• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Monsanto

Dymanic said:
It might help if you would begin by defining "underlying ecology".
Click to expand...

I don't know what I mean. Biosphere, maybe? I'll drop the whole thing as an untenable argument, largely based on me not knowing what I'm talking about.
 
!Kaggen said:
Correct that's why Golden Rice is a joke.
Just get people to eat some green vegetable such as whole coriander plants growing in the ditch at the side of the Indian road and Vit A deficiency solved.
Click to expand...

But they'll still starve to death without a staple food.

(Not to mention, Golden Rice also contains iodine, iron and zinc.)
 
Segnosaur said:
Not only that, how exactly are they going to verify that the 'pure, non-GMO food' wasn't somehow contaminated with GM varieties during growing?

Are farmers going to have to keep the crops a minimum of 100 yards apart to ensure that no GM seeds landed in the 'organic' field? What about cross-pollination? (Maybe farmers will have to hire hunters to sit on the border with guns to shoot any bees that happen to cross the boundary.)
Click to expand...
Such questions would seem to have suddenly taken on a new significance, with Japan -- the second-largest buyer of U.S. wheat -- having announced that it is suspending imports of Western White wheat from the U.S. after USDA disclosure that an unapproved genetically modified strain of wheat has been found on an Oregon farm.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324423904578523471376080526.html
 
Dymanic said:
I think its central premise has merit: It is naive to expect to be able to maintain perfect containment of frankenorganisms 100% of the time.
Click to expand...

To put it mildly...a better phrase would be "hubris of the highest order".

By the way, Monsanto is now using the services of the infamous Blackwater Security firm to conduct intelligence and infiltration operations on protest groups, and has been since 2010.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/297701

http://wakeup-world.com/2013/05/31/...ackwater-to-track-activists-around-the-world/
 
Muldur said:
To put it mildly...a better phrase would be "hubris of the highest order".

By the way, Monsanto is now using the services of the infamous Blackwater Security firm to conduct intelligence and infiltration operations on protest groups, and has been since 2010.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/297701

http://wakeup-world.com/2013/05/31/...ackwater-to-track-activists-around-the-world/
Click to expand...

Folks, if a website called "Wake Up World" says it, you can pretty much take it to the bank. :boggled:

I'm wondering if there is a legitimate news source for this "story"?
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Folks, if a website called "Wake Up World" says it, you can pretty much take it to the bank. :boggled:

I'm wondering if there is a legitimate news source for this "story"?
Click to expand...
The original source is a story in The Nation by investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill, and is purported to be based on internal company documents from two companies (Total Intelligence Solutions and the Terrorism Research Center) owned by Blackwater's owner and founder, Erik Prince. As far as I can see, The Claim is that "Total Intelligence sought to become the 'intel arm' of Monsanto, offering to provide operatives to infiltrate activist groups organizing against the multinational biotech firm." Whether or not that offer was accepted is not clear. Given Monsanto's record of aggressive action in enforcing its patent rights as well as (quite successfully) seeking to influence government policy in ways that favor its interests, the proposition does not seem to require a great stretch of the imagination -- but that's probably rather subjective. Pending the actual release of those internal documents, it boils down to the extent to which one is willing to take Scahill's word for it (and the extent to which one is willing to accept The Nation as a "legitimate source").
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Folks, if a website called "Wake Up World" says it, you can pretty much take it to the bank. :boggled:

I'm wondering if there is a legitimate news source for this "story"?
Click to expand...

Is there ANY topic where you will actually address facts as opposed to arguing "source"?
 
^ Old lawyer trick. Can't refute the testimony, then attempt to impeach the source. Ad hom is the last refuge of scoundrels when cornered by evidence.
 
Muldur said:
^ Old lawyer trick. Can't refute the testimony, then attempt to impeach the source. Ad hom is the last refuge of scoundrels when cornered by evidence.
Click to expand...
I have to say that I also think Scrut's objection is not without some merit. If, for example, the informational train wreck known as "Mercola" happens to get its hands on something that does have a strong factual basis -- and you choose freaking Mercola as the portal to that -- you're going to damage the very cause you want to promote, because many people (especially around here) will dismiss it unexamined, solely on the basis of source.
 
Dymanic said:
I have to say that I also think Scrut's objection is not without some merit. If, for example, the informational train wreck known as "Mercola" happens to get its hands on something that does have a strong factual basis -- and you choose freaking Mercola as the portal to that -- you're going to damage the very cause you want to promote, because many people (especially around here) will dismiss it unexamined, solely on the basis of source.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

If you want to announce the "Hindenburg Omen" (for example) to the world, it better be via the WSJ or NY Times. I'd even accept Fox "News". I have no interest in reading Zero Hedge (gold bug kook site) or the Wake Up World blog.
 
^More argument ad hom. Which tells me none of you want to address "inconvenient truths".
 
Muldur said:
^More argument ad hom. Which tells me none of you want to address "inconvenient truths".
Click to expand...

I don't think ad hom means what you think it means.

But since this is a Monsanto blog, perhaps you can come up with some sources for the common claims (among anti-GMO nutwads) that GMO's cause cancer or allergies or...whatever. I've asked for years, and all I ever get is "watch the video" or a link to an Oprah episode or a loony conspiracy blog. Maybe you can point me to several peer reviewed scientific journal articles? Probably not.
 
Last edited:
Muldur said:
^More argument ad hom. Which tells me none of you want to address "inconvenient truths".
Click to expand...
If the TRUTH is that a company affiliated with Blackwater was hired by Monsanto to infiltrate anti-Monsanto activist groups, then I'd say that is very inconvenient indeed -- for Monsanto, as well as for its ideological supporters here. I would have to count myself as among those ideologically opposed to Monsanto (though not necessarily to the idea of genetic engineering altogether), and because of that, I feel obligated to be especially on guard against my own biases. It really doesn't take an enormous introspective effort for me to recognize how eagerly I would sieze upon firm evidence supporting Scahill's claims; I would particularly like to have an opportunity to peruse the "internal documents" he cites.

The thing is, I'm not finding those documents. You accurately describe the nature of the evidence as "testimony" -- and the credibility of the witness is very relevant -- so the whole thing rests on Scahill's credibility, and, by association, on that of The Nation. What it doesn't rest on is the credibility of a website called "Wake Up World", or any of the other myriad "sources" (some clearly quite dubious) who happen to have passed the story on.
 
Dymanic said:
The thing is, I'm not finding those documents. You accurately describe the nature of the evidence as "testimony" -- and the credibility of the witness is very relevant -- so the whole thing rests on Scahill's credibility, and, by association, on that of The Nation. What it doesn't rest on is the credibility of a website called "Wake Up World", or any of the other myriad "sources" (some clearly quite dubious) who happen to have passed the story on.
Click to expand...

True. But if the link provided is to the "Wake Up World" blog(?), then I'm not even going to bother to click on it, for reasons you outlined earlier.
 
If Monsanto says their stuff is safe and that they didn't hire secret infiltrators, would it be ad hom to discount what they said?

Of course we evaluate what we hear based on the source. It's not like there's only one side with an agenda here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom