Greenpeace's Crime Against Humanity

[bleeding heart]

IMO the need for free speech trumps any such considerations. As soon as you start saying that words are criminal you create a slippery slope that will inevitably result in the loss of the right to dissent because there is too much room for subjective judgement the words "purposeful obstruction".

You're right, and for the same reasons you're right in your argument generally. IF Greenpeace's opposition is a genuine "crime against humanity," then I think the term can be used with incredible promiscuity for an incredible number of contentious issues. I daresay few organizations would be free of the allegation.

And to clarify, I have no substantive rhetorical horse in this debate. I'm inclined to think Greenpeace mistaken, in fact, but would have to look into it to declare it (or refute it) with confidence.

But it's pretty plainly not a "crime against humanity" kind of issue. That term should be reserved for the clear-cut cases of unequivocally-intentional horrors.

Edited November 11, 2013 by bleeding heart

[waldo]

You're right, and for the same reasons you're right in your argument generally. IF Greenpeace's opposition is a genuine "crime against humanity," then I think the term can be used with incredible promiscuity for an incredible number of contentious issues. I daresay few organizations would be free of the allegation.

But it's pretty plainly not a "crime against humanity" kind of issue. That term should be reserved for the clear-cut cases of unequivocally-intentional horrors.

GP doesn't rise to the elevated level of Moore/carepov's "Crime Against Humanity"..... it just speaks to a "Disservice to Humanity"

[ReeferMadness]

IMO, the purposeful obstruction of life-saving solutions is criminal.

Greenpeace has proposed its own life-saving solution.

GE 'Golden' rice has been in development for over 20 years. The tens of millions of dollars invested in GE 'Golden' rice would have been better spent on VAD solutions that are already available and working, such as food supplements, food fortification and home gardening. Greenpeace believes that, by combating VAD with ecologically farmed home and community gardens, sustainable systems are created that provide food security and diversity in a way that is empowering people, protects biodiversity, and ensures a long-lasting solution to VAD and malnutrition.

So, you are saying that Greenpeace should be denied the right to express its views. How Stalinist. How would you propose to write this law? Would it be illegal to disagree with you?

Edited November 11, 2013 by ReeferMadness

[carepov]

Greenpeace has proposed its own life-saving solution.

So, you are saying that Greenpeace should be denied the right to express its views. How Stalinist. How would you propose to write this law? Would it be illegal to disagree with you?

The solutions proposed by Greenpeace are part of the work done by Helen Keller International (HKI) - they are not enough.

http://www.hki.org/reducing-malnutrition/biofortification/golden-rice/

"Golden Rice offers a very unique opportunity to improve the nutrition of people—particularly of women and children in Asia—who are not reached by current interventions to reduce Vitamin A deficiency."

http://irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=12654〈=en

Greenpeace's stance lead to:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/26/golden_rice_attack_in_philippines_anti_gmo_activists_lie_about_protest_and.html

Like I said, there are already limitations to free dom of expression. For example, hate speach and slander is illegal. It is illegal to spread lies that result in peoiple dying - that is what Greenpeace is doing.

[carepov]

You're right, and for the same reasons you're right in your argument generally. IF Greenpeace's opposition is a genuine "crime against humanity," then I think the term can be used with incredible promiscuity for an incredible number of contentious issues. I daresay few organizations would be free of the allegation.

And to clarify, I have no substantive rhetorical horse in this debate. I'm inclined to think Greenpeace mistaken, in fact, but would have to look into it to declare it (or refute it) with confidence.

But it's pretty plainly not a "crime against humanity" kind of issue. That term should be reserved for the clear-cut cases of unequivocally-intentional horrors.

Would you care to provide some examples of other contentious issues where a "crime against humanity" label can be applied?

This issue is clear-cut. Hundreds of thousands of children die every year due to VAD. Many of them eat rice. Were it not for opposition to Golden Rice, many of these children would have been getting sufficient VA.

[waldo]

The solutions proposed by Greenpeace are part of the work done by Helen Keller International (HKI) - they are not enough.

http://www.hki.org/reducing-malnutrition/biofortification/golden-rice/

your link does not support the grandiosity of your assessment. What your link does do is fortify the IRRI position statement I've repeatedly quoted... particularly the eventual role of HKI in the Philippine trial. Did you even read your link? Would you like me to provide the full quote from your provided link that definitively proves you've jumped the shark?

.

"Golden Rice offers a very unique opportunity to improve the nutrition of people—particularly of women and children in Asia—who are not reached by current interventions to reduce Vitamin A deficiency."

http://irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=12654〈=en

again, as repeatedly stated, you're quoting from a dated blog entry, one that is superseded by the IRRI's own position statement... the one repeatedly quoted to you. Again, you continue to quote from this blog entry while purposely ignoring the organization's official position statement. You've had this pointed out to repeatedly, and yet, you persist. And again, that dated blog entry makes reference to and has reliance on the same failed study you continue to rely upon. So,,, a dated blog entry superseded by the organization's own position statement... and the failed study. Like I said, you're a waste of time.

