Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Technology like QR codes could solve the printing problem.

Naw, I'm sure that wouldn't be good enough. After all, then only the "rich elite" could read the information with their "unnecessary consumerist gadgets", while the "poor", ever the victims of "evil corporations" would remain uninformed and "oppressed", forced to unwittingly continue letting "poisons" into their bodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 204
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Let's consider this. Companies that develop and patent gmo seeds are the same companies that develop and patent pesticides and herbicides which these seeds are resistant to. Not only that. Monsanto is the largest seed company in the world and owns 86% of gmo seeds sown globally. They are also the parent of Roundup (they produce pesticides and herbicides).

First of all, you seem to be ignoring the fact that many GMOs have been modified for things other than pesticide resistance. For example:

- One common modification is for bt resistance, which protects plants from insects (rather than widespread pesticide spraying, giving us things like agricultural run-off).

- The Papaya has been genetically modified to prevent infection by the ringspot virus (a disease that has no known organic controls.)

- Golden Rice has been modified to provide additional vitamin A. I guess the greens don't care if people in the 3rd world suffer from blindness. (Either that, or they want to spend millions to fly vitamins to the developing world, in planes spewing greenhouse gasses.)

Secondly, I do have to echo TimG's comments when he said "so?" So what... Monsanto has been successful. The produce products people want. However, other seed companies (including ones selling organic seeds) still exist. If farmers didn't think increased yields warranted the expense of GM seeds, there are plenty of alternatives where they can buy alternative (even organic) seeds. Monsanto will then be forced to either come out with even better products, or go out of business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stockwell Day who ran for the conservative party's antecessor's PM post actually is on the record for saying that Humankind Co-habited with Dinosaurs. If you consider your party scientific scientific after that, you might as well do yourself a favour and prove Darwin's theory.

Yes indeed, Stockwell Day did have screwed up beliefs in creationism.

Heck, I'll even go further and point out that the conservatives had (at least for a while) a science minister who's understanding of Evolution was... questionable at best.

And yes, their record on global warming has been poor.

All guilty as charged.

But there are a few differences between the greens and the conservatives:

- Nobody claimed the conservatives were the 'party of science'. (I suspect most people voting for them do so because they think, rightly or wrongly, that they have the best economic policies.) Many have tried to suggest that the greens were the party of science. They are wrong

- There are 2 or 3 areas where the conservatives fair badly with respect to science. There are 5 or 6 where the Green party does

I would much rather vote for a party that has 2-3 areas of science where its wrong, and economic/foreign policies I agree with, than a party with 5-6 areas of science where its wrong and economic/foreign policies I disagree with

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried that argument before. In the end, the GMO labellers admitted that they did not really want information because such detail would be too much to sort though. They just wanted a label which would allow them to make uninformed decisions about a product based on something they have religious objections to. I think the comparison to Kosher or Halal is appropriate.

My suggestion to the GMO Labellers was that we do label. But on the organic and/or non-GMO food, the label we stick on says "This food is more likely to make you sick/wasted more land than needed/left small furry creatures homeless".

Strangely none of them seem to think it was a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this thread represents the whole problem with the Green party.

One member (ReeferMadness) seems to support the greens. Others may not have explicitly stated they support the greens but seem to occupy the same spot on the political spectrum.

Multiple problems have been pointed out regarding the greens and their attitudes towards science. (Anti-nuclear/pro-organic/alternative medicine/etc.) Instead of accepting that there are problems and pointing out that overall they support their party (even though they disagree with certain things in their platform)

I haven't decided how I will vote but I am keeping the Greens in strong consideration and this is exactly what I did on this thread (edit: see 8, 14, 36): I criticized their policies on these issues (although I'm somewhat undecided on nuclear energy) but said that I might vote for them despite this.

Edited by Evening Star
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Segno the Greens are a thousand times ahead of the conservative science deniers when it comes to science.

Greens global warming is a reality: Conservatives (fire the scientists so the public can't make an informed decision)

Greens Evolution is a reality:

Stockwell Day: 'There is Scientific Evidence that man Co-habitated with dinosaurs'

I mean when you get to that level it's time to just pack up shop and just give up the charade.

Edited by Charles Anthony
deleted image trolling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything, it is an argument for third party organizations that create and market voluntary labels which producers can choose to use.

Exactly, it might be more efficient for gmo-free labels instead where the fees paid to have gmo-free labels on your products cover the regulatory costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Segno the Greens are a thousand times ahead of the conservative science deniers when it comes to science.

Greens global warming is a reality: Conservatives (fire the scientists so the public can't make an informed decision)

Greens Evolution is a reality:

Stockwell Day: 'There is Scientific Evidence that man Co-habitated with dinosaurs'

I mean when you get to that level it's time to just pack up shop and just give up the charade.

Greens: Lets let people get cured by using magic water that no testing has ever shown works! And while we're at it, we'll do what we can to let every type of scam artist push fake medical cures on people!

Greens: Lets push a form of farming which causes more environmental damage, while still pretending to be the "party of the environment"

Greens: Lets ban fluoridation of water, even though major health agencies recommend it!

Greens: Lets ban nuclear power, even though it can help us reduce our carbon footprint, and has a lower death toll than solar/wind, because we're scared by the word "nuclear"!

Greens: Lets try to restrict the use of GMO foods, even though it could help the environment, because.... ooo scary genes!

Hmmm... looks like the greens failed at science 5 times (at least). More than the conservatives. (You can count, can't you?)

