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

GMO Opponents
http://chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=110108		 Page 2 of 7
Author:  312player [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
I don't know if Gmo is bad or not, i don't think we'll know for another 10 or so years. I do know Monsanto might be the most despicable corporation on the planet, they were the pioneers of gmo.
Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
Arguing against GMO's is as foolish as arguing against Global Warming or vaccines as both are backed by science and have the same general consensus amongst the scientists in the given fields.
Author:  tommy [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:

And then you get grains affected by Round Up and all varieties of pesticides according to some.

And I'm sorry but Mitch Daniels isn't exactly someone I'm looking to for an unbiased piece.

100 Nobel laureates still not unbiased enough? If not, what would be?

You're right. No Nobel laureate would ever work to produce a product that was not good for humanity. God bless those saints . . .
Author:  tommy [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
tommy wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
30 years ago big processors were convincing the masses that margarine was a healthy alternative or that pork was the other white meat (& therefore not bad for you).

Analogies aside, I trust large scale food processors as little as I do Big Pharma.

That's fine but what you should realize is that the paid lobbyists are AGAINST GMOs. Scientists with no agenda have almost unilaterally confirmed that GMOs pose no health or digestive issues.

All true, if you want to know where the truth is, go to the scientists at the hundreds of public institutions across this country who are working in Ag related fields. They are not getting paid by any of these companies and are simply testing hypothesis and drawing conclusions based upon the data and the scientific method. The unanimous verdict is in from them, GMO's are 100% safe and it would be better for the planet and our food supply if we moved to GMO's instead of organic.

Who's paying them?


Exactly

:lol:

Anytime you want to assert an actual counterpoint, it might help move along any discussion.

Well, who is paying them?
Author:  Regular Reader [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
tommy wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
30 years ago big processors were convincing the masses that margarine was a healthy alternative or that pork was the other white meat (& therefore not bad for you).

Analogies aside, I trust large scale food processors as little as I do Big Pharma.

That's fine but what you should realize is that the paid lobbyists are AGAINST GMOs. Scientists with no agenda have almost unilaterally confirmed that GMOs pose no health or digestive issues.

All true, if you want to know where the truth is, go to the scientists at the hundreds of public institutions across this country who are working in Ag related fields. They are not getting paid by any of these companies and are simply testing hypothesis and drawing conclusions based upon the data and the scientific method. The unanimous verdict is in from them, GMO's are 100% safe and it would be better for the planet and our food supply if we moved to GMO's instead of organic.

Who's paying them?


Exactly

Universities are paying them. These are professors in their school's respective College of Agriculture who teach students and then perform lab work during most of their time, as most profs (especially in scientific fields) spend very little time on actual instruction and instead spend most of their time in a laboratory with doctoral students.


And exactly who is endowing the positions and facilities they're postulating from
Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
tommy wrote:
Well, who is paying them?

universities, I think I answered this, when I say "public institutions" I'm very clearly referring to universities
Author:  FavreFan [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
312player wrote:
I don't know if Gmo is bad or not, i don't think we'll know for another 10 or so years.

I heard this exact response 10 years ago. It's not changing brother.
Author:  Regular Reader [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
tommy wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:

And then you get grains affected by Round Up and all varieties of pesticides according to some.

And I'm sorry but Mitch Daniels isn't exactly someone I'm looking to for an unbiased piece.

100 Nobel laureates still not unbiased enough? If not, what would be?

You're right. No Nobel laureate would ever work to produce a product that was not good for humanity. God bless those saints . . .


Obama is a Nobel laureate in peace, so...
Author:  FavreFan [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
tommy wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:

And then you get grains affected by Round Up and all varieties of pesticides according to some.

And I'm sorry but Mitch Daniels isn't exactly someone I'm looking to for an unbiased piece.

100 Nobel laureates still not unbiased enough? If not, what would be?

You're right. No Nobel laureate would ever work to produce a product that was not good for humanity. God bless those saints . . .

