Anti-GMO activist admits he was wrong

The Central Scrutinizer said:
For the anti-GMO crowd, Roman mythology counts as science!! :)
Click to expand...

If you knew anything about Roman mythology you would know that I was being ironic by using mithridatism as a metaphor, because of the mention of poison, to describe to build immunity to the constant strawman arguments used against those that question GMO pseudoscience.
 
!Kaggen said:
And this argument is often, though not universally a strawman since the idea is not that the natural is morally acceptable but that it is antifragile. It benefits from unpredictable events.
Click to expand...
It benefits from unpredictable events by large numbers of organisms dying.
 
dudalb said:
So a small farmer has no right to sell his crop for a profit?

Nice going.
Click to expand...

No, not at all. I support profits and I support farming. I just don't think that the food supply should ever be threatened because of it, so I support heavy regulations as to the issuance of patents and the level of monopoly allowed.
 
!Kaggen said:
If you knew anything about Roman mythology you would know that I was being ironic by using mithridatism as a metaphor, because of the mention of poison, to describe to build immunity to the constant strawman arguments used against those that question GMO pseudoscience.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I know far more about farming than I do about Roman mythology or strawmen. In that regard, we're kind of opposites.
 
Unabogie said:
No, not at all. I support profits and I support farming. I just don't think that the food supply should ever be threatened because of it, so I support heavy regulations as to the issuance of patents and the level of monopoly allowed.
Click to expand...

So you support the status quo. :)
 
ddt said:
And when he was eventually defeated by the Romans, he tried to poison himself and failed. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Umm..

Did he fail to poison himself, or did he fail in surviving poison ingestion?

Oh god I'm so confused (But I will not google it)
 
IDB87 said:
Umm..

Did he fail to poison himself, or did he fail in surviving poison ingestion?

Oh god I'm so confused (But I will not google it)
Click to expand...

He did ingest the poison. He failed in the suicide attempt, i.e., he failed to die as a result of it. Hoist on his own petard.
 
Unabogie said:
No, not at all. I support profits and I support farming. I just don't think that the food supply should ever be threatened because of it, so I support heavy regulations as to the issuance of patents and the level of monopoly allowed.
Click to expand...

I understand about monopoly, but if a company spends it money developing a new strain of grain, don't they have a right to profit off it?
 
dudalb said:
I understand about monopoly, but if a company spends it money developing a new strain of grain, don't they have a right to profit off it?
Click to expand...

Not if it threatens the global food supply should they abuse their patent to prevent others from growing food. I'm saying that the overriding concern should be people not starving. How that gets done is not as important to me as not allowing any single entity to cause mass starvation because of the profit motive. Especially since Monsanto gets all kinds of tax "incentives" and subsidies. I have no problem with putting their profits second and the welfare of humanity first.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
How would this work? If Monsanto develops a new variant of corn, they can't stop Pioneer or Stine or anyone else from selling corn.
Click to expand...

If that's true, then there's no problem and the statute would never be invoked. But if Monsanto patented a genetic strain of corn, and then by some circumstance that corn came to dominate or there were some quirk in which legally they had a patent claim against farmers who were being forced to pay them and they couldn't avoid that, then that threatens the food supply and I would support whatever remedy it would take to stop them, even if they lost profits. If that's not a problem, they please proceed. Their profits are a secondary concern.

I think my stance if perfectly reasonable.
 
!Kaggen said:
And this argument is often, though not universally a strawman since the idea is not that the natural is morally acceptable but that it is antifragile. It benefits from unpredictable events.
Click to expand...

That's simply wrong. It is not the argument most often or even often put forth. The naturalistic fallacy does fit what he was saying, what you are saying does not fit the naturalistic fallacy or what he was saying.

Generally from anti-GMO or pro 'organic' agriculture the best you will get is an argument similar to your 'antifragile' (citation needed) argument, usually as a post hoc rationalization for holding the view in the first place.

EDIT: The person from the OP was an anti-GMO activist. He was in fact an influential one. It wasn't the argument he or his group primarily used if they used it at all.
 
Last edited:
Unabogie said:
If that's true, then there's no problem and the statute would never be invoked. But if Monsanto patented a genetic strain of corn, and then by some circumstance that corn came to dominate or there were some quirk in which legally they had a patent claim against farmers who were being forced to pay them and they couldn't avoid that, then that threatens the food supply and I would support whatever remedy it would take to stop them, even if they lost profits. If that's not a problem, they please proceed. Their profits are a secondary concern.

I think my stance if perfectly reasonable.
Click to expand...

:boggled:
 
StankApe said:
Sent this link to 2 people who have tried to convince me of the "evils of GMO's!!" for years. I bet they handwave it away as being either a CT or he was "paid off".
Click to expand...

Ah, the "shill argument". Love it.

It is the argument that you are so right, that everybody who disagrees with you is paid to disagree with you by a shadowy cabal of capitalists and industrialists.

The argument is most common amongst environmentalists, anti-nuke people, Truthers and Holocaust deniers.
 
Eddie Dane said:
The argument is most common amongst environmentalists, anti-nuke people, Truthers and Holocaust deniers.
Click to expand...

Don't forget anti-vaxxers and quack therapy supporters. In my experience, there are very few types of woos who don't use the shill gambit.
 
Hrm. You know, I really have to respect a guy who can stand up and say, "I was wrong." Especially so when it's in such a public way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom