RE: As long as it's voluntary & non-aggressive, who gives a damn how others live? (a response to @pomperipossa's "So, you're an anarchist?")

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

As long as it's voluntary & non-aggressive, who gives a damn how others live? (a response to @pomperipossa's "So, you're an anarchist?")

in anarchy •  2 years ago 

You:

that's a use of GMO, not the technology itself.

Me (many comments before):

GMOs as a theoretical science aren't necessarily bad


You:

correlation does not equal causation.

Me (in the comment you're responding to):

(we can't draw direct causation because of all the other potentially hazardous technology being thrown around willy-nilly)


You're simply being argumentative & combative for the sake of it, and while I'm grateful for all the activity you've given my post, which will most likely get more people to read it, I'm not in the habit of playing chess with pigeons.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

"I'm not in the habit of playing chess with pigeons."

then why act as if you had an argument to begin with. I'm not going to bother with your damage control. If you say something make sure you mean it. Otherwise the only reason I can see you posting it is propaganda, in other words so that others think you have substance to your argument and thus believe you.

There was no argument at all until you jumped in simply to start one. This post was me answering questions that @pomperipossa asked based on my personal understandings & observations.. not propaganda, not a claim of any sort of authority. You stepped in and acted as though your personal understandings & observations somehow discredit mine.

"You stepped in and acted as though your personal understandings & observations somehow discredit mine."

thousands of studies > one random opinion on the internet

GMOs were not the topic of my response to him, and again, I clearly stated that I was putting out my own opinions and understandings. Also, there are thousands of studies on both sides of the GMO discussion, you're just choosing to read those that confirm your current beliefs, as humans are wont to do.

" both sides of the GMO discussion, you're just choosing to read those that confirm your current beliefs, as humans are wont to do."

I have never seen a legitimate scientific study against it, and I've searched. Put up or shut up

"But despite these shrill denials, the truth is that there is no more of a debate on the safety of GE crops than on reality of climate change, the scientific consensus on which all these same green groups aggressively defend. And the irony goes deeper: many of the strategies now being employed to demonize GMOs come straight out of the climate denialist playbook. There's the same promotion of false 'no consensus' statements by groups of self-appointed experts. Why, more than 300 "scientists and legal experts" signed a 'no consensus on GMO safety' statement last year, Greenpeace reminds us. That sounds like a lot, until you compare it with the 30,000 "American scientists" who have supposedly signed a petition claiming that there is "no convincing scientific evidence" linking CO2 with climate change, which Greenpeace (rightly in my view) ignores."

here is a link on the consensus:
http://www.ensser.org/media/0115/

scientific consensus

This part's just too funny. If they're going for consensus, it's not science.

Exactly. No evidence exists that GMOs do harm, so the only thing anti-gmos can do is challenge consensus. Its just like climate change.

Personally, I am not anti-anything, but I will not put anything in my body created by Monsanto or their ilk, I will not give them any of my time, money, or other energy, and I will continue to grow & eat only heirloom plants.

Consensus =/= Science

Climate change is a perpetual state that the Earth is in, the push by governments to use it as an excuse to grow their power and the ridiculous arguments from both sides are, again, not related to this conversation.

"(we can't draw direct causation because of all the other potentially hazardous technology being thrown around willy-nilly)"

"but that still makes it bad"

It means that they are one of a few variables that have been added, which together have led to many "bad" things. Since none of those variable are actually open to independent research and are protected by the violence of the state, there is no way to know which are causing harm and which aren't.

' Since none of those variable are actually open to independent research"

wrong

" protected by the violence of the state, there is no way to know which are causing harm and which aren't."

then why call out the one all logic shows literally has less of a chance to harm you than random viruses you encounter in your food everyday.

in fact there have literally been thousands of studies, which in total have been more than a trillion meals.

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/

"GMOs as a theoretical science aren't necessarily bad" Nothing is. Its a useless statement. In the context that implies is that the only, or at least majority, of possible use in the future will be "bad".

It implies that the current uses are "bad", but that the science itself is not.

then attack the uses, not the technology with the ability to save millions of lives.

Electricity can kill too if used incorrectly.

The conversation being had was about ownership, sovereignty, and the uses of force/coercion to affect those. GMOs were one small thing that I mentioned as part of a paragraph about the illusion of scarcity of food.

You are attempting to derail it by getting super argumentative about tertiary aspects of one piece of it.

"You are attempting to derail it by getting super argumentative about tertiary aspects of one piece of it."

I literally don't care about the rest of that argument. In fact I agree with much of the conclusion. I don't care about that though, because parts of it are wrong.

If you literally don't care about the rest of the argument, then don't get involved in it. If this was a discussion of GMOs, then your responses would make sense, but that is not the case.

"If you literally don't care about the rest of the argument, then don't get involved in it"

I wasn't the one who brought the rest of it up? That was you?

" If this was a discussion of GMOs, then your responses would make sense, but that is not the case."

What? Are you trying to do a form of ad hominen lmao

You are the one that jumped on my post about ownership and sovereignty with "gmos aren't bad its just patents that do so.", which then led to this cluster-fuck of trying to locate the new comment haha.

Once again, thank you for giving this post the most comments of any post I've made :-)

"I feel like my response to number 8 covers this one. I would like to point out that food is not a scarce resource as soon as you remove corporations, GMOs, "

also GMOS help produce more food

Industrialized farming will always be less efficient and effective than small-scale, and GMOs only help produce more food when combined with huge amounts of toxic pesticides & herbicides, petroleum-based fertilizers, and using the state to shut down small-scale farmers.

"Industrialized farming will always be less efficient and effective than small-scale, "

uhhhhh wrong

What is more efficient about letting machinery sit there useless the majority of the time?

"MOs only help produce more food when combined with huge amounts of toxic pesticides & herbicides,"

wrong. Drought resistant ones for example are a necessity in many parts of the world.