Chicago Fanatics Message Board
http://chicagofanatics.com/

GMO Opponents
http://chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=110108
Page 5 of 7

Author:  312player [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

It be like Jerry Sandusky opening a day care center, My family won't be partaking..but you n Ogie are free to not judge the messenger.

Author:  FavreFan [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

312player wrote:
It be like Jerry Sandusky opening a day care center, My family won't be partaking..but you n Ogie are free to not judge the messenger.

Wrong.

I’ll help you out with the analogy.

It would be like daycares opening and then several years later Sandusky opens a daycare that becomes the most popular one. People would still say daycares are helpful but would be careful not to endorse Sandusky’s daycare.

The above analogy is what you are up against.

Author:  Boilermaker Rick [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

Don't trust science. Trust feelings.

Is that the basic summary of the argument against all gmos?

Author:  Douchebag [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Don't trust science. Trust feelings.

Is that the basic summary of the argument against all gmos?

It's Hawg's argument for everything.

Author:  Joe Orr Road Rod [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

Do you think patents on seeds and animals serve humanity?

Also, are we ignoring the connection between GMO crops and the way pesticides are used or just looking at the consumption of the crop?

Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Do you think patents on seeds and animals serve humanity?

Also, are we ignoring the connection between GMO crops and the way pesticides are used or just looking at the consumption of the crop?

Organic crop farmers use twice as much pesticides per acre farmed as GMO farmers. See my link a few pages back from Scientific American for reference on this fact. That is because organic crops are more at risk to pests than a GMO crop.

edit: here is the link again so you don't have to dig for it

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sc ... riculture/

Author:  Boilermaker Rick [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Do you think patents on seeds and animals serve humanity?
Yes, though the abhorrent way that Monsanto uses patents may not. Patents are designed to encourage and reward innovation. That isn't always how it works but the same concept behind product patents should work for seed patents.

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Also, are we ignoring the connection between GMO crops and the way pesticides are used or just looking at the consumption of the crop?
I think we need to analyze our use of pesticides much more than the generic "GMO" label that is virtually meaningless anyways. I mean, hypothetically, let's say I "modified" a seed to grow apples 10% bigger. Does it matter if I did it through 10 years of genetic breeding or if I did it in a lab? Is one way more dangerous than the other?

Now, it's probably a good idea to question our entire pesticide usage in the food supply but as Ogie has pointed out, this would actually be far more concerning with organic products.

Author:  Joe Orr Road Rod [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Do you think patents on seeds and animals serve humanity?

Also, are we ignoring the connection between GMO crops and the way pesticides are used or just looking at the consumption of the crop?

Organic crop farmers use twice as much pesticides per acre farmed as GMO farmers. See my link a few pages back from Scientific American for reference on this fact. That is because organic crops are more at risk to pests than a GMO crop.



There's a lot of politics in that statement. It's not as cut and dried as that. GMO corn has built-in pesticides. Nobody is really sure about the long term implications. We're changing the food supply and affecting our water. This goes beyond whether simply consuming the crop is safe or whether the crop is indistinguishable from non-GMOs from a consumption standpoint.

The designation "organic" doesn't mean what people think it means either. And I'm not making a blanket statement against pesticides or ammonia-based fertilizer either. There are a lot of people on planet earth. We have to feed them. There are choices to be made. And they aren't much different than the choices to be made that get people called "climate change deniers".

Author:  Regular Reader [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 10:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

Better watch out JORR, any skepticism here will have you labelled anti science :lol:

Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

I'm still waiting for someone to debunk the NASEM study.

When the topic is scientific in nature, you need to bring data to the table if you want a seat at the discussion.

Once again the NASEM study is data driven and has results which are repeatable if the hypothesis is tested in any other lab.

Author:  Panther pislA [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

The original article makes the easily overlooked, but David Copperfield-style misdirection in that the whole argument relies upon these "prizes" given by extremely liberal back-slapping organizations that have HUGE political agendas, not at the least the "Nobel Prize", which, to me, has meant absolutely nothing since they shammed it up and gave it to Obama for doing absolutely nothing - basically as a down payment.

Author:  Regular Reader [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Do you think patents on seeds and animals serve humanity?

Also, are we ignoring the connection between GMO crops and the way pesticides are used or just looking at the consumption of the crop?

Organic crop farmers use twice as much pesticides per acre farmed as GMO farmers. See my link a few pages back from Scientific American for reference on this fact. That is because organic crops are more at risk to pests than a GMO crop.

edit: here is the link again so you don't have to dig for it

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sc ... riculture/


I finally got a chance to really read that and after getting through 2/3rd of the author's bashing of organic farming, he arrived at a conclusion that both are likely necessary and have their place.

But I'm wondering why you featured a 6-7 year old piece?

Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

Regular Reader wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Do you think patents on seeds and animals serve humanity?

Also, are we ignoring the connection between GMO crops and the way pesticides are used or just looking at the consumption of the crop?

Organic crop farmers use twice as much pesticides per acre farmed as GMO farmers. See my link a few pages back from Scientific American for reference on this fact. That is because organic crops are more at risk to pests than a GMO crop.

edit: here is the link again so you don't have to dig for it

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sc ... riculture/


I finally got a chance to really read that and after getting through 2/3rd of the author's bashing of organic farming, he arrived at a conclusion that both are likely necessary and have their place.

But I'm wondering why you featured a 6-7 year old piece?
I only posted that one because it directly addressed pesticides.

You have completely ignored the NASEM study, which was published just last year.

http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/

Author:  Regular Reader [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Do you think patents on seeds and animals serve humanity?

Also, are we ignoring the connection between GMO crops and the way pesticides are used or just looking at the consumption of the crop?

Organic crop farmers use twice as much pesticides per acre farmed as GMO farmers. See my link a few pages back from Scientific American for reference on this fact. That is because organic crops are more at risk to pests than a GMO crop.

edit: here is the link again so you don't have to dig for it

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sc ... riculture/


I finally got a chance to really read that and after getting through 2/3rd of the author's bashing of organic farming, he arrived at a conclusion that both are likely necessary and have their place.

But I'm wondering why you featured a 6-7 year old piece?
I only posted that one because it directly addressed pesticides.

You have completely ignored the NASEM study, which was published just last year.

http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/


Didn't ignore it, my phone keeps freezing when I try to open it. I'm not anti science, just anti my crappy phone

Author:  Panther pislA [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Do you think patents on seeds and animals serve humanity?

Also, are we ignoring the connection between GMO crops and the way pesticides are used or just looking at the consumption of the crop?

Organic crop farmers use twice as much pesticides per acre farmed as GMO farmers. See my link a few pages back from Scientific American for reference on this fact. That is because organic crops are more at risk to pests than a GMO crop.

edit: here is the link again so you don't have to dig for it

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sc ... riculture/


I finally got a chance to really read that and after getting through 2/3rd of the author's bashing of organic farming, he arrived at a conclusion that both are likely necessary and have their place.

But I'm wondering why you featured a 6-7 year old piece?
I only posted that one because it directly addressed pesticides.

You have completely ignored the NASEM study, which was published just last year.

http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/

Um, nope: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... -interest/

Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

Panther pislA wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Do you think patents on seeds and animals serve humanity?

Also, are we ignoring the connection between GMO crops and the way pesticides are used or just looking at the consumption of the crop?

Organic crop farmers use twice as much pesticides per acre farmed as GMO farmers. See my link a few pages back from Scientific American for reference on this fact. That is because organic crops are more at risk to pests than a GMO crop.

edit: here is the link again so you don't have to dig for it

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sc ... riculture/


I finally got a chance to really read that and after getting through 2/3rd of the author's bashing of organic farming, he arrived at a conclusion that both are likely necessary and have their place.

But I'm wondering why you featured a 6-7 year old piece?
I only posted that one because it directly addressed pesticides.

You have completely ignored the NASEM study, which was published just last year.

http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/

Um, nope: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... -interest/

oh yes Mother Jones, that great scientific publication. :lol:

Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

Just an FYI, but after this thread, I don't ever want to hear some of the liberals on this board come and post about how "anti-science" the right is. The left needs to clean up its own act as well if it wants to be seen as pro-science.

Author:  Terry's Peeps [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Just an FYI, but after this thread, I don't ever want to hear some of the liberals on this board come and post about how "anti-science" the right is. The left needs to clean up its own act as well if it wants to be seen as pro-science.


Noted liberal Panther Pisla...

Author:  Panther pislA [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Panther pislA wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Do you think patents on seeds and animals serve humanity?

Also, are we ignoring the connection between GMO crops and the way pesticides are used or just looking at the consumption of the crop?

Organic crop farmers use twice as much pesticides per acre farmed as GMO farmers. See my link a few pages back from Scientific American for reference on this fact. That is because organic crops are more at risk to pests than a GMO crop.

edit: here is the link again so you don't have to dig for it

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sc ... riculture/


I finally got a chance to really read that and after getting through 2/3rd of the author's bashing of organic farming, he arrived at a conclusion that both are likely necessary and have their place.

But I'm wondering why you featured a 6-7 year old piece?
I only posted that one because it directly addressed pesticides.

You have completely ignored the NASEM study, which was published just last year.

http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/

Um, nope: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... -interest/

oh yes Mother Jones, that great scientific publication. :lol:

You don't need a PhD to point out screaming conflicts of interest.

Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

Terry's Peeps wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Just an FYI, but after this thread, I don't ever want to hear some of the liberals on this board come and post about how "anti-science" the right is. The left needs to clean up its own act as well if it wants to be seen as pro-science.


Noted liberal Panther Pisla...

referring to others, but of course he cites uber liberal Mother Jones. I'm sure he would never cite them in any other argument which he may find himself in.

Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

Panther pislA wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:

oh yes Mother Jones, that great scientific publication. :lol:

You don't need a PhD to point out screaming conflicts of interest.

Logical fallacy here, find a source that contradicts the data. This was a laboratory experiment with controls and methods which can be repeated. If you come to a different result, you re-examine the hypothesis. However, no one performing an actual scientific study has come to a different result.

Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

My challenge to the anti-GMO crowd:

1: ask yourselves what question you want to answer via experiment
2: Do some background research (youtube videos and non-scientific journals are not research)
3: Construct your hypothesis
4: Test it via repeatable experimental methods with a control
5: Analyze your data, draw conclusions
6a: if hypothesis is proven true, report your results
6b: if your hypothesis is false, or only partially true, go back to step 3.

----

Author:  Panther pislA [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
My challenge to the anti-GMO crowd:

1: ask yourselves what question you want to answer via experiment
2: Do some background research (youtube videos and non-scientific journals are not research)
3: Construct your hypothesis
4: Test it via repeatable experimental methods with a control
5: Analyze your data, draw conclusions
6a: if hypothesis is proven true, report your results
6b: if your hypothesis is false, or only partially true, go back to step 3.

----

My question to you:

Are you, or is your Dad, employed by DelMonte?

Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

Panther pislA wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
My challenge to the anti-GMO crowd:

1: ask yourselves what question you want to answer via experiment
2: Do some background research (youtube videos and non-scientific journals are not research)
3: Construct your hypothesis
4: Test it via repeatable experimental methods with a control
5: Analyze your data, draw conclusions
6a: if hypothesis is proven true, report your results
6b: if your hypothesis is false, or only partially true, go back to step 3.

----

My question to you:

Are you, or is your Dad, employed by DelMonte?
nope, I'm just someone who is literate when it comes to matters of science.

Author:  Seacrest [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

Regular Reader wrote:
Better watch out JORR, any skepticism here will have you labelled anti science :lol:


I'm old enough to remember when healthy skepticism was actually part of science. :lol: :lol:

Author:  Boilermaker Rick [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

Seacrest wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Better watch out JORR, any skepticism here will have you labelled anti science :lol:


I'm old enough to remember when healthy skepticism was actually part of science. :lol: :lol:

I'm old enough to remember when you said the Eucharist is proven science.

Author:  Regular Reader [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Just an FYI, but after this thread, I don't ever want to hear some of the liberals on this board come and post about how "anti-science" the right is. The left needs to clean up its own act as well if it wants to be seen as pro-science.


Noted liberal Panther Pisla...

referring to others, but of course he cites uber liberal Mother Jones. I'm sure he would never cite them in any other argument which he may find himself in.


It doesn't make his points wrong though. Which follows questioning the position of the quid pro quo of some of the academics in the area as I was referencing last night.

And fwiw, given that I'm fairly certain that most fresh produce I've eaten here in the dead of winter is likely genetically engineered, so I'm not really against them per se, just not fully trusting big Chem/Ag and their mouthpieces claiming an odd absolutist position.

Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

Seacrest wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Better watch out JORR, any skepticism here will have you labelled anti science :lol:


I'm old enough to remember when healthy skepticism was actually part of science. :lol: :lol:

skepticism if your hypothesis is why you experiment. Once you experiment, you repeat it the experiment to see if the results are consistent.

Skepticism is fine, but if you are skeptical, then you run an experiment to test your hypothesis rooted in skepticism. Without data, you're just screaming nonsense.

Author:  Seacrest [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Better watch out JORR, any skepticism here will have you labelled anti science :lol:


I'm old enough to remember when healthy skepticism was actually part of science. :lol: :lol:

skepticism if your hypothesis is why you experiment. Once you experiment, you repeat it the experiment to see if the results are consistent.

Skepticism is fine, but if you are skeptical, then you run an experiment to test your hypothesis rooted in skepticism. Without data, you're just screaming nonsense.


Without years of experience with human consumption of GMO crops, you may be doing the same thing.

Author:  Seacrest [ Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents

Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Better watch out JORR, any skepticism here will have you labelled anti science :lol:


I'm old enough to remember when healthy skepticism was actually part of science. :lol: :lol:

I'm old enough to remember when you said the Eucharist is proven science.


It is in Lanciano, Italy and Argentina.

You can look for yourself whenever you wish.

Page 5 of 7 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/