.

Greenpeace's stance lead to:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/26/golden_rice_attack_in_philippines_anti_gmo_activists_lie_about_protest_and.html

no - as stated previously, there is nothing shown to directly tie Greenpeace to that protest. Your desperation reeks!

.

Like I said, there are already limitations to freedom of expression. For example, hate speach and slander is illegal. It is illegal to spread lies that result in peoiple dying - that is what Greenpeace is doing.

do you have deep pockets? Your ratcheting up personal opinion may just reach the ears of interested persons. And again, I note your significant avoidance in the challenge asking you to qualify/quantify your charge of a "Crime Against Humanity".

.

[carepov]

here, read it again... read it slow... take your time... try to comprehend it!

We are dancing in circles. I am not ignoring the IRRI statement. I agree with it 100% and with everything I've read so far on the IRRI website. Do you?

http://www.irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=12483

"It’s true that human nutrition research indicates that the beta carotene in Golden Rice is readily converted to vitamin A in the body, providing encouraging evidence that eating Golden Rice could help reduce vitamin A deficiency.

However, it has not yet been determined whether daily consumption of Golden Rice does improve the vitamin A status of people who are vitamin A deficient and could therefore reduce related conditions such as night blindness. If Golden Rice is approved by national regulators, Helen Keller International and university partners will conduct a controlled community study to ascertain if eating Golden Rice every day improves vitamin A status.

In short, Golden Rice will only be made available broadly to farmers and consumers in the Philippines if it is approved by national regulators and shown to reduce vitamin A deficiency in community conditions. This process may take another two years or more."

[waldo]

We are dancing in circles.

the only circle dancing is yours. So, of course, what you do is repeat the link I provided and repeat the quote/position statement... the quote that has you hanging on the single sentence that includes the "encouraging/could" words... while you ignore/gloss over the pertinent part of the quote: "However, it has not yet been determined whether daily consumption of Golden Rice does improve the vitamin A status of people who are vitamin A deficient and could therefore reduce related conditions such as night blindness. If Golden Rice is approved by national regulators, Helen Keller International and university partners will conduct a controlled community study to ascertain if eating Golden Rice every day improves vitamin A status.

In short, Golden Rice will only be made available broadly to farmers and consumers in the Philippines if it is approved by national regulators and shown to reduce vitamin A deficiency in community conditions. This process may take another two years or more."...

change your thread title or support your charge of a "Crime Against Humanity".

[carepov]

the only circle dancing is yours. So, of course, what you do is repeat the link I provided and repeat the quote/position statement... the quote that has you hanging on the single sentence that includes the "encouraging/could" words... while you ignore/gloss over the pertinent part of the quote: "However, it has not yet been determined whether daily consumption of Golden Rice does improve the vitamin A status of people who are vitamin A deficient and could therefore reduce related conditions such as night blindness. If Golden Rice is approved by national regulators, Helen Keller International and university partners will conduct a controlled community study to ascertain if eating Golden Rice every day improves vitamin A status.

In short, Golden Rice will only be made available broadly to farmers and consumers in the Philippines if it is approved by national regulators and shown to reduce vitamin A deficiency in community conditions. This process may take another two years or more."...

change your thread title or support your charge of a "Crime Against Humanity".

I agree that "encourgaging" does not mean proven. At the same time "not yet determined" is very different from "disproven" or "failed".

I have supported the "crime against humanity" charge many times.

Edited November 12, 2013 by carepov

[carepov]

again, as repeatedly stated, you're quoting from a dated blog entry, one that is superseded by the IRRI's own position statement... the one repeatedly quoted to you. Again, you continue to quote from this blog entry while purposely ignoring the organization's official position statement. You've had this pointed out to repeatedly, and yet, you persist. And again, that dated blog entry makes reference to and has reliance on the same failed study you continue to rely upon. So,,, a dated blog entry superseded by the organization's own position statement... and the failed study. Like I said, you're a waste of time.

IRRI official position statement: Thursday, 21 February 2013 16:28

http://www.irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=12483

IRRI Director General Robert Zeigler Blog: Thursday, 10 October 2013 00:15

http://irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=12682%3Aseeing-clearly-golden-rice-and-climate-science〈=en

[carepov]

Just in case some people still do not see this as a clear cut case of a crime against humanity:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6152/1320.full

[-1=e^ipi]

Reading this thread makes me hungry. It's too bad golden rice isn't available in Canada. It looks delicious. It's probably healthier than the rice that is currently on the market.

[Boges]

Have some Rice o' Roni. That's golden.

[waldo]

IRRI official position statement: Thursday, 21 February 2013 16:28 // IRRI Director General Robert Zeigler Blog: Thursday, 10 October 2013 00:15

nothing in that (latest) blog entry... repeat, blog entry... counters the, as you reinforce, official position statement. By the by, the Board of IRRI sets official policy/direction for IRRI... not the DG.

