Posts: 155
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2010
When your conscience is clear... you sleep like a log.
There's a difference between being worried and not excusing wrong doings.
II A - Practice leads to being well regulated (in an ideal state, properly functioning) and armed citizens provide security of a free state - thus the already existing natural right to keep and carry arms shall not be infringed.
Posts: 155
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2010
PaulW,
Somewhat off topic but still within the concern of the ethics regarding the current "scientific consensus" (ideology) state of GM food.
Here we see the "scientific consensus" (ideology) of global warming called to the mat.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesd...long-life/
II A - Practice leads to being well regulated (in an ideal state, properly functioning) and armed citizens provide security of a free state - thus the already existing natural right to keep and carry arms shall not be infringed.
Posts: 71
Threads: 4
Joined: Nov 2008
Mahalo nui loa, Hawnjigs !!!
Russell
Russell
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
Why did you change your name, Jungle Man?
Posts: 155
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2010
quote:
Originally posted by PaulW
Why did you change your name, Jungle Man?
Originally (a couple years back) as levity and recently because Jungle Man was blocked. Now... because I prefer it and I'm sure you'll agree, it's much more fitting.
~Proud A-hole
Posts: 106
Threads: 5
Joined: May 2013
Here's a good example why it's so hard for many to accept scientific studies and "proof". A long, fascinating in New Yorker magazine details Syngenta, a major chemical / seed company, and their efforts to discredit a scientist that once worked for them, but started finding results that they didn't like. A lot of the information here is from Syngenta's own internet memos that were released as a result from a class-action lawsuit about the very chemical that this scientist studied. The EPA has consistently found that there is no "proof" even though Syngenta has paid millions as a result of the lawsuit and the chemical is banned in the European Union.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/..._fact_aviv
Hmm... kind of makes you wonder if you can trust other studies!? It's well worth the read...
Posts: 52
Threads: 3
Joined: Feb 2014
Geez, I wonder how the industry flunkies sleep at night?
Aloha aina, aloha kai
Aloha aina, aloha kai
Posts: 526
Threads: 11
Joined: Oct 2006
Since the connection is pretty nonexistent between corporate politics and science in general, then why the Syngenta situation should make it "so hard...to accept scientific studies" is very unclear.
However, attacks on science itself are pretty standard fodder for right wing politics. For example, google the unsuccessful assault on Michael Mann's climate change science by the state of Virginia or the legal smack down of the Dover (PA) school board that wanted "intelligent design" taught in schools. Either of those examples should, by your logic, stand you squarely behind the science regarding the safety of GMO's.
Posts: 52
Threads: 3
Joined: Feb 2014
Seems to me the credibility of "scientific studies" on controversial issues is EZ to ascertain - simply locate the funding source(s) and assess possible connection biases.
Indeed, individually I have "have little or no control" over obstructing GMO "progress" by the immensely powerful proponent industries. I appreciate those others that like me hope that our collective voices may make a difference.
Re: two sides of the GMO issue: neither will likely change the other by bickering. Like when I first started to become politically aware, I'd post on a conservative redneck forum(fishing) about Romney's unfolding shenanigans, well documented exposes of tax dodging loopholes, Cayman Island offshoring, and destroying entire town's livelihoods by corporate pillaging, and it had no effect whatsoever except perhaps labeling me as a black sheep liberal n-lover.
Aloha aina, aloha kai
Aloha aina, aloha kai
Posts: 155
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2010
By definition science, business and politics are differing human activities. IE, Science is not business nor politics and vice versa.
That said each are practiced by humans. All humans possess common interest. Some sciences engage in the creation of potential products and thus tied to business. Business ties itself to politics in order to facilitate higher profit margins. The humans in science also tie themselves to politics in order to secure their direction of research. Politics ties itself to each in order to gain contributions and votes. Sometimes humans engage in all three practices simultaneously to advance their personal interests.
For anyone to assume the human factor does not influence the real word application of these three human activities is to assume life is only found within a dictionary.
