GMO Advocates, Inc. are closely akin to Snake-Handling Fundies

[Crowquette]

...with their wholesale faith-based swallowing & pimping of the corporatist profit-driven, patent-controlled so-called "science" for money, and their denigration of the valid independent science which flatly declares there is neither proof nor scientific consensus on the corporately alleged "safety" of the GMO food which is being secretly & aggressively shoved down America's throat.

GMO Inc. lies and propaganda are legion. They infest DU threads with systematic, mechanical corporate religiosity. And they routinely and vociferously DAMN the 'UNBELIEVERS' who have the audacity to exercise free will.

GMO Advocates, Inc. latest think-tank developed, lie-based talking point is that people who are concerned about feeding GMO food to their families, and who demand the right to know what corporations are doing to their food, are "stupid" and directly equivalent to climate deniers.

But anyone who is paying attention should by now be well aware that sick, slick PROJECTION is a standard Republican and Snake-Handling, Faith-Deranged GMO Corporatist psyops, mindfuck strategy to try and undermine the free will of intelligent citizens.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Oh, I don't know. I hate Monsanto, et al, but think there are some good GMOs.

I think a GMO that could cure AIDS would be terrific, as would be a GMO that would reduce violence.


How about a GMO for some type of plant or algae that could sequester great amounts of carbon, drawn for the air?

How about a GMO that could become a fuel and get us off fossil fuels permanently?


..

[Crowquette]

2. Faith-based wishful thinking is nice. But if you are into reality,

you see that GMOs are delivering soil death, toxic waterways...and a startling uptick in degenerative disease for people.

http://www.gale.cengage.com/pdf/samples/sp742732.pdf

[Archae]

7. One doctor, posting his article in a quack web site.

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/09/697-charlotte-gerson.html

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

9. The second one might be possible.

There's bound to be big money in something like that, and as long as the US spends piddly amounts of the GDP on research, any real GM work being done is going to be pretty much limited to big money interests. As far as GM goes, I'd think the next area of interest is going to be crops that can survive wild temperature swings, or extended heat waves - maybe develop longer, deeper roots with nodes that store water very efficiently, and feed it back to the plant over time.

Actually curing diseases is a money loser. Pharma wants 'treatments', not cures, so they can cash in month after month, year after year. And biofuels are simply fossil fuels that haven't fossilized. You're still burning things that will put carbon in the air.

[roody]

3. Righteous rant.

[Crowquette]

5. LOL. GMO Advocates, Inc. take themselves very seriously, the evidence shows

[Archae]

8. Non-answer.

Try again.

[Chiron]

43. Ok

nt

[Orrex]

44. .

[SidDithers]

50. ...

Sid

[wisechoice]

18. show me pne long term study

That GMOs are safe

[Archae]

19. Many are listed here.

http://www.skepdic.com/gmo.html

[Drew Richards]

21. Not to contradict but I read your link and other than them saying they have grown the same strain

For 15 years I did not find one peer reviewed study on the effect of GMO's on animals or humans...

And from what I have read lately...there are no studies by GMO producers longer than 90 days...

And yet...they have been growing some strains now of 15 years? Kinda questionable don't you think?

So if you can point me to a long term study that has been peer reviewed I would appreciate it in helping me decide if I want frog gene injected corn I'm my body or not...

Thanks Archae.

Drew.

[SidDithers]

32. Bad hide...nt

Sid

[joshcryer]

52. +1

How do you reply to hidden posts?

[SidDithers]

54. Was weird...

I opened up my iPad, and Safari was loaded to that thread from before the hide.

I tried replying just to see what would happen, and it worked.

Sid

[SidDithers]

6. Go on. Call it scientific materialist "poo"...

You know you're dying to.



Sid

[longship]

10. Holy moley! Snake handlers? Really?

Won't even begin to count the logical fallacies in this post.

And no, I am not a Monsanto lover.

But this one takes the cake. I don't know if it is going to do your position much good, as the current responses to your post indicate.

[Dr. Strange]

11. "Logical fallacies"?

That sounds like one of them words that a sciency type might use.

[longship]

12. Durn tootin' it is. nt

[tularetom]

13. Hillary Clinton gives a speech to a group of promoters of genetically modified foods

and just like that, DU is full of people who think GMO is good for you.

