Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Heh.

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 9:34:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"There must be no discrimination against preexisting conditions in health insurance. And the sick must pay no more than the healthy. But why limit this generous principle? Preexisting conditions, especially death, are discriminated against in life insurance. Come on, Obama: give us real fairness."

is an example of something that's supposed to be funny but isn't.
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 9:50:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm pretty sure it's liberals who are yelling most loudly for old fashioned banking techniques, and old fashioned (organic) farming. Conservatives are against SEXUAL innovation, not technologic.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 10:20:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/15/2010 9:50:52 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
and old fashioned (organic) farming

What?! No one thinks that GMOs are a good thing. Well, maybe the few corporations that own the US's food supply. But barring them, virtually no one.

All the health issues, the abuses of nature (patenting DNA?), and all the environmental degradation--you can't seriously be in support of this stuff.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 10:27:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/15/2010 10:20:42 AM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/15/2010 9:50:52 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
and old fashioned (organic) farming

What?! No one thinks that GMOs are a good thing
People on a budget do. They are cheaper.

Also, organic means something other than "not geneticially modified."

All the health issues, the abuses of nature
Abuses of nature? sounds like the conservative argument against homosexuality. Health issues? Less proven than male on male homosexuality. :P

(patenting DNA?)
Patenting genes that exist in nature is bad, patenting a gene that you invent or a specific implantation process you invented is fine.

and all the environmental degradation
Organic farming means more land has to be farmed. In other words, it's bad for the environment. GMOs, which you changed the topic to, have never been shown to harm the environment either.

you can't seriously be in support of this stuff.
It's rather easy really.

And you're proving my point, you anti-technology liberal you.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 10:34:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Organic farming means more land has to be farmed. In other words, it's bad for the environment.

Should probably note that the environment isn't an entity that things can be bad for. But the earth as a whole is doubtless able to sustain less "persons x years" under organic farming than conventional farming, which should satisfy the non- "Deep ecology" environmentalists.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 11:02:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/15/2010 10:27:26 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/15/2010 10:20:42 AM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/15/2010 9:50:52 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
and old fashioned (organic) farming

What?! No one thinks that GMOs are a good thing
People on a budget do. They are cheaper.

That doesn't mean they are any more safe or good for the environment.

McDonald's is very cheap. Does that mean their food is superior?

Also, organic means something other than "not geneticially modified."

Expound plz.

All the health issues, the abuses of nature
Abuses of nature? sounds like the conservative argument against homosexuality. Health issues? Less proven than male on male homosexuality. :P

Food affects all of us. It is very hard to avoid GMOs. In fact, the United States is the only industrialized country not to have GMOs clearly labeled as GMOs. That should tell you something about capitalist influence over Washington.

And they have tons of influence. There have been many incidents--for example, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas--in which former agricultural heads have penetrated Washington.

(patenting DNA?)
Patenting genes that exist in nature is bad, patenting a gene that you invent or a specific implantation process you invented is fine.

This leads to horrible wastefulness and bureaucracy.

For example, Monsanto, a company that has patented a bean which now consists of more than half of all the bean we eat, forces farmers not to save the beans produced for the next year. Typically, farmers would save some beans, so that they could use them to plant more beans the following year. Not the case any more. Monsanto forces farmers to dump their leftover beans, because they are the "property" of Monsanto. So, the farmers waste tons and tons of food, and are forced to buy new beans every year, leading many into debt.

In addition, there are several problems with patenting nature. This is one example: in the case of Moe Parr, he owned a farm that he chose to grow organically and without GMOs. However, surrounding fields contaminated his field with Monsanto's genetically modified beans. Because it is virtually impossible to weed out the genetically modified beans, there was nothing that Parr could do. This didn't phase Monsanto, however. They sued Parr, and eventually Parr had to settle, because he didn't have the money to continue paying his legal fees.

and all the environmental degradation
Organic farming means more land has to be farmed. In other words, it's bad for the environment. GMOs, which you changed the topic to, have never been shown to harm the environment either.

http://www.saynotogmos.org..., among others.

you can't seriously be in support of this stuff.
It's rather easy really.

And you're proving my point, you anti-technology liberal you.

I am for technology. Just not for technology that harms us.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 11:18:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/15/2010 11:02:29 AM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/15/2010 10:27:26 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/15/2010 10:20:42 AM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/15/2010 9:50:52 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
and old fashioned (organic) farming

What?! No one thinks that GMOs are a good thing
People on a budget do. They are cheaper.

That doesn't mean they are any more safe or good for the environment.
It's safer to eat cheap food than no food because you can't afford food for one thing.


