General Discussion

OrwellwasRight

(5,317 posts)

218. How is it superfluous when it was your own argument?

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:19 PM

Mar 2015

In Post 20, you wrote:

"Since there is no safety issue, what is the compelling reason to require GMO labels?"

You imply here that safety is the only issue. I have provided numerous other reasons to label ingredients, particularly for COOL labels, which you purported to support. COOL labels are for consumer preference. And so would GMO labels be. If you don't find that compelling, too bad. That isn't the standard. This isn't a federal case about abortion rights, in which the standard is "compelling." This is a democratic choice of citizens -- I can explain that to you if necessary -- the standard need not be compelling. And it is a straw man to make it so.

I have addressed your one and only argument, which appears to be that GMOs are safe to eat so why label them. It is a stupid argument. Vitamin C is safe so why label it? Answer: for other reasons. Therefore, there are other reasons to label GMOs, including consumer preference, just like dolphin-safe tuna, just like COOL, just like Vitamin C. You'll need some new TPs because your current ones aren't all that convincing.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

246 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

GMOs are as good as vaccines. [View all] DamnYankeeInHouston Mar 2015 OP

Well then GMO producers should proudly claim their GMO heritage on their labels! Scuba Mar 2015 #1

Why? Orrex Mar 2015 #10

It's a marketing gimmick. NuclearDem Mar 2015 #21

Exactly. Orrex Mar 2015 #34

I suppose many prioritize an alleged irrational fear over that of accuracy. LanternWaste Mar 2015 #65

You are free to suppose that. If you have relevant information, please share it. Orrex Mar 2015 #68

The question you answered is "why not?" Gormy Cuss Mar 2015 #221

If such labeling were justified, they'd have no grounds to object Orrex Mar 2015 #222

I don't assume that they resist for any reason other than their profits. Gormy Cuss Mar 2015 #223

But that's not inherently wrong Orrex Mar 2015 #226

Right, a desire for profit is not wrong Gormy Cuss Mar 2015 #227

Used in that way, it's the famous "shill gambit" Orrex Mar 2015 #228

Well, I've never called you a shill Gormy Cuss Mar 2015 #229

I wasn't saying that you called me that--only that many others have done so Orrex Mar 2015 #230

Ah, so you are supportive of anti-science stances. HuckleB Mar 2016 #246

Why don't organic food companies label foods as being derived from mutation breeding? HuckleB Mar 2015 #76

hahahahaha nt laundry_queen Mar 2015 #151

Yup, that's right. Big Organic won't label its seed development technologies. HuckleB Mar 2015 #152

OOOH Big organic! Those huge multinational big organic companies controlling the food industry laundry_queen Mar 2015 #154

Isn't it funny when silly anti-GMO rhetoric gets turned the other way around? HuckleB Mar 2015 #155

LOL you still don't get it do you? laundry_queen Mar 2015 #158

Wow! HuckleB Mar 2015 #160

It's been fun laundry_queen Mar 2015 #161

You seem to be forgetting that the only actual power difference is the science of the matter. HuckleB Mar 2015 #162

I don't need to post content (I'm sure that'll get a comment) laundry_queen Mar 2015 #165

More blind rhetoric, with no support. HuckleB Mar 2015 #166

I love stating that you want control over what you eat OrwellwasRight Mar 2015 #219

Nice propaganda. HuckleB Mar 2015 #225

Do you even know what propaganda is? OrwellwasRight Mar 2015 #233

Lying about GMOs is propaganda HuckleB Mar 2015 #240

Excuse me, who are you implying is lying about GMOs? OrwellwasRight Mar 2015 #245

Revenue from organic food sales totaled $35.1 billion in 2013. NuclearDem Mar 2015 #204

LOL, pot meet kettle. 'Profit driven' LMFAO. nt laundry_queen Mar 2015 #213

Right, because the organic industry doesn't stand to profit from GMO labeling. NuclearDem Mar 2015 #214

That sound you hear laundry_queen Mar 2015 #216

If they could rely on consumers behaving rationally, that would indeed follow. N.T. Donald Ian Rankin Mar 2015 #108

