I Used to Work as a Scientist with GMOs—Now I'm Having Serious Second Thoughts About The Risks

[blackspade]

138. So much for a constructive conversation.

You asked a question and I answered it. Full stop.
I don't have to 'ponder' it more for your benefit. My answer was clear, but you seem to be so used to 'reading between the lines' that clear answers are confusing to you
If you have a specific rebuttal, lets hear it, from you, not a blue link.

You are typical of Pro-GM activists in that you can't seem to get your head around the fact that people have questions that could be answered without hyperbolic bullshit. The second link is a great example of the sneering condescension of some Pro-GM activists who seem to feel that their interpretation of scientific results is the only 'true science.'

A perfect example of this:

When you come across a claim that you disagree with, the rational approach is to providing arguments and evidence against it. People who do not have any tend to resort to a number of logical fallacies, cognitive simplifications or thought-terminating clichés. One such key example is the dismissal of any evidence or arguments in favor of genetically modified foods by deploying the shill gambit. In the context of Scientific American and genetically modified foods, this amounts to the bare assertion that some large corporation that deals with GM crops, seeds or foods (often Monsanto) must have paid them off to publish that article. This conveniently allows the reduction of cognitive dissonance without having to address any of the actual arguments.

Another related technique to group critics of anti-GMO activists together with large corporations uses the false dilemma fallacy: either you are with us, or you are against us; either you accept the anti-GMO rhetoric, or you are part of the problem.

I almost laughed at the profound projection going on here. I really don't have the time to go through this mish mash, but suffice to say that unlike the Grist article the hyperbole in this opinion piece nearly drowns out any of the actual factual details about GM foods. I think the only decimation going on here is this guy objectivity.

At this point I'm done. I have a scientific report to write that I have far more vested interest in than sparing with blue links and a person who answers no questions put to them. This is classic avoidance strategy that I see from people who are so sure they are right but can't articulate the information that supports their position.