McDonald's is very cheap. Does that mean their food is superior?
Depends on the customer. that's why multiple food sources exist.


Also, organic means something other than "not geneticially modified."

Expound plz.
Organic means that food was made without synthetic pesticides (though not necessarily without natural pesticides, some of which can be pretty harmful), synthetic fertilizers, etc.


All the health issues, the abuses of nature
Abuses of nature? sounds like the conservative argument against homosexuality. Health issues? Less proven than male on male homosexuality. :P

Food affects all of us. It is very hard to avoid GMOs. In fact, the United States is the only industrialized country not to have GMOs clearly labeled as GMOs. That should tell you something about capitalist influence over Washington.
It should tell you something about socialist influence over Europe that the other industrialized countries tend to ban GMOs. I'd have no problem with labelling if it didn't lead to that, but it tends to.

(patenting DNA?)
Patenting genes that exist in nature is bad, patenting a gene that you invent or a specific implantation process you invented is fine.

This leads to horrible wastefulness and bureaucracy.
There is nothing wasteful about reserving inventions for their inventors, it encourages future invention.


For example, Monsanto, a company that has patented a bean which now consists of more than half of all the bean we eat, forces farmers not to save the beans produced for the next year.
How did the bean become so widespread? Perhaps because they made something superior about it that was worth this disadvantage. Without it there would clearly be no such bean invented (as monsanto would have no reason to invent it). And they do not "force," they contract with-- the farmers are free to use natural beans.

Monsanto forces farmers to dump their leftover beans, because they are the "property" of Monsanto.
they aren't forced to use that bean in the first place!


In addition, there are several problems with patenting nature.
I already spoke out against patenting nature and only in favor of patenting artificial genes and genetic modification techniques.

This is one example: in the case of Moe Parr, he owned a farm that he chose to grow organically and without GMOs. However, surrounding fields contaminated his field with Monsanto's genetically modified beans. Because it is virtually impossible to weed out the genetically modified beans, there was nothing that Parr could do. This didn't phase Monsanto, however. They sued Parr, and eventually Parr had to settle, because he didn't have the money to continue paying his legal fees
It should have been fairly simple to argue such a clear cut case without a lawyer, and possibly countersue if he could prove harm by the beans. In any case, that's a problem with the court's process and having absurdly complex laws to create the kind of regulatory system you desire, not with patents or with beans.


and all the environmental degradation
Organic farming means more land has to be farmed. In other words, it's bad for the environment. GMOs, which you changed the topic to, have never been shown to harm the environment either.

http://www.saynotogmos.org..., among others.
That doesn't look like proof to me, that looks like a home page.

you can't seriously be in support of this stuff.
It's rather easy really.

And you're proving my point, you anti-technology liberal you.

I am for technology. Just not for technology that harms us.
I eat loads of GMOs, I have yet to see the harm.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 11:57:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/15/2010 11:18:09 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/15/2010 11:02:29 AM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/15/2010 10:27:26 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/15/2010 10:20:42 AM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/15/2010 9:50:52 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
and old fashioned (organic) farming

What?! No one thinks that GMOs are a good thing
People on a budget do. They are cheaper.

That doesn't mean they are any more safe or good for the environment.
It's safer to eat cheap food than no food because you can't afford food for one thing.

That's called taking advantage of people.

McDonald's is very cheap. Does that mean their food is superior?
Depends on the customer. that's why multiple food sources exist.

Monopolies are emerging.

(Copy paste from http://docs.google.com...)

- In the 1970s, the top five beef packers controlled about 25% of the
market. Today, the top four control more than 80% of the market.

- In the 1970s, there were thousands of slaughterhouses producing the
majority of beef sold. Today, we have only 13.

All the health issues, the abuses of nature
Abuses of nature? sounds like the conservative argument against homosexuality. Health issues? Less proven than male on male homosexuality. :P

Food affects all of us. It is very hard to avoid GMOs. In fact, the United States is the only industrialized country not to have GMOs clearly labeled as GMOs. That should tell you something about capitalist influence over Washington.
It should tell you something about socialist influence over Europe that the other industrialized countries tend to ban GMOs. I'd have no problem with labelling if it didn't lead to that, but it tends to.

You're against the truth? Also, slippery slope fallacy much?

(patenting DNA?)
Patenting genes that exist in nature is bad, patenting a gene that you invent or a specific implantation process you invented is fine.

This leads to horrible wastefulness and bureaucracy.
There is nothing wasteful about reserving inventions for their inventors, it encourages future invention.

All the food wasted...surely the beans could feed people who need it.

