What's new
By:

Never Hillary

The Thriller said:
I have no problem with cutting the population down. We are overpopulated as it is. Starvation, nature's birth control! If many central American and African countries don't want to use artificial birth control and sex edu, well let them starve.
Click to expand...

Can we start w you? Tell you what I will buy the bullet for you.
 
The Thriller said:
What does the GOP do for some of you?

Don't you remember the last time a repub was president? Lies to start expensive wars, tax cuts for the rich, exploding deficits, 9/11, Katrina, NCLB, torture, VP shooting people in the face, releasing cia operative names...

I get that some of you aren't huge Ds. But how can anyone with a brain support the GOP's candidate(s) and their vastly unpopular platform these days?
Click to expand...

Income tax is not constitutional so at least he worked in the right direction.
 
Boris said:
Income tax is not constitutional so at least he worked in the right direction.
Click to expand...

I don't understand. Doesn't the constitution have the text, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration?"
 
Darkwing Duck said:
I don't understand. Doesn't the constitution have the text, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration?"
Click to expand...

He's playing a Russian. So I'm assuming he's talking about Russia's constitution.
 
[MENTION=848]dalamon[/MENTION] tell me 5 things you eat that are NOT genetically modified. I don't think that in today's world you could find 5 things that are in their natural state and have not been modified at some point. It's what we do.

Anyway, I am with you on the pesticides and herbicides needing to improve. I am sure that they are fine for continuing the life we live right now, but this is a world that has seen immense amounts of progress in the last couple hundred years, so why not improve the process of growing the food we eat?
 
[MENTION=430]Dr. Jones[/MENTION] I just read this thread through. I am so happy right now with the trolling that has gone on here.

#neverrump
 
#bern said:
Lolz. "Factual"

They're your biased interpretations based on what you want to see in a test result. Narrow minded.
Click to expand...

Posts like this are such pure ****. Seriously. It's pure demeaning, condescending rhetoric. Compare how I've conducted myself in this conversation with how you've conducted yourself. Grow up. It's all ad-hominem with no point-for-point responses to the things I've said in this thread. I've posted several LONG posts in this thread, full of points, yet you think they can be dismissed simply by saying "HA!! Narrowwww minded doooodd! Ur not a farmer!!".

It convinces no one, and it reflects poorly on you.


Let's talk about pesticides not being good Dala.
Click to expand...
I would love to see us try to farm worldwide without pesticides.
Click to expand...

Which are you trying to argue? The safety of pesticides? or the inability to grow crops without them?

This is another exercise in lame argumentation because it treats the VERY, VERY broad category of pesticides/herbicides/fungicides (and their use) as a black and white issue. Feel free to entertain yourself with it, I won't. There's decades of evidence of chemical producers muzzling evidence of the damaging, deleterious consequences of their products; I also find the sudden care for "global hunger" disingenuous from voters who support politicians who fight to harm the developing world in a plethora of ways.

I hope you think an increased world hunger problem is good. But hey, don't take my word for it, I'm just a dumb hick farmer who doesn't know what he's putting on his crops.
Click to expand...

You're basically working through my posts trying to find a reason to get offended, much like the "overly sensitive social justice warriors" that you and others have such reservations against. I've made zero posts referring to your lifestyle and education yet you seem to keep bringing it up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
b_line said:
[MENTION=848]dalamon[/MENTION] tell me 5 things you eat that are NOT genetically modified. I don't think that in today's world you could find 5 things that are in their natural state and have not been modified at some point. It's what we do.
Click to expand...

I think you've missed the point that I made in a prior post. Let me go over it again.

dalamon said:
GMOs are completely safe for consumption, proven by years of science. The pesticides used for them aren't good, but neither are those used for non-GM crops.

GMOs being characterized as a saviour of world hunger is a marketing ploy to exploit poorer countries at the expense of the rich. Biodiverse farming practices provide a more complete repertoire of nutrition and access to food than monoculture GM crops. That's proven. Plus I think the wethical conversations surrounding GM crops are lagging behind the advancement of said sphere.
Click to expand...

In response to your point, I don't need the genetics lecture. I'm familiar with the practice of artificial selection that has probably been carried out since the inception of the Agricultural Revolution, as well as the genetic modifications that occur by chance with every passing instance of replication either through the somatic or gametic cells of any given organism (which determine the heritability of said genetic changes).

This is not the same as splicing genes artificially into existing organisms-- namely due to ecological ramifications (geneticists are generally very careful to ensure the health ramifications are non-existent). Moving from mustard seed to kale isn't as drastic of an ecological change as the capacity for change that genetic splicing can have on given ecosystems.

Coupled with that, you have the brewing conflict of agroautonomy, or the right of famers to grow plants and retain the seeds from said plants, and the slippery slope that this slanted power relationship could pose in decades to come, particularly in developing countries.


