1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I think in terms of liability there it is a reasonable assumption that if something is indeed harmful, its use would be restricted for private to some degree (there is also a whole issue regarding the evidence for glyphosates).

In Canada we have inconsistent bans.
Some pesticides/herbicides ( like concentrated RoundUp ) are banned for sale in one province, but legal to buy in another.
And while I regularly deal with Organophosphorus compounds which have acute effects, I am apprehensive of those with chronic effects ( Organophosphates in particular due to naturally low Cholinesterase levels ).
Also, I don't particularly like Monsanto's business practices and ethics, so I tend to not trust them.
Veritasium has an excellent feature on Monsanto's development of RoundUp resistant GMO seeds, and the legal 'traps' for farmers using them.

35 minutes ago, MigL said:

In Canada we have inconsistent bans.
Some pesticides/herbicides ( like concentrated RoundUp ) are banned for sale in one province, but legal to buy in another.

Also a huge problem here. I call them "border problems." With fifty states so many people are only an hour or two from another state with potentially different restrictions. In one state I lived in, the border was fifty minutes away from the two largest cities and there were enormous stores right on the border selling dangerous (as in, children regularly losing fingers and eyes) fireworks that were illegal in our state. This is the sort of craziness that eventually spurs Washington to step in and make a federal law.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

In Canada we have inconsistent bans.
Some pesticides/herbicides ( like concentrated RoundUp ) are banned for sale in one province, but legal to buy in another.
And while I regularly deal with Organophosphorus compounds which have acute effects, I am apprehensive of those with chronic effects ( Organophosphates in particular due to naturally low Cholinesterase levels ).
Also, I don't particularly like Monsanto's business practices and ethics, so I tend to not trust them.
Veritasium has an excellent feature on Monsanto's development of RoundUp resistant GMO seeds, and the legal 'traps' for farmers using them.

I don't think you are wrong (especially regarding Monsanto, the legal trap is pretty famous and has made its way into textbooks), but links to cancer are notoriously difficult to establish. Fundamentally, pretty much all herbicides are toxic, but those with acute toxicity are just easier to spot. For residential use there is a discussion to be had what would be wise to use close to where you live. However, a bigger issue is the often massive exposure in agricultural use. The controversy here (and my reading might be a bit outdated) is mostly whether Roundup has a higher risk than other herbicides, and there the evidence is somewhat sketchy. There is also a (IMO) much bigger issue is that as a whole there are massive testing gaps in toxicity testing. For example, often only the active ingredient are tested and regulated, yet the overall health impact can vary massively depending on what else is in the formulation.

I realize Monsanto had lots of lawyers ( and so does Bayer ) but when an adjacent GMO field 'infects' a natural seed field, and Monsanto tells the natural farmer that he has to destroy his infected seeds because they are 'patented', why does no one sue Monsanto for 'infecting their natural crop ?

On 12/13/2025 at 12:16 PM, MigL said:

I realize Monsanto had lots of lawyers ( and so does Bayer ) but when an adjacent GMO field 'infects' a natural seed field, and Monsanto tells the natural farmer that he has to destroy his infected seeds because they are 'patented', why does no one sue Monsanto for 'infecting their natural crop ?

That is a good question, and might depend on jurisdiction. In Europe Monsanto's GM maize was first approved but was then banned in Germany later on, in part (IIRC) because of the possibility that it could spread. In believe in the EU or maybe UK there were lawsuits back in the 2000s, regarding unauthorized release of GM crops (but I think it involved Bayer). The high level lawsuits that I remember that Monsanto won was (again, IIRC) based on the fact that the farmer deliberately harvested and replanted seeds, after discovering resistant plants on his field, which was then deemed patent infringement.

But perhaps a more important reason could be that Monsanto is not a grower and it is more likely that the invading crops would originate from another farm. So if there was a lawsuit, it would more likely against that farm rather than Monsanto. Another issue is that unless there is something that visually makes the GM crop stand out, many farmers simply wouldn't know as they generally do not test them.