Hey, after 20 or 30 generations the human race will mutate into glysophate tolerant organisms, so what's the problem?

[ZombieHorde]

58. I didn't know about Hillary's pro-GMO speech, but I'm glad she gave one.

Generally speaking, GMOs have been beneficial to people. The vast majority of scientists who have studied GMOs have determined them to be good. Denying GMO safety is like denying climate change, in that regard.

[Crowquette]

14. "My sincerest thanks to all the GMO Advocates, Inc." - Henry Kissinger (R)

Last edited Sat Jul 5, 2014, 04:17 PM - Edit history (1)

[SidDithers]

15. *Smirk*...nt

Sid

[Crowquette]

16. According to scientific studies, smirking at GMO fanboi Henry Kissinger is imprudent

[Archae]

17. You're great at posting wild accusations.

Not so great at posting actual evidence.

[SidDithers]

22. Do you get many of your pictures from davidicke.com?...nt

Sid

[alp227]

45. apparently so...and a jury kept that post 0-7

despite the anti semitic tone of the image. discuss further here. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025203307

[BainsBane]

60. I wouldn't know if that nose is misshapen or not

Even with the photo as a comparison. 1) the angle isn't the same, and 2) old people's noses keep growing. I am not saying you are wrong, but I don't think it is nearly as obvious as you do. I would have voted to leave as well.

[Dr. Strange]

20. Hmmm...

[Quixote1818]

23. You are going to have a hard time finding foods that are not GMO in one form or the other. nt

[roody]

24. It is hard, and it does cost more to eat USDA Organic.

[KurtNYC]

28. Not true! GMO foods are now being labeled.

And food processors are scrambling to put more non-GMO options on the store shelves.

Search engine here:
http://www.nongmoproject.org/

WFM labeling GMO:
http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/blog/morning-edition/2013/03/whole-foods-requiring-gmo-labeling.html

Vermont's new law:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-gmo-labeling-vermont-20140607-story.html#page=1

[BlummberBee]

62. Here's one small spoon for man, one giant scoop for humankind

Ben and Jerry's says goodbye to GMOs

ST. ALBANS, Vt. -- A Ben & Jerry's factory worker feeds chunks of chocolate-covered toffee into an augur, which funnels them into a stream of coffee-flavored ice cream. The newly blended confection is then dolloped into pint containers labeled "Coffee Toffee Bar Crunch."

What's rolling off the production line in St. Albans is an old flavor with a new name and new ingredients as the iconic ice-cream maker transforms all of its 50 flavors to non-genetically modified ingredients and Fair Trade certification.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/06/15/ben-and-jerrys-says-goodbye-to-gmos/10542275/

[Cha]

25. You might like this vid, Crowquette..

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=1017201093&info=1#recs

[KurtNYC]

29. The talking point where they tie anti-GMO to climate science deniers is clever

The Right uses this tactic often now because it is so effective at dividing people, or keeping them divided. The tactic is: Put your (bogus) argument into the terms and parameters that your opposition most often uses.

It falsely sells GMO as a response to climate change, implying that to be against GMO is to deny science that seeks to address the challenges of ongoing climate change. It is bullshit of course because for example, GMO corn for ethanol can't really be an "alternative fuel" since it relies on petroleum for its production (plus 10% ethanol reduces your MPG by 10% so it is garbage).

If the Left adopted this tactic we would say things like:

"Outlawing abortion, same gender marriage and MJ are over reach by big government. Those who support these ideas are against freedom and liberty."

or perhaps,

"Jeb Bush is a big government insider who's brother presided over the largest expansion of government power, size and deficit spending in history."

[NeoNerd]

61. Thanks

You nailed it.

[Oilwellian]

31. The animals have spoken

[SidDithers]

33. ...

Sid

[SidDithers]

36. Is this the beginning of another flameout?...

Nice edit, too. Changing David Icke to Monsanto.

davidicke.com is where you get your images, remember?




http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002128567

Sid

[SidDithers]

38. Me? Flameout?...

Naw. I've had the same name and account for my entire time at DU.

Can you say the same?