All of this, and, keep in mind, the fact that crops like golden rice don't address nutritional needs as adequately as your average attempt at biodiverse farming practices.

Characterizing the opinions of those with reservations to GMOs as "anti-intellectual" further sets back our ability to make sure our ethical discussions are keeping up with our technological innovations.


Anyway, I am with you on the pesticides and herbicides needing to improve. I am sure that they are fine for continuing the life we live right now, but this is a world that has seen immense amounts of progress in the last couple hundred years, so why not improve the process of growing the food we eat?
Click to expand...

Yup. And are we really sure they are "fine right now", when we see how successful chemical corps are at hiding the consequences of some of their products?
 
Dala, I'm just really shocked that you clearly hate poor and developing countries by trying to force them to eat organically. Dare I say that you're practically a murderer.
 
dalamon said:
I think you've missed the point that I made in a prior post. Let me go over it again.



In response to your point, I don't need the genetics lecture. I'm familiar with the practice of artificial selection that has probably been carried out since the inception of the Agricultural Revolution, as well as the genetic modifications that occur by chance with every passing instance of replication either through the somatic or gametic cells of any given organism (which determine the heritability of said genetic changes).

This is not the same as splicing genes artificially into existing organisms-- namely due to ecological ramifications (geneticists are generally very careful to ensure the health ramifications are non-existent). Moving from mustard seed to kale isn't as drastic of an ecological change as the capacity for change that genetic splicing can have on given ecosystems.

Coupled with that, you have the brewing conflict of agroautonomy, or the right of famers to grow plants and retain the seeds from said plants, and the slippery slope that this slanted power relationship could pose in decades to come, particularly in developing countries.


All of this, and, keep in mind, the fact that crops like golden rice don't address nutritional needs as adequately as your average attempt at biodiverse farming practices.

Characterizing the opinions of those with reservations to GMOs as "anti-intellectual" further sets back our ability to make sure our ethical discussions are keeping up with our technological innovations.




Yup. And are we really sure they are "fine right now", when we see how successful chemical corps are at hiding the consequences of some of their products?
Click to expand...

They are "fine" in the sense that we are living with them, and death rates are lower than ever, while life expectancy is rising. That is not to say that they are the best thing for us. Improving quality of life and longevity of life should be part of our goals, but we have to manage that with feeding the starving world. Without the current state of pesticide use, we don't feed nearly as many people as we currently do. That is not to say that they should not be improved for safety. But saying that we all need to eat organic is like saying we shouldn't drive unless we can all get a new Benz yearly.

Not all of us come from middle eastern oil tycoon fortune.














































lol.. hopefully you get that the oil tycoon comment was in jest. heart you.
 
dalamon said:
Posts like this are such pure ****. Seriously. It's pure demeaning, condescending rhetoric. Compare how I've conducted myself in this conversation with how you've conducted yourself. Grow up. It's all ad-hominem with no point-for-point responses to the things I've said in this thread. I've posted several LONG posts in this thread, full of points, yet you think they can be dismissed simply by saying "HA!! Narrowwww minded doooodd! Ur not a farmer!!".

It convinces no one, and it reflects poorly on you.





Which are you trying to argue? The safety of pesticides? or the inability to grow crops without them?

This is another exercise in lame argumentation because it treats the VERY, VERY broad category of pesticides/herbicides/fungicides (and their use) as a black and white issue. Feel free to entertain yourself with it, I won't. There's decades of evidence of chemical producers muzzling evidence of the damaging, deleterious consequences of their products; I also find the sudden care for "global hunger" disingenuous from voters who support politicians who fight to harm the developing world in a plethora of ways.



You're basically working through my posts trying to find a reason to get offended, much like the "overly sensitive social justice warriors" that you and others have such reservations against. I've made zero posts referring to your lifestyle and education yet you seem to keep bringing it up.
Click to expand...

It is very easy to see what he is arguing but nice job trying to make it about something he was not.
 
dalamon said:
Posts like this are such pure ****. Seriously. It's pure demeaning, condescending rhetoric. Compare how I've conducted myself in this conversation with how you've conducted yourself. Grow up. It's all ad-hominem with no point-for-point responses to the things I've said in this thread. I've posted several LONG posts in this thread, full of points, yet you think they can be dismissed simply by saying "HA!! Narrowwww minded doooodd! Ur not a farmer!!".

It convinces no one, and it reflects poorly on you.





Which are you trying to argue? The safety of pesticides? or the inability to grow crops without them?

This is another exercise in lame argumentation because it treats the VERY, VERY broad category of pesticides/herbicides/fungicides (and their use) as a black and white issue. Feel free to entertain yourself with it, I won't. There's decades of evidence of chemical producers muzzling evidence of the damaging, deleterious consequences of their products; I also find the sudden care for "global hunger" disingenuous from voters who support politicians who fight to harm the developing world in a plethora of ways.



