Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't really care what the FDA's position on that is. That's quite technical and applause to you for knowing that but to me its irrelevant. If a DNA strand is created by a machine and makes animals sick, it should be illegal to consume. Its really simple and that is my only point. I don't frickin' care about the rest. .
Don't worry, it already is.REGARDLESS of the Gene Source. The FDA regulates the food, not the process. If there was actual evidence that a bioengineered food was dangerous the FDA is already empowered to regulate it. There are thousands of bioengineered products that the FDA regulates and bans, but they do so on the basis of science, not faith. They don't regulate the religious faith that the bioengineering PROCESS is a SIN, therefore PRODUCTS created using it is SINFUL.My point was simply that you dont understand your own point. You've read propaganda from one side of an argument, don't understand the underlying science, and accept that argument as true as an article of faith.
Don't get agitated, get informed.
Don't read propaganda that reaffirms your point of view, read the other side.
Learn the constitution, the scientific method, the regulatory rules.
Don't be mindless protester in the mob, while your "leaders" get their $$ from "Big Organic".
[quote=tjay;24917183]Its null and void to me. And shouldn't most branches of government be? quote]
You want government to be "null and void" but then complain because they don't require a particular labeling convention. Which is it are you an Anarchist or a Fascist? LOGICAL CONSISTANCY please.
Are you writing a book or debating GMO's on city data?
No, I'm just a high school math/science teacher on summer vacation applying the tools of the trade; knowledge, science and reasoning in a discussion (this is clearly not a debate). Can't help but try and teach. Its a disease!
No, more like a bully who likes to put others down in order to feel important. I pretty much disagree with everything you say, nor does putting in red bold letters make any of it factual. All your information came from the same places as mine, books and internet. I've never read your books, and you've never read mine...but I'm the uninformed one. Uh huh. Why are my sources of info no good? Why is Seeds of Deception, which shares insider information from Dr Arpad Pusztai (Árpád Pusztai - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) false? Does this man really have no credibility to you? Not sure exactly what your sources are, since you'd rather tear my replies up word for word to go off on tangents about how confusing I am. Whether I am confusing or not, I find this book to be one of the most truthful and reliable sources. Yet you list nothing prefer to spend posts tearing me down personally. I don't see it as a discussion either.
Anyhoo, people now know that the two Democatic Senators don't support labeling GMO's. Whether people care or don't care is up to them.
I pretty much disagree with everything you say, nor does putting in red bold letters make any of it factual.
Fine, tell me which of my factual statements in my post was wrong and how.
The FDA regulates the food, not the process. True or Not?
If there was actual evidence that a bioengineered food
was dangerous the FDA is already empowered to regulate it.True or Not?
There are thousands of bioengineered products that the FDA regulates and bans, True or Not?
To the best of my recollection, you never refuted a single factual statement I made. You just responded with statements Like "I don't care" or "It doesn't matter if I got my facts wrong" or you relied on the fallicy of appeal to authority. I am sorry your unpreparedness to discuss the topic led you to feel bullied, but frankly you started a scientific and political discussion on a discussion board. The fact that there are people out there who know alot about the subject, disagree with you, and can support their position with a reasoned logical argument, shouldn't have suprised you. To one extent you are correct. and I owe you an apology. I've discussed politics on boards for years, and normally when I discuss something with someone with a factually or intellectually inferior argument they try and raise their game and step up to the challenge. However, after one or two posts it was obvious you were incapable . There was no point in discussing it with you. I used your comments as a rhetorical device to address the larger audience. They were an easy strawman foil that I used to keep the information I was presenting interesting. As a teacher, While I might use the error of a "normal" student to make a larger point, I would never respond to a CI or EI student that way, I expect their insecurity. I should have treated you the same. I am truly sorry if I embarassed you and hurt your feelings.
Fine, tell me which of my factual statements in my post was wrong and how.
The FDA regulates the food, not the process. True or Not?
If there was actual evidence that a bioengineered food
was dangerous the FDA is already empowered to regulate it.True or Not?
There are thousands of bioengineered products that the FDA regulates and bans, True or Not?
