08-04-2014, 10:55 AM
quote:
Originally posted by PaulW
If it's a "right" then why is there any discussion?
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Tucker
It is a jumble of misapplied logic. On this tact the council used the science to create a business solution. Whacky.
quote:
Originally posted by Wao nahele kane
When reading the statement with a comprehension level exercised above that of a drunken sailor...
Wow. I was just advocating for a candidate and now all this suddenly feels personal. Okay...
There is a discussion because there seems to be disagreement. On the one hand, apparently, there is all of you. Those who are correct. And on the other, according to all of you, there is an "anti GMO crowd" that behaves with one voice. One big, dumb, apparently drunken, science-hating voice. And they are whacky. And illogical. And they don't care about feeding the hungry.
I have to be all-in and never dare to disagree with any part of this pro-GMO agenda or I am, in your collective eyes, tossed on the heap of "the anti GMO crowd"... because there really can only be two sides to any discussion, is that right? Yer either with us or yer against us?
I think a great way to begin to attack the business model of Monsanto would be to force them to slap labels on their products. Force them to publish their tests, and force them to test for longer periods than they do. Peer review the raw data and share testing methods so independent labs with no financial ties to the original patent holder can verify every finding. You know, like scientists do. Then we can all take a breath and look again at the results. Any product that passes with flying colors, I'll be the first in line to praise it.
Let's do that with all recombination efforts, and I'm sure we will find that MOST of them are harmless and quite helpful and ought to be fully supported. But why would we ever stop testing? Fundamental questions of science are continually challenged by experiment. If the time component of any given prediction is constantly increasing, its not the same test over and over again. You're learning something new. If it's all good, then we've purchased a renewed confidence in the recombination under scrutiny. But if we learn now that what we thought was a golden goose turns out to be a lead-lined casket, then we can avoid doing harm in the long term. We can ban DDTs. We can remove lead from our gasoline. We can search for a better solution.
I've said that about a million times, but Rob writes like he's still accusing me of attacking the science of recombination. Because I'm just whacky. I don't know how to argue with folks like that. When one clearly says what one means and then all that is promptly ignored and the same old tropes get trotted out, and y'all just chuckle amongst yourselves at the whacky "anti GMO type..." I don't know what to say to you anymore.
I understand Monsanto's motivation in all this, but I don't understand those here who just refuse to engage in any kind of discussion at all. I'm willing to concede rational points, I'm willing to stand with you and defend fundamental science all day long, but somehow, unless I sign up for the Monsanto Fan Club, you guys just all shrug and smirk at each other and chuckle at the "anti GMO dude" over there in the corner.