I'm still not hearing any type of good counterargument. Is there one?
Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
Regular Reader wrote:

And exactly who is endowing the positions and facilities they're postulating from

Wealthy alumni in most cases

Seriously, you're not creating a real argument here, you're just running like a conspiracy theorist here with no data to back up the point.
Author:  Regular Reader [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Arguing against GMO's is as foolish as arguing against Global Warming or vaccines as both are backed by science and have the same general consensus amongst the scientists in the given fields.


To be clear, I'm not arguing against them as much as I'm asserting my distrust of the companies that claim they're completely safe.
Author:  FavreFan [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
Regular Reader wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Arguing against GMO's is as foolish as arguing against Global Warming or vaccines as both are backed by science and have the same general consensus amongst the scientists in the given fields.


To be clear, I'm not arguing against them as much as I'm asserting my distrust of the companies that claim they're completely safe.

I don't think it's companies you distrust. It's the scientific community.

As Ogie said, it's no different than denying global warming.
Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
Regular Reader wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Arguing against GMO's is as foolish as arguing against Global Warming or vaccines as both are backed by science and have the same general consensus amongst the scientists in the given fields.


To be clear, I'm not arguing against them as much as I'm asserting my distrust of the companies that claim they're completely safe.

Then don't look to the companies for the answer. Look to the university employed scientists who perform the research, follow the scientific method, and then draw their conclusion from provable and reproducible laboratory results. Reproducible is the key word here as a scientist who is fudging numbers and data will not have his work accurately reproduced.
Author:  FavreFan [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
312player wrote:
I don't know if Gmo is bad or not, i don't think we'll know for another 10 or so years. I do know Monsanto might be the most despicable corporation on the planet, they were the pioneers of gmo.

Monsanto was most definitely not the pioneer of GMOs :lol: :lol:
Author:  Regular Reader [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:

And exactly who is endowing the positions and facilities they're postulating from

Wealthy alumni in most cases

Seriously, you're not creating a real argument here, you're just running like a conspiracy theorist here with no data to back up the point.


I can't bring myself to eat a Tyson product, nor unquestionably accept the findings of the professors from the endowed chairs they sit in at old State U. Inc.
Author:  tommy [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
FavreFan wrote:
tommy wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:

And then you get grains affected by Round Up and all varieties of pesticides according to some.

And I'm sorry but Mitch Daniels isn't exactly someone I'm looking to for an unbiased piece.

100 Nobel laureates still not unbiased enough? If not, what would be?

You're right. No Nobel laureate would ever work to produce a product that was not good for humanity. God bless those saints . . .

I'm still not hearing any type of good counterargument. Is there one?

It's because you don't have an argument, at least in terms of the environment. You admitted that you didn't know much about GMOs and their effects on the environment. I don't think the question is settled one way or the other, though. GMOs require fewer pesticides, but farming companies tend to use more herbicides, which appears to be hurting many species. And if Monsanto is pushing it . . . we really need to be sure about this. Their track record is pretty damn bad.

And yes, to whomever wrote the article, I want to hurt hungry people in Africa and India. I'm selfish and immoral. Seriously, who finished writing that article--the author's third-grade daughter? If we are cool with GMOs, are we gonna get extra points for Paradiso? More presents from Santa? What the Christ...
Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
Regular Reader wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:

And exactly who is endowing the positions and facilities they're postulating from

Wealthy alumni in most cases

Seriously, you're not creating a real argument here, you're just running like a conspiracy theorist here with no data to back up the point.


I can't bring myself to eat a Tyson product, nor unquestionably accept the findings of the professors from the endowed chairs they sit in at old State U. Inc.

Oil companies endow plenty of universities, I don't think that has stopped 97% of scientists (most of whom work at universities) from saying that fossil fuels are bad for the environment. Your argument is invalid.
Author:  Regular Reader [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Arguing against GMO's is as foolish as arguing against Global Warming or vaccines as both are backed by science and have the same general consensus amongst the scientists in the given fields.


To be clear, I'm not arguing against them as much as I'm asserting my distrust of the companies that claim they're completely safe.