To the best of my recollection, you never refuted a single factual statement I made. You just responded with statements Like "I don't care" or "It doesn't matter if I got my facts wrong" or you relied on the fallicy of appeal to authority. I am sorry your unpreparedness to discuss the topic led you to feel bullied, but frankly you started a scientific and political discussion on a discussion board. The fact that there are people out there who know alot about the subject, disagree with you, and can support their position with a reasoned logical argument, shouldn't have suprised you. To one extent you are correct. and I owe you an apology. I've discussed politics on boards for years, and normally when I discuss something with someone with a factually or intellectually inferior argument they try and raise their game and step up to the challenge. However, after one or two posts it was obvious you were incapable . There was no point in discussing it with you. I used your comments as a rhetorical device to address the larger audience. They were an easy strawman foil that I used to keep the information I was presenting interesting. As a teacher, While I might use the error of a "normal" student to make a larger point, I would never respond to a CI or EI student that way, I expect their insecurity. I should have treated you the same. I am truly sorry if I embarassed you and hurt your feelings.
Hi. We don't speak the same language....why continue??? I don't dispute the above, but the above is irrelevant to what is actually happening. See.....you don't get that. I don't get exactly what you are trying to prove. Nor do I really care. When I do post something that is not fodder for you to dissect and condemn, you casually skip over as if it weren't posted. Which is what you're sitting here accusing me of doing.
Secondly, you are truly sorry after comparing me to an 'insecure student' that you are intellectually above? Haha. Nice apology. You've heard of narcissism right?
Let me also say that I find it appalling that you 'teach' anyone anything. Sure, you seem far better at 'debate' than others, but you're a d*ckhead. Very cocky, condescending and arrogant. You seem to see yourself so far above your students and I find that sad, because everyone is a teacher. EVERYONE, regardless of age, debate skills or degree. And insecure students don't need some narcissist telling them what to think. Teaching is guiding a 'student' while they figure it out on their own. You may not act this way in the classroom, but its all there in your head, waiting to unleash and appears to get some sort of adrenaline rush from belittling others and dominating a conversation. Please, you're in the wrong profession. Politics is waiting for you. And no that's not a compliment.
You are correct, I am not one to debate. My whole intention wasn't to debate anything, just try and post things that people could look into further if it sparked their interest. (and yeah I had somewhat of an attitude, PMS is a b*tch, my apologies). Mainly because it seems that many people don't truly know what GMO's really involve and how it affects so much. Even if they were found to be safe (which they clearly HAVE NOT - see link that you ignored), they are terrible for the environment. And when you have a young child these things are very concerning. I'm very emotional about it because I have a child to protect. And I also get really annoyed that the evidence of GMO's not being safe was and is, deliberately covered up by Monsanto. (You refuse to look at the source I listed that I feel, proves this beyond a doubt. Stories about animals getting sick or dying seem to have no relevance with you either. Whatever). So having said that, I'm not interested in carrying on. Nothing you've said has sparked any interest in me searching to see if GMO's really are safe. They aren't. We can all learn that the hard way I guess. Now may you gag on some eColi bleached corn oil nuggets dipped in high fructose corn syrup.
Believe it or not my attempt at an apology is sincere. Let me try with a different analogy. You came to this board, as you said, not to discuss, but to profess a faith based belief in a pure "good/evil" paradigm about the politics around food labeling. Our senators are disciples of evil for voting against your groups bill. You've read your sources, your "bible", and are absolutely unquestionably convinced in its truth. Its like you went on a board to proclaim your religious faith in the literal truth of your bible. Your view of this topic clearly presented as a morality play. Good environmentalists verses Evil Monsanto. Black verses white. I on the other hand, speak a different language and see things as shades of grey. I recognize that it is rude to challage a persons religion with science. Faith verses science is generally a pointless discussion. People of faith get angry and people of science get frustrated.
Discussing constitutional law, science, history, legal theory are an assault on your faith based world view, just as geology and science would assault the idea that the world is 6000 years old.