For example, Monsanto, a company that has patented a bean which now consists of more than half of all the bean we eat, forces farmers not to save the beans produced for the next year.
How did the bean become so widespread? Perhaps because they made something superior about it that was worth this disadvantage. Without it there would clearly be no such bean invented (as monsanto would have no reason to invent it). And they do not "force," they contract with-- the farmers are free to use natural beans.

Again, monopolies are forming.

This is one example: in the case of Moe Parr, he owned a farm that he chose to grow organically and without GMOs. However, surrounding fields contaminated his field with Monsanto's genetically modified beans. Because it is virtually impossible to weed out the genetically modified beans, there was nothing that Parr could do. This didn't phase Monsanto, however. They sued Parr, and eventually Parr had to settle, because he didn't have the money to continue paying his legal fees
It should have been fairly simple to argue such a clear cut case without a lawyer, and possibly countersue if he could prove harm by the beans. In any case, that's a problem with the court's process and having absurdly complex laws to create the kind of regulatory system you desire, not with patents or with beans.

But given our current legal system, farmers are being taking advantage of. Not fair.

and all the environmental degradation
Organic farming means more land has to be farmed. In other words, it's bad for the environment. GMOs, which you changed the topic to, have never been shown to harm the environment either.

http://www.saynotogmos.org..., among others.
That doesn't look like proof to me, that looks like a home page.

The home page has many articles which link to hundreds of great studies.

The evidence that GMOs=bad is overwhelming.

you can't seriously be in support of this stuff.
It's rather easy really.

And you're proving my point, you anti-technology liberal you.

I am for technology. Just not for technology that harms us.
I eat loads of GMOs, I have yet to see the harm.

You don't know how healthy you'd be without GMOs, because you aint got notin' to compare to.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 12:05:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
That doesn't mean they are any more safe or good for the environment.
It's safer to eat cheap food than no food because you can't afford food for one thing.

That's called taking advantage of people.
It's called feeding people who otherwise wouldn't eat.


McDonald's is very cheap. Does that mean their food is superior?
Depends on the customer. that's why multiple food sources exist.

Monopolies are emerging.
In food? No. Nothing even remotely resembling the forbidding of competition has occurred there nor will in the near future.


(Copy paste from http://docs.google.com...)

- In the 1970s, the top five beef packers controlled about 25% of the
market. Today, the top four control more than 80% of the market.
That's called "consumers enjoying economies of scale," not "monopoly."
\
You're against the truth? Also, slippery slope fallacy much?
It's only a fallacy in deductive reasoning, not in empirical history. And no, if someone wants to label their food as GM, by all means. If they want to label their food as NOT GM and it's true, by all means. If they wish not to make a claim, by all means. The consumer accepts whichever of these nonfraudulent possibilities occurs by buying the product.

There is nothing wasteful about reserving inventions for their inventors, it encourages future invention.

All the food wasted...surely the beans could feed people who need it.
They couldn't if the beans didn't exist in the first place, which they wouldn't if inventors had no motive.

This is one example: in the case of Moe Parr, he owned a farm that he chose to grow organically and without GMOs. However, surrounding fields contaminated his field with Monsanto's genetically modified beans. Because it is virtually impossible to weed out the genetically modified beans, there was nothing that Parr could do. This didn't phase Monsanto, however. They sued Parr, and eventually Parr had to settle, because he didn't have the money to continue paying his legal fees
It should have been fairly simple to argue such a clear cut case without a lawyer, and possibly countersue if he could prove harm by the beans. In any case, that's a problem with the court's process and having absurdly complex laws to create the kind of regulatory system you desire, not with patents or with beans.

But given our current legal system, farmers are being taking advantage of. Not fair.
That's a legal system controlled for the most part by people like you with ideals like yours, certainly closer to you than me, considering that the FDA in fact exists.


and all the environmental degradation
Organic farming means more land has to be farmed. In other words, it's bad for the environment. GMOs, which you changed the topic to, have never been shown to harm the environment either.

http://www.saynotogmos.org..., among others.
That doesn't look like proof to me, that looks like a home page.

The home page has many articles which link to hundreds of great studies.
That gets me nowhere. I do not have time to read hundreds of articles. Pick a good one and stick with it.
Like this one on nutrition for example: http://web.mit.edu...

you can't seriously be in support of this stuff.
It's rather easy really.

And you're proving my point, you anti-technology liberal you.

I am for technology. Just not for technology that harms us.
I eat loads of GMOs, I have yet to see the harm.

You don't know how healthy you'd be without GMOs, because you aint got notin' to compare to.
I've got people a hundred years ago.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.