As I said before, I haven't been arguing for or against regulations. Someone saying that regulation X, which regulates both individuals and the market by setting price controls, would make the market not free, is not the same as saying "regulations on individuals are bad". The law you proposed sets price controls on individuals, and thus the labor market. That means it's not a free market, but there is no moral judgement in what I've said.
If I may summarize my point to (hopefully) prevent you from misunderstanding it further, it's that regulation on individuals may also be regulation on the market, but even when it affects the market, it isn't necessarily regulation on the market itself. Laws against individuals killing each other, even though they have implications on the market, are not laws governing the market itself.
They fund businesses, government institutions, and academic institutions because those places are the ones doing research that is of interest to them. Paying a business to do something for you does not mean you are "pro business growth". What kind of growth do you want them to limit? Population, economic, agricultural?
That isn't the important part of the quote, and it's hardly a "far cry". The journal and court said nothing about the data or conclusions. The journal accepted it to begin with, so it clearly thought the data and conclusions were fine then; they retracted it for other reasons. If the data and conclusions weren't still robust, they would have specifically pointed that out. Tufts conducted an internal review (quoted in the Retraction Watch article) that reiterated the science was good.
The AC was being disingenuous. They were attacking the evidence supporting golden rice by pointing out a paper retraction without saying the retraction wasn't based on the data or conclusions.
I should have been more specific - marijuana is currently in the same class as heroin, and the drug classes are (supposedly) ranked by addictive potential and health risks. Penalties for possessing those drugs are based partially on the drug class.
Their lives were ruined both because they broke the law and got caught and because of a misguided drug policy. Yes, it was not very wise of them to intentionally break the law like that, but the penalties set out by the misguided policy are very disproportionate. Marijuana shouldn't be on the same level as heroin, that's just stupid.
All a drug test does is say whether or not they've used certain drugs within a (usually) fairly large timeframe. If it's a drug you can pick up a month later, it tells you literally nothing about whether they use them in the workplace, or even whether their use will affect their ability to do the job.
By contrast, when manually editing genes, it wouldn't be entirely implausible for someone to accidentally slip a recessive gene sequence into an apple tree seed that, when present in both chromosomes, would cause the production of cyanide. And then in the second generation that isn't supposed to exist, suddenly you have fruit that look normal, but kill people....
That's really no more likely with manual editing than it is for random mutations. Your characterization of them as having gone through little or no scientific testing also isn't accurate.
Right, because the numerous times they state things like:
At the farm level, the available evidence indicates
that soybean, cotton, and maize varieties with GE herbicide-resistant or insect-resistant traits (or both)
have generally had favorable economic outcomes for producers who have adopted these crops, but there
is high heterogeneity in outcomes
really indicates that they think they're of little value. They also only use the phrase "substantial risk" twice in the whole report.
RNA from foods can get into your bloodstream, but it will not become part of the genome. Mammalian genomes are DNA, and without a reverse transcriptase, cannot be coded into DNA.
The article in this comment is not what you were asked to cite, which was support for your claim that
At least one of those cases was brought about by the farmer suing Monsanto because their seed started creeping into their land, and Monsanto successfully sued them for patent infringement in retaliation.
Companies are free to label their food GMO or not GMO. There's no reason to force them to label it one way or another, however, since we don't label many other things on the food. Mingot's reply points out some of those.
Lots of crops are already somewhat homogeneous, and I'm not sure I agree that GMO is going to make that more likely. If anything, GMOs should let us add resistance genes to crops faster than they would evolve them on their own.
Most crops that large farms use don't breed true either; plants are weird, and often there's a "hybrid advantage" where it's advantageous for the plants to be heterozygous at a number of different genes. If you breed those together, most of the offspring aren't going to be as good as the parents, so you can't collect seed stock from them either. Yes, this makes the food supply a little more tenuous, but GMO isn't really different from farming that's going on right now anyway.
First off, I'm not sure it would - I doubt they'd sell well, but you could call them a Charlie Chaplin bear if you wanted to. That used to be quite a popular style for facial hair.