I think the problem with GMOs is that they are a readily understandable piece el_bryanto Mar 2015 #2

Post removed Post removed Mar 2015 #27

Should emotion based phil89 Mar 2015 #58

I guess it depends on the pardigm you see the world through upaloopa Mar 2015 #61

Please clarify Orrex Mar 2015 #69

The world is more complicated than you think upaloopa Mar 2015 #74

That's not a clarification--it's a platitude. Orrex Mar 2015 #79

Not to be taken seriously? el_bryanto Mar 2015 #109

I dont think the technology itself is inherently bad. In fact, I suspect it could have some Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #195

I like Bill Nye a lot. But on this, I think he isn't thinking clearly. nt silvershadow Mar 2015 #3

He said updated a chapter in his book after visiting labs at Monsanto. DamnYankeeInHouston Mar 2015 #4

Citation, please. Orrex Mar 2015 #42

I have no problem with GMO's existing in our food supply Bettie Mar 2015 #5

Since there is no safety issue, what is the compelling reason to require GMO labels? Orrex Mar 2015 #11

So, you have complete trust in Monsanto? Bettie Mar 2015 #13

Gmo =/= Monsanto Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2015 #14

Monsanto is a leader in this technology Bettie Mar 2015 #19

Citation, please Orrex Mar 2015 #22

They are one of seven big companies Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2015 #23

Ah the research papers. Do you know of an epidemiological study that says GMOs are safe? immoderate Mar 2015 #32

You didn't answer my question. Orrex Mar 2015 #20

There's no safety issue with most nutrients on the labels but those are required to be there. nt laundry_queen Mar 2015 #153

You are wrong like 1000000 times. OrwellwasRight Mar 2015 #190

I'd refute your argument, but you haven't offered an argument. Just a string of nonsense. Orrex Mar 2015 #197

You undo your own argument. OrwellwasRight Mar 2015 #198

Word salad. TLDR Orrex Mar 2015 #203

You have not ignored any of my posts, vapid or otherwise. OrwellwasRight Mar 2015 #217

There is no safety issue with Vitamin C either OrwellwasRight Mar 2015 #189

Is vitamin C listed because of safety concerns? Of course not. Orrex Mar 2015 #196

And would GMOs have to be listed because of safety concerns? OrwellwasRight Mar 2015 #199

You wrote: Orrex Mar 2015 #202

How is it superfluous when it was your own argument? OrwellwasRight Mar 2015 #218

No compelling reason has been put forth. None. Orrex Mar 2015 #224

I have made many arguments. Your failure to adequately rebut them OrwellwasRight Mar 2015 #234

I am aware of what I wrote, though perhaps you are not Orrex Mar 2015 #235

Funny. I have misrepresented no argument of yours. OrwellwasRight Mar 2015 #239

Anti-GMO hysterics in 3-2-1... Archae Mar 2015 #6

That is what the supporting movement deserves for their arrogant and stupid anti labeling agenda TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #7

Why label something that is safe? Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2015 #15

we already label things that are safe. and many things that were once considered to be safe ND-Dem Mar 2015 #17

6000+ studies Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2015 #33

we already label things that are safe; like nutrition content and drug ingredients. fiber content ND-Dem Mar 2015 #35

FUD is my problem. Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2015 #41

so nutrition and content labeling is also fud? okey dokey gmo labeling, which already exists in ND-Dem Mar 2015 #62

No, nutrition and content labelling is necessary. Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2015 #101

Because the people buying it want to know for one thing. TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #30

Would you require abortion clinics to deliver irrelevant, frightening information to its patients? Orrex Mar 2015 #56

I'd require them to provide whatever factual information the patient requests on their procedure TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #129

I certainly wouldn't require doctors to provide medically irrelevant information Orrex Mar 2015 #131

Exactly. HuckleB Mar 2015 #132

So a woman asks a factual question on a procedure on her own body and you want TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #134

"Medically irrelevant" actually means something. HuckleB Mar 2015 #140

If the is factual and related to a procedure a patient is to have there is no such thing as TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #169