I've read only the 1st post and would like to say something that i believe will hurt some people because they wouldn't want to accept it's true

i believe if you want real freedom, you need to learn to live naked, without money, like an animal

you need a huge place: alaska, amazon rainforest...

there you will be free

but in society you will never be free, even the house you paid, the land you paid or inherited, is property of the government in the end

i believe complaining sucks, either try to participate in politics to change the rules, either leave the society

when i hear people say stuff like "hey wtf i'm not paid enough how will i feed my children" i think it's pathetic

Edited December 15Dec 15 by raphaelh42

15 minutes ago, raphaelh42 said:

if you want real freedom, you need to learn to live naked, without money, like an animal

Even here, you won't be free. You won't be free from struggle. From suffering. From a need to find and protect shelter. From the need to locate and acquire food and resources.

Quite the contrary. Without money to make those things easier to acquire, you'd be less free. Losing all of your time simply finding the basics for survival and having no other time for anything you wish you were free to do.

I'm not saying availability of money is required for freedom. I'm saying your freedom to choose to do whatever you want is facilitated by it.

1 hour ago, raphaelh42 said:

i believe if you want real freedom, you need to learn to live naked, without money, like an animal

you need a huge place: alaska, amazon rainforest...

If you're planning to be naked, probably best to choose the Amazon rather than Alaska. Heh.

@iNow i guess i meant freedom from human rules

10 minutes ago, raphaelh42 said:

@iNow i guess i meant freedom from human rules

This is the false part. Trying to be free of human rules is ridiculous unless you want to live alone. It's the rules that make it possible for us to grow out of a naked, animalistic, solitary existence. The rules let us live together, work together, play together, with as little friction and as much freedom to pursue what makes you happy as possible, within those rules.

And I would argue that the best kinds of freedom are the ones we can agree among ourselves are valuable. Until about 10 years ago, the vast majority of people accepted that vaccinating ourselves was a boon to all of us. Millions died of COVID unnecessarily because some questioned it. Even today, measles is on the rise because some people think the government is stepping on their freedom.

5 hours ago, raphaelh42 said:

@iNow i guess i meant freedom from human rules

Like which ones?

8 hours ago, raphaelh42 said:

i believe if you want real freedom, you need to learn to live naked, without money, like an animal

What's naked got to do with it ?
If you're a man, and you sun bathe nude in your backyard, your female neighbor calls the cops and you go to jail.
If your female neighbor sun bathes nude in her backyard and you see her, she calls the cops, and you still go to jail.
You don't have the God given tight to ogle naked women, no matter if you're dressed or not 😄 .

On 12/15/2025 at 9:33 PM, Phi for All said:

Trying to be free of human rules is ridiculous unless you want to live alone.

The problem is when you can live only thanks to human rules, i believe it makes you weak and always worried about having money for the essential needs

So I disagree, i think trying and managing to live free of human rules can make you enjoy more living with human rules, less afraid of not managing to follow these rules, because you can do without

On 12/16/2025 at 2:38 AM, iNow said:

Like which ones?

Like building a cabin in any forest, making fire, hunting without a license etc: the essential needs

On 12/16/2025 at 3:29 AM, MigL said:

What's naked got to do with it ?

i kinda got excessive about this part but i meant that since clothes help you stay warm and protected, then, to be free from human rules, you either need to know how to do without clothes, either know how to make them 100% by yourself

Edited Thursday at 06:04 PM5 days by raphaelh42

5 minutes ago, raphaelh42 said:

Like building a cabin in any forest, making fire, hunting without a license etc: the essential needs

I was asking which human rules you needed freedom from. This reply doesn't makes sense to me with that context in mind. Will you please elaborate?

17 hours ago, raphaelh42 said:

The problem is when you can live only thanks to human rules, i believe it makes you weak and always worried about having money for the essential needs

So I disagree, i think trying and managing to live free of human rules can make you enjoy more living with human rules, less afraid of not managing to follow these rules, because you can do without

Anarchy means less freedom, bc you always cede control to biggest bully's in the playground.

Do your family have to live by your rules?

Or is your children free to play with the cute looking tiger?

On 12/18/2025 at 11:02 AM, raphaelh42 said:

The problem is when you can live only thanks to human rules, i believe it makes you weak and always worried about having money for the essential needs

I don't understand how you're weaker due to living in a society and following its rules. Isn't having money for essential needs better than having to hunt your meat, forage your grain, grind your flour, all while defending yourself alone from predation? Have you watched any of the survival shows?