I don't think it's companies you distrust. It's the scientific community.

As Ogie said, it's no different than denying global warming.


No, I don't trust multinational corporations and their paid shills like that clown Mitch Daniels
Author:  tommy [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:

And exactly who is endowing the positions and facilities they're postulating from

Wealthy alumni in most cases

Seriously, you're not creating a real argument here, you're just running like a conspiracy theorist here with no data to back up the point.

"wealthy alumni"

no, we need actual names.
Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
Regular Reader wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Arguing against GMO's is as foolish as arguing against Global Warming or vaccines as both are backed by science and have the same general consensus amongst the scientists in the given fields.


To be clear, I'm not arguing against them as much as I'm asserting my distrust of the companies that claim they're completely safe.

I don't think it's companies you distrust. It's the scientific community.

As Ogie said, it's no different than denying global warming.


No, I don't trust multinational corporations and their paid shills like that clown Mitch Daniels

Provide a consensus of peer reviewed study showing that GMO's are unsafe. Surely there are some noble scientists out there who believe in science and can't be bought. Then I'll listen to this argument.
Author:  tommy [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Arguing against GMO's is as foolish as arguing against Global Warming or vaccines as both are backed by science and have the same general consensus amongst the scientists in the given fields.


To be clear, I'm not arguing against them as much as I'm asserting my distrust of the companies that claim they're completely safe.

I don't think it's companies you distrust. It's the scientific community.

As Ogie said, it's no different than denying global warming.

Mitch Daniels is a scientist?
Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
tommy wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:

And exactly who is endowing the positions and facilities they're postulating from

Wealthy alumni in most cases

Seriously, you're not creating a real argument here, you're just running like a conspiracy theorist here with no data to back up the point.

"wealthy alumni"

no, we need actual names.

Public universities are all state run so it is public record, go google it...

You're a teacher right? I can certainly tell it isn't in a scientific field, but perhaps ask some of the science faculty at your school if GMO's are safe. I think you'll get your answer, unless Monsanto paid them off too :lol:
Author:  FavreFan [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
tommy wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
tommy wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:

And then you get grains affected by Round Up and all varieties of pesticides according to some.

And I'm sorry but Mitch Daniels isn't exactly someone I'm looking to for an unbiased piece.

100 Nobel laureates still not unbiased enough? If not, what would be?

You're right. No Nobel laureate would ever work to produce a product that was not good for humanity. God bless those saints . . .

I'm still not hearing any type of good counterargument. Is there one?

It's because you don't have an argument, at least in terms of the environment. You admitted that you didn't know much about GMOs and their effects on the environment. I don't think the question is settled one way or the other, though. GMOs require fewer pesticides, but farming companies tend to use more herbicides, which appears to be hurting many species. And if Monsanto is pushing it . . . we really need to be sure about this. Their track record is pretty damn bad.

And yes, to whomever wrote the article, I want to hurt hungry people in Africa and India. I'm selfish and immoral. Seriously, who finished writing that article--the author's third-grade daughter? If we are cool with GMOs, are we gonna get extra points for Paradiso? More presents from Santa? What the Christ...

I don't quite understand this response.

To the first part... of course I admitted I don't know much about GMOs. Nobody in this thread does. We all just read what experts in the field have to say and make our own determinations. I'm good with trusting the scientific community though. You're gonna need a better response if you aren't.

To the second part.. Not sure how to respond to that. The author made his thesis crystal clear.
Author:  312player [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
FavreFan wrote:
312player wrote:
I don't know if Gmo is bad or not, i don't think we'll know for another 10 or so years. I do know Monsanto might be the most despicable corporation on the planet, they were the pioneers of gmo.

Monsanto was most definitely not the pioneer of GMOs :lol: :lol:




You sure about that?
Author:  Regular Reader [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:

And exactly who is endowing the positions and facilities they're postulating from

Wealthy alumni in most cases

Seriously, you're not creating a real argument here, you're just running like a conspiracy theorist here with no data to back up the point.


I can't bring myself to eat a Tyson product, nor unquestionably accept the findings of the professors from the endowed chairs they sit in at old State U. Inc.

Oil companies endow plenty of universities, I don't think that has stopped 97% of scientists (most of whom work at universities) from saying that fossil fuels are bad for the environment. Your argument is invalid.


Well when they also pay for the party currently in power to completely convince a third of the electorate to ignore the science, does it really matter?

Having lived through the b.s. arguments from tobacco companies, the parallels are striking and unsettling. Simple enough?
Author:  FavreFan [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
tommy wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Arguing against GMO's is as foolish as arguing against Global Warming or vaccines as both are backed by science and have the same general consensus amongst the scientists in the given fields.


To be clear, I'm not arguing against them as much as I'm asserting my distrust of the companies that claim they're completely safe.

I don't think it's companies you distrust. It's the scientific community.

As Ogie said, it's no different than denying global warming.

Mitch Daniels is a scientist?

Did anyone say he was?

The scientific concesus is that GMO's are not harmful. Do you disagree with that? If so, I would advise searching Google as it will probably save us both time here. Not trying to be condescending or a dick but as the author said, the science is emphatic.
Author:  FavreFan [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
312player wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
312player wrote:
I don't know if Gmo is bad or not, i don't think we'll know for another 10 or so years. I do know Monsanto might be the most despicable corporation on the planet, they were the pioneers of gmo.

Monsanto was most definitely not the pioneer of GMOs :lol: :lol:




You sure about that?

Yes, of course.

Look up GMOs and then Monsanto. Look at the timeline. Not much else you need there.
Author:  FavreFan [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
Regular Reader wrote:

Having lived through the b.s. arguments from tobacco companies, the parallels are striking and unsettling. Simple enough?

Simple? Yes. Enough? No.
Author:  tommy [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
FavreFan wrote:
tommy wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
tommy wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:

And then you get grains affected by Round Up and all varieties of pesticides according to some.

And I'm sorry but Mitch Daniels isn't exactly someone I'm looking to for an unbiased piece.

100 Nobel laureates still not unbiased enough? If not, what would be?

You're right. No Nobel laureate would ever work to produce a product that was not good for humanity. God bless those saints . . .

I'm still not hearing any type of good counterargument. Is there one?

It's because you don't have an argument, at least in terms of the environment. You admitted that you didn't know much about GMOs and their effects on the environment. I don't think the question is settled one way or the other, though. GMOs require fewer pesticides, but farming companies tend to use more herbicides, which appears to be hurting many species. And if Monsanto is pushing it . . . we really need to be sure about this. Their track record is pretty damn bad.

And yes, to whomever wrote the article, I want to hurt hungry people in Africa and India. I'm selfish and immoral. Seriously, who finished writing that article--the author's third-grade daughter? If we are cool with GMOs, are we gonna get extra points for Paradiso? More presents from Santa? What the Christ...

I don't quite understand this response.

To the first part... of course I admitted I don't know much about GMOs. Nobody in this thread does. We all just read what experts in the field have to say and make our own determinations. I'm good with trusting the scientific community though. You're gonna need a better response if you aren't.

To the second part.. Not sure how to respond to that. The author made his thesis crystal clear.


1) Well, I know a little about it.

2) I'm saying the author is full of shit. He doesn't give a shit about people in Africa. It's a childish argument he's using. I know he doesn't give a shit because I know what the guy has voted for. Bad faith. He does not come across as very trustworthy or as expert.
Author:  Darkside [ Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GMO Opponents
FavreFan wrote:
312player wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
312player wrote:
I don't know if Gmo is bad or not, i don't think we'll know for another 10 or so years. I do know Monsanto might be the most despicable corporation on the planet, they were the pioneers of gmo.

Monsanto was most definitely not the pioneer of GMOs :lol: :lol:




You sure about that?

Yes, of course.

Look up GMOs and then Monsanto. Look at the timeline. Not much else you need there.

GMO has been going on for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. Cross breeding crops isn't new.
Page 2 of 7 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/