You're basically working through my posts trying to find a reason to get offended, much like the "overly sensitive social justice warriors" that you and others have such reservations against. I've made zero posts referring to your lifestyle and education yet you seem to keep bringing it up.
Click to expand...


Srs tho Monsanto is a BITCH! I agree w you Dalamon we need to outlaw everything they produce! Did u know they hid floride poisoning for Alcoa for decades?
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
As a completely total aside, I am not sure how I feel about GMO labeling laws. On the one hand, I am aware of the science, which concludes (as best I can tell), that GMOs are not harmful to humans. So, some oppose GMO labeling laws because they see them as, essentially, codifying bad science and thus giving in to the anti-GMO hysteria. On the other hand, what is wrong with providing consumers with information so they can make choices for themselves? Other products list ingredients that aren't necessarily harmful to humans, but they are there under the principle of full disclosure. Thus, while I am sympathetic to those who oppose GMO labeling, I do believe in transparency and full disclosure as a general principle, and I'm not convinced that GMO labeling merits an exception to this general principle. I'm interested in what others think.
Click to expand...
Because GMO is a big deal to some people I would think that the non-GMO products would choose to label for marketing reasons. If a consumer wants to avoid GMO they will probably be willing to pay more for non-GMO products.
 
Dala, I'll respond seriously this time.

To quote you, "Pesticides aren't good." You made it a black and white issue, leaving no room for grey. So why should I take your discussion seriously? It's the same one I've had with tons of my classmates at school who had never stepped foot on a real farm, but knew everything about farming. And I know, your grandparents farmed. You've been on local organic "farms" (they're really gardens tbh). So you'll forgive me if I'm a little impatient.

Now look, I don't want to spray pesticides. They're expensive, and many are dangerous on contact. But I'm the person it's most dangerous for, not the consumer. Will you end up consuming some? Sure, but in general, less than 1 ppm. In fact, organic crops have more toxins on them than non-organic...turns out in nature plants make some pretty nasty ****. So I think the dangers are over exaggerated, but hey, what would I know?

Of course I'd like to guarantee they're 100% safe. You think I want my kids to have to deal with what I do? Let's not act like we haven't made improvements. Hell, 30 years ago my dad was mixing Mercury in with chemicals. You have no idea the regulations that chemicals have to go through. No idea the safety training we have to take. No idea the regulations the farmers have to go through. You think I wanna do all that? Hell no, it takes up valuable time I don't have a ton of. But we have to. I've seen our crops if we don't. I've seen others if they don't. ****, we had late blight last year. Without chemicals, we would've lost our whole crop. Our customers would've lost all their seed. French fry shortage, bitch. Pesticides are a necessary evil. Nobody wants to use them, but we have to. And we do everything we can to improve it. To act otherwise is foolish, and stupid.
 
^i read the whole post, every word, and my take away is found in the last sentence where you not-so-subtly call Dala stupid.
 
Funny quotes from #bern's college classmates back in the day.

"Why don't farmers just put that black plastic on their soil? That's what I do for my garden and it works."

Teacher: "What constitutes a small farm?"
Student (she was an honors student btw): I think it's anything that's family owned.
#bern: *audible laughing*
Teacher: *stifles laugh, glares at #bern*


OUR TOPIC THIS DAY WAS WATERING TECHNIQUES
Student: "What are those big pipes that go in a circle for? Putting on chemicals, right?" (He was referring to a pivot, and our PowerPoint had a picture of one, btw)
Teacher: "it's for irrigation..."

Student: "why can't farmers just hand pick their weeds? It's so much better than chemicals!"

Student: "you can't farm sustainably unless you farm organically."

All upper level horticulture and sustainable farming majors. They made class entertaining for sure.
 
#bern said:
Funny quotes from #bern's college classmates back in the day.

"Why don't farmers just put that black plastic on their soil? That's what I do for my garden and it works."

Teacher: "What constitutes a small farm?"
Student (she was an honors student btw): I think it's anything that's family owned.
#bern: *audible laughing*
Teacher: *stifles laugh, glares at #bern*


OUR TOPIC THIS DAY WAS WATERING TECHNIQUES
Student: "What are those big pipes that go in a circle for? Putting on chemicals, right?" (He was referring to a pivot, and our PowerPoint had a picture of one, btw)
Teacher: "it's for irrigation..."

Student: "why can't farmers just hand pick their weeds? It's so much better than chemicals!"

Student: "you can't farm sustainably unless you farm organically."

All upper level horticulture and sustainable farming majors. They made class entertaining for sure.
Click to expand...

I liked the first one. Lmao.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top