On 12/18/2025 at 11:02 AM, raphaelh42 said:

So I disagree, i think trying and managing to live free of human rules can make you enjoy more living with human rules, less afraid of not managing to follow these rules, because you can do without

Then you're missing my whole point. Freedom is not the glorious state we're led to believe. The rules, good rules, can actually make us happier and more able to pursue happiness than any illusion of being free to do whatever comes into your head.

11 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Isn't having money for essential needs better than having to hunt your meat, forage your grain, grind your flour, all while defending yourself alone from predation?

And even before we had money, we were exchanging human qualities (skills) and or commodities.

Not to mention the biggest problem for the loner, all the good bits on the planet, already have humans on it.

On 12/18/2025 at 7:08 PM, iNow said:

I was asking which human rules you needed freedom from.

I didn't say I need freedom, I don't understand what you want/wanted to ask me exactly...

13 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I don't understand how you're weaker due to living in a society and following its rules.

I meant I believe that if you can eat and stay warm only thanks to money, or by being given from others, then you are weak

---

My point was that imo the real freedom is to know how to live alone in the nature, only your body and the nature, not thanks to a bagpack filled with tools

And yes of course even there you will not be free from breathing but i guess you understood what i mean, at least i hope so...

39 minutes ago, raphaelh42 said:

I believe that if you can eat and stay warm only thanks to money, or by being given from others, then you are weak

Don't the weak deserve 'freedom' also ?
Besides, there is always someone stronger ...

1 hour ago, raphaelh42 said:

I didn't say I need freedom, I don't understand what you want/wanted to ask me exactly...

I meant I believe that if you can eat and stay warm only thanks to money, or by being given from others, then you are weak

There's a reason the homeless congregate around cities...

On 12/18/2025 at 1:02 PM, raphaelh42 said:

The problem is when you can live only thanks to human rules, i believe it makes you weak and always worried about having money for the essential needs

So I disagree, i think trying and managing to live free of human rules can make you enjoy more living with human rules, less afraid of not managing to follow these rules, because you can do without

What about people who don’t want to be hermits? That’s the only way to be free of such rules.

I just wanted to point out the fact that when people complain about freedom and justice, they don't see the real cause of their discontent

The cause is not that the rules don't match their liking, it's because they don't know how to live free, where governments' rules don't apply

They don't know that they can go live out of society, thanks to knowledge, like an animal, they live naked, with no tools, and they can eat, they can stay warm, without money, without rules.

I guess the only rule of freedom is that you have to be stronger than the others

Edited Saturday at 03:28 PM3 days by raphaelh42

3 hours ago, raphaelh42 said:

I meant I believe that if you can eat and stay warm only thanks to money, or by being given from others, then you are weak

You earned that money somehow. You earned the compassion that led others to value you enough to give you food and shelter. I don't see how that could ever be considered weak. Perhaps you should learn gratitude rather than fleeing society.

3 hours ago, raphaelh42 said:

My point was that imo the real freedom is to know how to live alone in the nature, only your body and the nature, not thanks to a bagpack filled with tools

I'm sorry, but this seems like you want to throw away some of the most valuable human traits, like compassion, tool use, cooperation, and communication. Why on Earth do you think being solitary, with no claws or fangs, is the epitome of strength? Never, at any time, was this the hallmark of human behavior. We've NEVER been singular hunters. We lived and hunted in packs, we developed skills that took advantage of our strength in numbers. Again, I'm sorry, but it sounds like you don't much like people and want to live away from them. I'm sorry the people in your life are making you feel weak with their money and help.

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Again, I'm sorry, but it sounds like you don't much like people and want to live away from them. I'm sorry the people in your life are making you feel weak with their money and help.

It's true I don't like people a lot, I think it's because I find almost nothing in common with people

Regarding leaving away from them I'm not sure, I absolutely want to know how to live away from them, to enjoy leaving with them, not as a dependency

I've learned the basics, so today I feel free

People in my life don't make me feel weak with their money and help though, I'm wondering what made you think that but I guess I either can't properly explain my point regarding freedom, or either living in society is so deeply inserted in peoples' mind that they can't understand what I mean

35 minutes ago, raphaelh42 said:

It's true I don't like people a lot, I think it's because I find almost nothing in common with people

I hope that doesn't mean you're going to go live by yourself in a cabin in the woods and build pipe bombs ...