Anyone heard this on genetic engineering of corn/soy?

[Ringer]

or the thread is abandoned for honest discussion. If you back what Ringer and Cuthber are doing here, and warn off even the attempt to call it, you give up on discussing the OP or the larger issue it introduces in any reality based manner.

What, exactly, have I been up to. I posted multiple studies on GMOs to show they have been, and currently are, doing a good deal of research on the matter. I have stated that many products have not been studied to the degree in which you say GMOs must be studied before they can be declared safe. Neither of those is dishonest in any way that I can see. So please tell me in what way either of those isn't 'reality based'. In reality, there have been many studies looking at different effects of GMOs and virtually all of them have showed that they are safe for human consumption on average.

[John Cuthber]

" It's true that pregnant women don't eat much raw cotton, but that's a fallacious and deceptive claim in context of this discussion, at least in my opinion."

Aha! Now we are making progress.

Where I live, food crops using Bt are banned so the point is entirely sensible.

So from my point of view that comment is reasonable- if parochial. It's certainly not dishonest so Overtone's allegation of lying is false.

 

It remains the case , as far as I'm aware, that Bt isn't significantly toxic in humans.

There are places in the world where they grow food crops that produce Bt, but, (again, as far as I'm aware) there is no evidence for human toxicity as a result of this.

 

It seems a lot of debate about one flippant point.

How many people have actually been killed by Bt technology?

 

Once we have looked at that, perhaps we can focus on what I actually said

"Of course, this may reflect that fat that pregnant women don't generally eat much raw cotton.

That's just as well because cotton is known to be toxic to humans"

For a start.

" this may reflect..."

So , even then I was pointing out that while the non consumption by pregnant women may be the reason, it need not be the whole or sole reason.

And then we might look at the other point I raised.

"That's just as well because cotton is known to be toxic to humans"

We often raise toxic plants for non- food reasons. If we did that with plants that were (debatably) toxic to people because of GM, would that be different to raising toxic crops that were naturally toxic?

Edited December 19, 2013 by John Cuthber

[overtone]

 

 

So from my point of view that comment is reasonable- if parochial. It's certainly not dishonest so Overtone's allegation of lying is false.

I quoted two examples of what I have identified as dishonest posting from you, and its repetition after correction a species of lie. You can read them for yourself, again, if you've "forgotten".That wasn't one of them, and here you are posting as if it were, as if you were just now discovering the objection.

 

but I have to admit in truth it could have been - "from your point of view " the entire thread was started and was continuing as a discussion of a current program to engineer Bt expression into food crops and related general issues. That would be the point of view of anyone who read the posts in the thread. Am I supposed to assume you didn't read any of the posts prior to your response back there? That even after complaint and correction it didn't occur to you to read, say, my posts - the ones you were responding to, apparently unread (although carefully edited in the quotes). How many consecutive corrected and objectionable posts am I expected to forgive as mere heedlessness or oversight?

 

 

 

There are places in the world where they grow food crops that produce Bt, but, (again, as far as I'm aware) there is no evidence for human toxicity as a result of this.

Still we are stuck on this stupid piece of repeated bullshit. To be fair, it is just about the only "argument" anyone has for allowing Monsanto et al to do what they are doing, but that hardly improves it.

 

Next you will be posting long lists of irrelevant studies you haven't looked at, as support for your position that your carefully guarded ignorance and inability to read English prose with comprehension is evidence of the safety and benign nature of GMOs in general.

 

Nevertheless we have made progress, in that we have dug up a core issue: What the hell is wrong with you people? Because whatever this weird problem is, it's the means by which Monsanto et al have taken control of this technology and a good share of the planet's food supply. And that's not a safe thing, a benign thing, a good thing.

 

 

 

If we did that with plants that were (debatably) toxic to people because of GM, would that be different to raising toci crops that were naturally toxic?