From my point of view, the bill you were talking about is an assault on science. The regulatory process for food labeling is based in science. You may claim the regulatory process is corrupt, I never argued that point with you, actually, I conceeded it to start with, which is why I don't respond to it. Your "leaders", however, want to remove the process of regulation from the scientific realm and make it a purely political decision. They hide this under the superficially
reasonable idea that they are just "providing more information". I fear this sort of pseudoreasonableness because it is effective at convincing the intelligent but unengaged. Its how the Republicans can stand straight faced and say "we arn't trying to eliminate abortion, we just want to make sure the women are not coerced, the doctors have enough malpractice insurance, the clinic are regularly inspected, etc. Each idea sound superficially reasonable, but in the end it takes away rights. Having congressmen vote to determine scientific "fact" instead of determining scientific fact using the scientific method, scares me. I was trying to address people who aren't "creationists" like you, the intelligent unengaged. When I first engaged, of course I didn't know you were a "creationist". There are many people who agree with the premise that the FDA process is inefficient, ineffective, and corrupt and needs to be changed. I am among them. I have supported orphan drug legislation, and independant drug testing, for example. I'd love to engage a knowledgable person in a discussion of policy and procedural changes to improve the system. I am a policy geek. You make it clear this wasn't you. Reflecting on your beliefs outside of you given paradigm was not why you were here. You just wanted to spread "the good news" To force you to participate in a scientific and legislative discussion for which you were unprepared made you look foolish, that wasn't my intent, I was so engaged in making my policy point, that I ignored good manners, I was simply being very insensitive and inconsiderate.
In reading my prior post, it sounds like I am being "superior" in equating my position with science and yours with faith. I was trained as a scientist and statistician, not a writer. I am doing my best to communicate that I mean and meant no disrespect. Please try not to read to much subtle nuance, or hidden insults into my writing. I'm not that good at it. It's mostly written on a cell phone with a cat on my lap. See, I can be humble. <g>.
Ok why is what I'm saying 'faith based'? In my mind, when a legitimate scientist does a real study, has no known bias, concludes GMO's to be unsafe, is then fired by Monsanto and issued a gag order while all his 'work' is taken, I think its proof enough. This wasn't some hack, the guy was legitimate. Not only that, but there are countless articles on animals getting sick from GMO's. WHY??? is this not proof? Why is that faith based? I do not understand. They were found unsafe from a reputable scientist.
Yes I deserved a slight beating when I stated the facts wrong about Monsanto and them forcing a law to put the rBST thing on the label. That was kind of bad wasn't it? Again, I remember reading something of that nature and thought I had it right. I'm a big picture person. Once I've gathered enough evidence to convince me I seem to discard detailed facts and can only focus on the thing I'm reaching for. Not a good trait to have, especially around this place. Lesson learned, I can only hope...
Now initially I just posted the link and made an opinionated comment underneath. Then someone asked why GMO's were so bad and it went to sh*t from there. I'm not interested in debating things but sometimes my frustration leads me to posting my opinions, which is only met with the same anger that I post it in. When will I learn? Maybe when they invent an organic happy pill.
I understand the FDA makes laws according to science. They should. But if the science is wrong, if its harmful to the people, if money becomes more important than people (welcome to America), if I've read things that lead me to believe that Monsanto has done just about everything under the sun to purposely keep information from people, then how is that to be fixed? I want justice. I don't want kids eating this sh*t. If people KNEW the facts about GMO's, I feel people would start avoiding them. Not because of my hatred for Monsanto, but because I can't stand seeing 2 year olds eating candy bars with snot running down their nose and dark circles under their eyes. Does a kid really need to die from peanut butter?? There WAS scientific method used, and it was hidden and dismissed because it wasn't going to make anyone $. If people KNEW THAT, but they DON'T. If they did, maybe next time the vote would be different, and it would be because the people demanded it, not because the FDA was handed a modified study by Monsanto and told everything was fine. I wanted to 'spread the bad news', yes. Its the people that need to change, until that happens, IMO, all new policy is corrupt. I give up on 'policy'. If you knew how to get around such things then I say use your talents for good...
Apology accepted, and appreciated. Sorry I called you names
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am doing my best to communicate that I mean and meant no disrespect. Please try not to read to much subtle nuance, or hidden insults into my writing. I'm not that good at it. It's mostly written on a cell phone with a cat on my lap. See, I can be humble. <g>.