"Doctor, what is the anesthesiologist's religion?" Orrex Mar 2015 #171

The anesthesiologist's religion is not medical or related to the procedure TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #173

It is irrelevant. HuckleB Mar 2015 #174

You have data stating that physicians feel bogged down with bothersome questions from patients TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #182

In other words, you're missing the point. HuckleB Mar 2015 #172

Give me an example Orrex Mar 2015 #147

When did I make ANY claim to know more than a medical expert about their field? TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #168

When you presumed to declare what doctors should tell their patients, obviously. Orrex Mar 2015 #170

They should tell them the truth and call it a day. Again, I claim no authority. TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #178

In telling them what they should do, you are claiming authority. Orrex Mar 2015 #184

I saw a "label" for a banana. Archae Mar 2015 #59

The lawsuit to label bananas was lost on appeal. Orrex Mar 2015 #66

You do know that the foundation of a market is the exchange of product Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #81

+1000 nt laundry_queen Mar 2015 #159

I demand to know the pedigree of all the food I am about to eat!!! Revanchist Mar 2015 #112

Sounds good to me. Glad you are down. TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #130

I would like to have the ability to avoid products grown in a way that hurts the environment Marrah_G Mar 2015 #175

yes, let's also not label OrwellwasRight Mar 2015 #191

Straw man alert! Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2015 #200

Read your own post #15 OrwellwasRight Mar 2015 #220

What Did Monsanto Show Bill Nye To Make Him Fall "In Love" With GMOs? Ichingcarpenter Mar 2015 #8

Thanks for this post. DamnYankeeInHouston Mar 2015 #24

So you thnk Bill is an idiot? HuckleB Mar 2015 #54

One picture speaks a thousand words. Pooka Fey Mar 2015 #137

Prove there is anything inaccurate in the National Geographic story. HuckleB Mar 2015 #138

+1 PoliticalPothead Mar 2015 #205

It isn't true that Bill Nye said that but if he had said it then he would have been calling GreatGazoo Mar 2015 #9

Here we go again (updated with links) Orrex Mar 2015 #12

+1 Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #29

I call you out SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2015 #80

You "call me out"? What does that mean? Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #84

Your world seems to be very simple. SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2015 #85

Religion sure as hell ain't no flashlight. Orrex Mar 2015 #89

QUOTE: Albert Einstein "Science without religion is blind" SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2015 #92

When you're trying to scold someone, you should get your quotes right. Orrex Mar 2015 #97

good catch SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2015 #98

"You would have never said 'You must consider science to be a religion.'" Orrex Mar 2015 #100

You left out, "beats wife." immoderate Mar 2015 #48

Perhaps that passes for humor among the anti-GMO crowd Orrex Mar 2015 #51

Really? What special knowledge have I claimed? immoderate Mar 2015 #91

For starters, you claim to know that 6000+ peer-reviewed studies are invalid Orrex Mar 2015 #99

+1,000,000 ... 000 HuckleB Mar 2015 #72

This message was self-deleted by its author HuckleB Mar 2015 #73

One Could Just As Well Put Up a Neat Little Graphic Comparing Pro GMO to Pro HRT .. Upward Mar 2015 #118

Feel free to do so, in the interest of open discussion Orrex Mar 2015 #122

For One Thing, You're Cherry-Picking and Setting Up Strawmen Upward Mar 2015 #139

They're hardly strawmen Orrex Mar 2015 #146

They Are Totes Strawmen. And Outright Lies. Upward Mar 2015 #148

Anti-GMO types ignore questions all the time. Do you call them out as well? Orrex Mar 2015 #149

Needs a section in there .... "I'm just asking questions..." Oktober Mar 2015 #215

The big difference is.. Matrosov Mar 2015 #16

Please explain why that difference is significant. Orrex Mar 2015 #45

imo, there is anti-gmo and anti-gmo uppityperson Mar 2015 #18

Monachs and bees. DamnYankeeInHouston Mar 2015 #25

yup, they may not be bad for me, but we need to be good stewards of the larger uppityperson Mar 2015 #26