[waldo]

Just in case some people still do not see this as a clear cut case of a crime against humanity:

you link to an editorial with scientists condemning the actions of protesters who vandalized rice plants within a research field... Greenpeace has done the same. You continue to mention this protest/destruction; neither you... or anyone... has directly tied Greenpeace to that protest. The editorial also extends into the broader debate on GMO. There is a relatively recent MLW thread that carries that theme... perhaps you should take your, I assume, broader support for GM to that thread.

do you actually have...... anything new... to bring to this discussion?

[carepov]

nothing in that (latest) blog entry... repeat, blog entry... counters the, as you reinforce, official position statement. By the by, the Board of IRRI sets official policy/direction for IRRI... not the DG.

I agree, the blog is consistent with the statement. It was you that claimed otherwise.

As I said, I completely agree with the IRRI position and their work. Do you?

[waldo]

I agree, the blog is consistent with the statement. It was you that claimed otherwise.

As I said, I completely agree with the IRRI position and their work. Do you?

if you agree the latest blog entry is consistent... then what's the point of dropping a link to it. If you actually agree with the IRRI position... change your thread title. That IRRI position, as repeatedly quoted to you, does not support your claims. Again:

the only circle dancing is yours. So, of course, what you do is repeat the link I provided and repeat the quote/position statement... the quote that has you hanging on the single sentence that includes the "encouraging/could" words... while you ignore/gloss over the pertinent part of the quote: "However, it has not yet been determined whether daily consumption of Golden Rice does improve the vitamin A status of people who are vitamin A deficient and could therefore reduce related conditions such as night blindness. If Golden Rice is approved by national regulators, Helen Keller International and university partners will conduct a controlled community study to ascertain if eating Golden Rice every day improves vitamin A status.

In short, Golden Rice will only be made available broadly to farmers and consumers in the Philippines if it is approved by national regulators and shown to reduce vitamin A deficiency in community conditions. This process may take another two years or more."...

change your thread title or support your charge of a "Crime Against Humanity".

[carepov]

if you agree the latest blog entry is consistent... then what's the point of dropping a link to it. If you actually agree with the IRRI position... change your thread title. That IRRI position, as repeatedly quoted to you, does not support your claims. Again:

The point of my link was to show that the two positions are consistent and that I agree with both. Remember, you claimed that the "more recent" IRRI statement overrode the "dated" blog entry?

IMO, if it were not for Greenpeace's opposition based on lies, Golden Rice would have been available and would have prevented VAD in millions of children. The longer that Golden Rice is delayed, the more children suffer and die.

How about you waldo, do you agree with the IRRI? Do you agree with HKI? What is your opinion about Golden Rice? If it were up to you, would you continue to develop Golden Rice and allow further trials or would you cancel the entire Golden Rice project?

[waldo]

The point of my link was to show that the two positions are consistent and that I agree with both. Remember, you claimed that the "more recent" IRRI statement overrode the "dated" blog entry?

IMO, if it were not for Greenpeace's opposition based on lies, Golden Rice would have been available and would have prevented VAD in millions of children. The longer that Golden Rice is delayed, the more children suffer and die.

so what? You added in another blog reference, one to add on to the earlier reference to a different blog entry. The earlier blog entry is the one I was speaking to... the one that made reference to the same failed study you kept harping about. That entry didn't align with the position statement. Try to keep up, hey? On the greater point, yes, unless you can bring something definitive from IRRI forward, something beyond "potential, encouraging, could" like words, that official IRRI statement stands. You haven't done so... and you can't. As you said earlier, you are spinning in circles, bringing nothing new to the discussion.

I've previously challenged you to directly target the Greenpeace position/statements... what you, in your opinion, apparently, call lies. The very fact you keep hitting your head against the proverbial IRRI brick wall position statement, suggests your declared "lies", are nothing more than your parroting of Patrick Moore's corporate hucksterism! Shill on, shill on!

[carepov]

...

You're right, I've given my opinion and - at this time - I have nothing further to add. I am genuinely interested in your opinions about Golden Rice, for example:

Do you agree with the IRRI?

Do you agree with HKI?

If it were up to you, would you continue to develop Golden Rice and conduct further trials or would you cancel the entire Golden Rice project?

[carepov]

[Mighty AC]

Your pic is very misleading and doesn't at all represent your argument. Those children could benefit from any nutrition not just a variety of rice containing a vitamin A precursor.

[carepov]

You have a point. Are these images better?

[Mighty AC]

Should we also test unproven pharmaceuticals on the impoverished? They're poor anyway, who cares right? If testing proves it safe for people and the environment, it will proceed.

[carepov]

Should we also test unproven pharmaceuticals on the impoverished? They're poor anyway, who cares right?

I am neither for/against the status quo for testing drugs. My limitted understanding is that people (rich or poor) can consent to risky trials if they feel that the risk of their disease outweighs the risk of the proposed drug.

If testing proves it safe for people and the environment, it will proceed.

Golden Rice is safe. Greenpeace opposes continued testing. What is your position?