just Monsanto that is tainting their image?
You aren't striking a nerve because you've completely missed the customer base. And if by 99% you mean 7.02 billion people, then you're like a Don Quixote or something.Nyte wrote:
It's only provocative if I strike a nerve. And yes, I must make that reference at every opportunity.
What if some people don't care if that's done, but still prefer non-GMO's?Extra Medium wrote:
How dare those fucking bastards, trying to genetically modify food crops to be more resistant to fungus, virus, insect and climate in order to produce more food to meet the demands of a world population rising on an exponential curve!
The fucking nerve of some people.
kinda proves how GMO's work by preventing pests and animals from eating the crops eh.Kimmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
squirrels prefer organix
If you don't care about the effects of GMO food why would you care if it's GMO or not.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
What if some people don't care if that's done, but still prefer non-GMO's?
I don't care if people want to drink or smoke, but I prefer not to. Not that I think GMO's are in any way comparable, but it's an example of not doing something and not being an activist about it.Extra Medium wrote:
If you don't care about the effects of GMO food why would you care if it's GMO or not.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
What if some people don't care if that's done, but still prefer non-GMO's?
Farmers have been GMOing crops since we started planting crops, the thing that makes Monster-santo pricks is their one time crops.globefish23 wrote:
We don't really know.Nyte wrote:
Are they bad? Are they good?
Come back in a few decades when the first results from the current field trials are in.Monsanto are evil bastards.Nyte wrote:
Is it just Monsanto that is tainting their image?
Their preferred future would be a world without fertile crops in the wild.
Only their genetically modified annual ones that the farmers need to buy from them each year.
Basically an adhesion contract providing Monsanto with nice annual incomes.
And apparently, farmers get sued and lose in the USA if they dare buying fertile seeds from elsewhere.
Next to Monsanto, there are only a few other such companies that control the global seed market.
Are they the only ones?Nyte wrote:
Why are hipsters/vegans/jobless/99% and internet activists the only ones that complain about it?
Nope.Karbin wrote:
Farmers have been GMOing crops since we started planting crops.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-05-31 18:12:36)
Really???Dilbert_X wrote:
[Nope.Karbin wrote:
Farmers have been GMOing crops since we started planting crops.
Agree with that.Spearhead wrote:
It depends on how you look at it -- breeding cows and horses and dogs over centuries/thousands of years is a little bit different than scientists fucking around with the genes of mice in a laboratory. The same in principle, perhaps, but still a very different beast.
No, it's identical. The only difference is that the scientists in a lab have more control over the process and can more easily lead it in the direction they want. It's simply more efficient. There's nothing sinister at all.Spearhead wrote:
It depends on how you look at it -- breeding cows and horses and dogs over centuries/thousands of years is a little bit different than scientists fucking around with the genes of mice in a laboratory. The same in principle, perhaps, but still a very different beast.
Is it really? Mutations happen every day. Who's to say that you wouldn't end up with glow in the dark mice on a long enough timeline anyway?Dilbert_X wrote:
Selective breeding =/= Genetic modification
Chopping up genes and forcibly inserting genes from other species or even different genuses, such as putting bacteria genes into foodstuffs to grow antibiotics or using squid genes to make glow in the dark mice, is radically different from breeding your biggest bull with your best milk producing cow, for example.
Last edited by Spearhead (2013-05-31 20:16:54)
So let it happen.Jay wrote:
Is it really? Mutations happen every day. Who's to say that you wouldn't end up with glow in the dark mice on a long enough timeline anyway?Dilbert_X wrote:
Selective breeding =/= Genetic modification
Chopping up genes and forcibly inserting genes from other species or even different genuses, such as putting bacteria genes into foodstuffs to grow antibiotics or using squid genes to make glow in the dark mice, is radically different from breeding your biggest bull with your best milk producing cow, for example.