And? Orrex Mar 2015 #64

Golden rice is an interesting case. Critics originally pointed out that it didn't contain enough Chathamization Mar 2015 #183

Some human health issues have been linked to GMOs Art_from_Ark Mar 2015 #188

Hell yes! Go Bill! Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #28

He loves Monsanto................. yuk Ichingcarpenter Mar 2015 #31

Really? He loves them? Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #36

he said he was in love and wanted to tell the world now. i wonder what his true love is ND-Dem Mar 2015 #39

Bill and Monsanto sitting in a tree Orrex Mar 2015 #40

You keep making that claim. Surely you can support it? Orrex Mar 2015 #37

post number 8 n/t Ichingcarpenter Mar 2015 #43

You claimed that Nye loves Monsanto. You have not supported this claim. Orrex Mar 2015 #47

The quote is right there for reasonable people GreatGazoo Mar 2015 #83

You're engaging in intellectual dishonesty Orrex Mar 2015 #87

I'll let the more reasonable posters decide which of us might be engaged in "intellectual dishonesty GreatGazoo Mar 2015 #111

A false or irrelevant citation is not a valid citation Orrex Mar 2015 #126

Vaccines are tested. immoderate Mar 2015 #38

... as are GMOs. Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #44

I am still searching for the epidemiological test of GMOs. immoderate Mar 2015 #46

You were directed to thousands of them. You ignored the list. jeff47 Mar 2015 #53

I looked through them. They were misrepresented. immoderate Mar 2015 #96

Exactly what do you think you're looking for? Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #57

A long term study that isolates a particular variable. immoderate Mar 2015 #86

How might that be accomplished? Orrex Mar 2015 #88

Who is it that is setting this impossible standard, the "hallmark of intellectual dishonesty?" immoderate Mar 2015 #105

You have summarily rejected 6,000 peer-reviewed studies, Orrex Mar 2015 #107

I didn't reject a single article. They all say what they say. immoderate Mar 2015 #115

You haven't taken a falsifiable stance Orrex Mar 2015 #124

So what? I need only falsify your stance to make my point. immoderate Mar 2015 #135

Of course, that's not the study you were calling for Orrex Mar 2015 #145

Because none of those studies declares GMOs safe. immoderate Mar 2015 #176

Three things: Orrex Mar 2015 #185

Don't you think you'd need to begin with an existing problem (health disorder)... Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #114

Why would that be required for an "epidemiological study?" immoderate Mar 2015 #121

The fact is, no one knows what the lerm term effects of GMO's on the human body Zorra Mar 2015 #49

If that's your argument, then it goes double or triple for mutation breeding. HuckleB Mar 2015 #52

I don't see the necessity for mutation breeding, either, but don't believe that Zorra Mar 2015 #102

So why aren't you advocating on that front? HuckleB Mar 2015 #106

I simply don't see the odds of mutation breeding being as Zorra Mar 2015 #117

Except that GMOs limit the variables dramatically. HuckleB Mar 2015 #119

Wait, what? X_Digger Mar 2015 #194

Post removed Post removed Mar 2015 #50

"Hippie Ninnies"?! chervilant Mar 2015 #55

Nope. That wasn't a good idea. In_The_Wind Mar 2015 #63

... Cha Mar 2015 #143

There is a LOT more science behind vaccines KamaAina Mar 2015 #60

Pro GMO'ers, I wish you all a hearty Bon Appetit! Pooka Fey Mar 2015 #67

But slave labor capitalism is OK to talk on the Interwebs? n/t bobclark86 Mar 2015 #113

I have no idea what you are talking about. Flame bait, anyone? Pooka Fey Mar 2015 #136

No more than somebody using a computer made by people... bobclark86 Mar 2015 #167

The GMO-apologists want to piggy-back onto the popularity of vaccines. pnwmom Mar 2015 #70

Bingo. DamnYankeeInHouston Mar 2015 #82

Nope. HuckleB Mar 2015 #123

+1 Polls show 93 to 95% of Americans want GE/GMO foods labeled. GreatGazoo Mar 2015 #90