Oh, and by the way... there's one other major difference:

The belief in evolution that many conservative MPs have is idiotic, but it is just that... a misguided personal belief. On the other hand, issues like organic farming, opposition to nuclear power, and alternative medicine are actually part of the actual party policy. In other words, its not just some idiot MP saying stupid stuff, its the whole party saying "Lets all agree on the same stupid stuff".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greens: Lets let people get cured by using magic water that no testing has ever shown works! And while we're at it, we'll do what we can to let every type of scam artist push fake medical cures on people!

Greens: Lets push a form of farming which causes more environmental damage, while still pretending to be the "party of the environment"

Greens: Lets ban fluoridation of water, even though major health agencies recommend it!

Greens: Lets ban nuclear power, even though it can help us reduce our carbon footprint, and has a lower death toll than solar/wind, because we're scared by the word "nuclear"!

Greens: Lets try to restrict the use of GMO foods, even though it could help the environment, because.... ooo scary genes!

This kind of rhetoric just eliminates your credibility. No response required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This kind of rhetoric just eliminates your credibility. No response required.

What, you don't like seeing Green party anti-science policies displayed in such a blatant manner? Sorry, I wasn't the one who made them adopt those policies. Perhaps if they were a little less anti-science there wouldn't be an issue.

I find it ironic that you would suggest this post "eliminates my credibility", considering G Huxley posted a picture from the flinstones... does that type of posting eliminate his credibility too? Or are you a raging hypocrite?

Everything I posted about the greens and their policies... each and every point I have made is based on a policy the Green party has had. Every one. And in each case, I have given reasons and multiple sources to support my point that their stance is illogical. The fact that you have swallowed such nonsense must mean that you and the rest of the greens are meant for each other... gullible people unable to apply basic skepticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Flintstones picture was a direct reference to Stockwell Day's belief in the cohabitation of humans with dinosaurs. How could that possibly discredit me? It was obviously used to discredit Stockwell Day and his party.

And every statement I made was a direct reference to a green party policy.

Hey, I had no problem with the Flinstone's picture. But ReeferMadness seemed to think my post mocking, belittling and discrediting green party policies somehow discredited me. So, if he thinks mocking and belittling idiotic Green party policies discredits me, he must also think a posting mocking Stockwell Day's belief (something I also think is idiotic) discredits you. Or he's a hypocrite.

Given the fact that pretty much everyone here agrees creationism is stupid, posting the picture was a pretty useless gesture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haha Charles deleted a photo of the Flinstones. As usual he shows his complete lack of humour whatsoever and personal right wing bias.

The picture was taken down because it was a waste of space.

Now, move on and stop the thread drift. The acccreditation and or discreditation of MLWebbers is not the topic of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The policy has always been no images unless you're displaying a graph or chart that backs up a claim. The last thing we need here is threads devolving into meme wars.

bloody hell! Herr Charles just deleted an image I put forward... I mentioned the science based Green Party (vis-a-vis evolution versus creationism... tied into the point the Flintstones graphic image was making) and my image was a graphic showing the percentage of those effectively accepting evolution versus creationism on a per country basis (Canada versus the U.S. versus the UK). Of course, I also tied the graphic percentage results showing a significant percentage of Americans believing in creationism to the earlier comment made that the Flintstones are American! It was all thread relevant! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cybercoma all threads are meme wars whether it's text or images. Images are just a different way of expressing oneself and in my opinion are a more powerful medium as they say a picture says a thousand words. So if you can save a thousand words with one zen-like picture that says it all actually you are using up less space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bloody hell! Herr Charles just deleted an image I put forward...

At the risk of derailing this thread even more...

Running a message board is probably a thankless task (especially if the moderator wants to keep a high signal-to-noise ration on the forum.) And I doubt its a big money-maker for him (if indeed he makes any money at all.) This forum exists because of his efforts.

Since 'Herr' is a german term often associated with Nazi germany, you are implying that the moderator is some sort of right wing dictator. I don't think that's a fair assessment. All sorts of left-wing posts exist on this site (and in this thread). The earlier picture of the flinstones was deleted, but he didn't touch the content of the post.

I know I occasionally cross the line with regards to the moderation, but I respect the job he does.

I mentioned the science based Green Party (vis-a-vis evolution versus creationism... tied into the point the Flintstones graphic image was making) and my image was a graphic showing the percentage of those effectively accepting evolution versus creationism on a per country basis ...It was all thread relevant!

Why exactly was it relevant?

This thread was discussing the Canadian green party and its policies. It was not discussing international politics or views on science. Perhaps if you had a graphic comparing the percentage of conservative vs. green party members that were creationists it might actually be relevant, but even then, nobody is defending conservative MPs over their beliefs in creationism. The point that I have been making is that there are more types of scientific nonsense than just belief in creationism. Many Green Party policies have tied into that nonsense. Being on the right side of one issue doesn't necessarily mean they are on the right side of all scientific issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point that I have been making is that there are more types of scientific nonsense than just belief in creationism. Many Green Party policies have tied into that nonsense. Being on the right side of one issue doesn't necessarily mean they are on the right side of all scientific issues.

I emphasized the one issue facet with a direct "vis-a-vis" attachment declaration; one in line with the member's comparative reference to "conservative science". The polling results graphic (now deleted) was a reflection on that belief; that is to say, the polling results showed a significantly greater number of Americans polled believed in creationism. By implication (not just mine), a U.S. fundamentalist conservative bent can be legitimately assumed to be a contributor to that high(er) U.S. creationism alignment... certainly this can't be a revelation to you. The "Herr" label was following the reference previously made... the appropriateness might be in line with reflections upon dictatorial censorship... might be! The gold/gravy closing inference (on that graphic) had to do with the earlier statement/claim made that "Flintstones are American"... now, since I've worked in and traveled extensively throughout Colorado, I know exactly where Bedrock is! :D

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...