Just for you:



Sid

[SidDithers]

41. Just trying to live up to the spirit of the Whirling Rainbow...nt

Sid

[Orrex]

42. I miss her already.

[SidDithers]

46. She'll be back. Again...

Sid

[Orrex]

40. Now, now.

She's been a contributor to DU for close to two weeks.

Can you say the same? Hmm?

[True Blue Door]

47. Uh, no. Most GMO opposition arguments are puritanical superstition.

The legitimate arguments boil down to concerns about biodiversity, and worries about the toxicity of pesticide-producing genes - i.e., concerns about specific applications of the technology. But hamhanded broadsides against the entire concept of genetically modifying foods are ignorant and medieval, relying on people's superstitions about what they put into their bodies.

Even labeling, while relatively harmless, is still entirely in service to superstition: There is no more rational justification to provide that information than to label what race the people who picked the food were and what astrological sign was in the ascendent when it was picked. Some people just have an intense emotional aversion to the idea that human beings have "defiled" their precious and magical Nature with conscious engineering.

And people with that feeling are welcome to reward companies that specifically avoid GMO, but any policy that would prevent technologically feasible methods of addressing global hunger and malnutrition just to serve this superstition is grossly immoral, and cedes yet more social ground to Dark Age thinking.

Science is not merely the best tool humankind has to find the truth, it's the only tool. Please, stop acting like Climate Change deniers, Creationists, and anti-vaxxers, and just listen to people who know what they're talking about. Exclude all the industry-funded science you want, and you still hear the same conclusion: There is no basis whatsoever for viewing GMO as having fundamentally different or greater safety concerns than any other agricultural technique.

[RobertEarl]

48. Try to understand this science

The science says that if you spray a poison on a product that people eat, that poisoned produce will then go on to poison the eater.

The main concern we have with GMO is the development of produce that looks safe but is laden with poisons. There is much evidence that our natural world is being poisoned via GMO. Bee and butterfly populations on the decline can best be laid at the feet of chemical changes wrought by technologically introduced alterations to our environment.

[SidDithers]

49. That's not science, that's creative speculation...

Science would never assume that a substance that is a poison for one species is automatically a poison for another species.

Take chocolate, for instance. Poisonous to dogs, sublimely delicious and completely harmless to humans.

Sid

[RobertEarl]

51. Denial is not pretty, sid

Roundup is poisonous to people too. Denial of that is not science.

Putting a chocolate GMO in dog food, while possibly profitable to a corporation, would be a most criminal matter. As the law stands a corporation could do just that. That's why we need regulations on GMO.

Are you not in favor of regulations? Do you believe GMO should be free-market, and free of oversight?

[SidDithers]

53. Wait. Are you talking about poisons or GMOs?...

I never said Roundup wasn't poisonous to people. I said that assuming something that is poisonous to one species, is also poisonous to another species, is not science. Science doesn't assume.

Try to keep up, Robert.

Sid

[RobertEarl]

55. You lost me sid

You are just spouting random things.

The shit they put on crops to kill other organisms is not studied widely enough to know whether it will kill the end consumer. But you do know roundup will kill people, right? Can you admit even that little bit of common sense?

Redesigning organisms can also be deadly. That, again, is common knowledge. So, are you in favor of regulations or are you a total free-marketer?

[SidDithers]

56. I'm in favour of science, BeFree...

Genetically modified viruses are being used to cure certain types of cancer. That's promising work, being done with redesigned organisms.

The anti-GMO "activists" and bloggers remind me too much of anti-vaxxers for me to blindly accept everything that they say.

Sid

[RobertEarl]

59. Be free to deny the fact

That using modified viruses are, and should be, well regulated and well studied.

Corporations using such things on a global scale via food is not at present well studied and/or regulated.

Running around with your hair on fire claiming people who are concerned are hysterical and should be damned is not scientific, no matter how you personally feel.

You do remind me of the 'Nukes are safe' crowd. Why is that?

[snooper2]

63. what do you do for a living again?

[True Blue Door]

57. Pesticide-producing GMO is only one application of the technology.

And clearly not the underlying basis of most opposition, since most of what I've seen are demands that all GMO be labeled as such or be banned, not only pesticide-related GMO.