CItation, please. Orrex Mar 2015 #93

If that's actually true, what does it mean? HuckleB Mar 2015 #95

Persistent Anti-GMO Myths by Steven Novella HuckleB Mar 2015 #71

Yeah they are just as crazy anti-science anti-vaccers. n/t dilby Mar 2015 #75

"GMOs are highly regulated. They are the most tested food that we eat." HuckleB Mar 2015 #77

Insufficient research from independent source on long term human health on point Mar 2015 #78

Poll Shows Disparity Between Scientists And American Public On Scientific Issues (Including GMOs) HuckleB Mar 2015 #94

Okay, this will probably put my ignorance on full display; but ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #103

Shhh! Orrex Mar 2015 #104

Depends on whether you think your food should trigger an immune response... immoderate Mar 2015 #110

You mean like my cousin's allergy to peanuts? Orrex Mar 2015 #127

We shouldn't be creating foods that cause those things. immoderate Mar 2015 #179

Please demonstrate that we are doing so. Orrex Mar 2015 #181

I Don't Give a Shit What People Who Have to Market Themselves Say Upward Mar 2015 #116

Yeah, he probably would have changed his mind sooner. HuckleB Mar 2015 #120

Hybrids should list their DNA structure as well One_Life_To_Give Mar 2015 #125

Americans are in denial about genetically modified foods HuckleB Mar 2015 #128

It's not just GMO plants/seed, it's the entire chemical culture surrounding them. HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #133

I agree. The GMO plants are devoloped to resist pesticides which are inarguably harmful to life. DamnYankeeInHouston Mar 2015 #142

And yet pesticide use is down with GMO crops. HuckleB Mar 2015 #144

Tell that to the last monarch butterfly. Faryn Balyncd Mar 2015 #232

You and Mr. PHD need to research the difference between a herbicide and a pesticide. Boo- Mar 2015 #150

Maybe more properly called biocides...I get that natural dirt isn't dead HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #180

Let's see the data to support your claims. HuckleB Mar 2015 #192

This is my concern with them also. Marrah_G Mar 2015 #177

How so? Boo- Mar 2015 #187

"If productivity (bu/ac) is the measure", we increased the productivity by deep plowing the Great... Faryn Balyncd Mar 2015 #237

" I'd Put Warning Labels On Mutagenic Plants Before GMOs" HuckleB Mar 2015 #141

Except they aren't, not really, for some pretty specific reasons. Spider Jerusalem Mar 2015 #156

Citations needed for the claim in parentheses. HuckleB Mar 2015 #157

There is quite a lot of research on the role of pesticides in bee colony collapse. Spider Jerusalem Mar 2015 #163

Which peer-reviewed article links glyphosate to issues with bees? HuckleB Mar 2015 #164

Here's a good study using realistic dosages, which is pretty damning: Faryn Balyncd Mar 2015 #209

That study has turned out to be an outlier. HuckleB Mar 2015 #211

I honestly just don't get all the fuss. Inkfreak Mar 2015 #186

It makes you wise. HuckleB Mar 2015 #193

Once again the Monsatan employees hijack the thread. Dont call me Shirley Mar 2015 #201

Yup, if you can't win an argument due to lack of facts, Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2015 #207

You are correct. Dont call me Shirley Mar 2015 #208

For me it's an appetite issue Generic Other Mar 2015 #206

They, of course, aren't looking at environmental science. They also haven't proven their mmonk Mar 2015 #210

How Scare Tactics on GMO Foods Hurt Everybody HuckleB Mar 2015 #212

Scientists overwhelmingly think GMOs are safe to eat. The public doesn't. HuckleB Mar 2015 #231

Write that on the tombstone of the last monarch butterfly. Faryn Balyncd Mar 2015 #236

I would like to know Blue_In_AK Mar 2015 #238

Do you realize that the supposed "GMO supporters" are only responding to anti-GMO BS? HuckleB Mar 2015 #241

Wow, you come back nine days later to insult me. Blue_In_AK Mar 2015 #242

I didn't insult you. HuckleB Mar 2015 #243

In my very best teenager voice, Blue_In_AK Mar 2015 #244