Of course it would. Joke? We've had, what, ten thousand years of closely observed experience with the "naturally toxic" plants we have learned to exploit for whatever reason (many of them, like manioc or potatos, we have learned how to grow for food). That was thousands of years of trial and error and hard, expensive lessons. We have less than a half a generation of experience with any GMO (they are all different), and no real world experience at all with the ranges and combinations of effects possible from the kinds of genetic alterations we have allowed corporations to broadcast everywhere, for their own profit and without informing us even of what they have observed - let alone what they should have observed.

 

What we do know is all bad, actually, based on the lessons of those thousands of years of trial and error. We are allowing a reduction of genetic diversity in food supplies, and an imposed uniformity of newly engineered code whose like has never existed before and whose behavior we have not fully described. We are spreading classic setups known to promote Darwinian evolution harmful to us, even in our own bodies. We are abetting cartel domination of our food supply. None of this is recommended by experience, history, reason, or prudence.

[swansont]

I quoted two examples of what I have identified as dishonest posting from you, and its repetition after correction a species of lie. You can read them for yourself, again, if you've "forgotten".That wasn't one of them, and here you are posting as if it were, as if you were just now discovering the objection.

 

…

 

Still we are stuck on this stupid piece of repeated bullshit.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

It is somewhat disappointing to see this, especially so soon after a modnote about knocking off the veiled insults (among other things).

 

There is rarely a legitimate reason to call someone a liar, as it requires one to know that not only is the information incorrect, but that the poster knew this. So STOP IT.

 

Characterizing something as "stupid repeated bullshit" is not a legitimate response when you've never posted any citations to show that the claim is incorrect. (plus, you were asked to tone the language down before.) Without supporting information, this is no more than conspiracy mongering and a hijack of the thread, which was not started to discuss Monsanto. Back it up with valid sources, or drop it.

 

[overtone]

There is rarely a legitimate reason to call someone a liar, as it requires one to know that not only is the information incorrect, but that the poster knew this. So STOP IT

Rare though the opportunity may be, I have and have posted legitimate reason for calling the posts at issue dishonest, and it's a simple truth that such repeated dishonest posting - after correction, after objection, after explanation - is a species of lying. I posted the evidence, explicitly labeled. Note that I have not been repeatedly calling people "liars" - that little slide in the terminology is not mine - and so would not be "stopping" that anyway. ( I've been leaving room for a striking lack of self-awareness throughout.)

 

 

Characterizing something as "stupid repeated bullshit" is not a legitimate response when you've never posted any citations to show that the claim is incorrect.

1) Bullshit is neither correct nor incorrect, true or false, right or wrong - its defining characteristic is a lack of due consideration for such attributes, as its role is indifferent to them.

 

2)There is no such thing as a "citation" that shows a stupid, bullshit argument to be "incorrect". It's not a matter of scientific finding. No one has done any research on the quality of the arguments presented in this thread. You are joining a chorus of harassment you should be dealing with, not contributing to.

 

I have been explicit, simple to the point of simplistic, and for several pages here and elswhere was patiently repetitive, in pointing out problems with the notion that ignorance and lack of information is evidence of safety, that GMOs as currently marketed can be assumed to be reasonably safe without experience or adequate investigation, that the obvious hazards of GMOs as highlighted by basic Darwinian theory and centuries of experience with medical, agricultural, economic, and ecological problems are not addressed by claiming a lack of visible evidence of accomplished harm so far even if that claim were true, which a large supply of common observations - such as the simple statistic of loss of genetic diversity (3/4 of US soybeans drawn from less than half a dozen genetic strains, every one of which now harboring a single exposed and mobile genetic complex with which we have less than fifteen years of widescale experience), the breeding of resistance to valuable pesticides and herbicides, the loss of food security in afflicted regions of the globe, etc - shows is not so.

Edited December 20, 2013 by overtone

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

If the thread has now come to a point where even modnotes are being argued, then it is time that it is closed for review and for cooling down.

 

Thread closed for review and cooldown. (We'll post a lengthier modnote when this has been reviewed by more moderators).