Who said I'm against regulation of corporations? I'm just saying what a free market is. I haven't been arguing for or against a position.
If I understand your proposed regulation, you're saying that somebody (Person A) who works for (or is in charge of) a company has household staff. These staff are not part of the company, and are paid directly by Person A. This regulation would prevent Person A from earning more than 200x more than the lowest amount they pay their household staff, yes? That is an instance where it would regulate both personal action and the market, in that it directly sets price controls on an unincorporated individual.
It may affect the market for stuffed toys, but not teddy bears specifically. More importantly, making a toy that is offensive to some people isn't actually covered by most "hate speech" laws that I'm aware of. I will concede, however, that what I said was poorly phrased. Regulations on people even if they affect the market are not necessarily regulations on the market itself.
No, that would be a law regulating the actions of a company (setting salaries). It is not a law that controls personal action.
The summary isn't completely correct; eukaryotes are defined by having a distinct nucleus. All other known eukaryotes until now have also had organelles and mitochondria, but they are not part of what defines Eukarya.
Slashdot Mirror
As I said before, I haven't been arguing for or against regulations. Someone saying that regulation X, which regulates both individuals and the market by setting price controls, would make the market not free, is not the same as saying "regulations on individuals are bad". The law you proposed sets price controls on individuals, and thus the labor market. That means it's not a free market, but there is no moral judgement in what I've said.
If I may summarize my point to (hopefully) prevent you from misunderstanding it further, it's that regulation on individuals may also be regulation on the market, but even when it affects the market, it isn't necessarily regulation on the market itself. Laws against individuals killing each other, even though they have implications on the market, are not laws governing the market itself.
They fund businesses, government institutions, and academic institutions because those places are the ones doing research that is of interest to them. Paying a business to do something for you does not mean you are "pro business growth". What kind of growth do you want them to limit? Population, economic, agricultural?
That isn't the important part of the quote, and it's hardly a "far cry". The journal and court said nothing about the data or conclusions. The journal accepted it to begin with, so it clearly thought the data and conclusions were fine then; they retracted it for other reasons. If the data and conclusions weren't still robust, they would have specifically pointed that out. Tufts conducted an internal review (quoted in the Retraction Watch article) that reiterated the science was good.
The AC was being disingenuous. They were attacking the evidence supporting golden rice by pointing out a paper retraction without saying the retraction wasn't based on the data or conclusions.
This is such a nonsensical comment I don't really know what you're trying to say, although I suspect you're trying to insult me.
I should have been more specific - marijuana is currently in the same class as heroin, and the drug classes are (supposedly) ranked by addictive potential and health risks. Penalties for possessing those drugs are based partially on the drug class.
Their lives were ruined both because they broke the law and got caught and because of a misguided drug policy. Yes, it was not very wise of them to intentionally break the law like that, but the penalties set out by the misguided policy are very disproportionate. Marijuana shouldn't be on the same level as heroin, that's just stupid.
All a drug test does is say whether or not they've used certain drugs within a (usually) fairly large timeframe. If it's a drug you can pick up a month later, it tells you literally nothing about whether they use them in the workplace, or even whether their use will affect their ability to do the job.
By contrast, when manually editing genes, it wouldn't be entirely implausible for someone to accidentally slip a recessive gene sequence into an apple tree seed that, when present in both chromosomes, would cause the production of cyanide. And then in the second generation that isn't supposed to exist, suddenly you have fruit that look normal, but kill people....
That's really no more likely with manual editing than it is for random mutations. Your characterization of them as having gone through little or no scientific testing also isn't accurate.
At the farm level, the available evidence indicates that soybean, cotton, and maize varieties with GE herbicide-resistant or insect-resistant traits (or both) have generally had favorable economic outcomes for producers who have adopted these crops, but there is high heterogeneity in outcomes
really indicates that they think they're of little value. They also only use the phrase "substantial risk" twice in the whole report.
This link should get you a free copy. From reading the summary, OP's claim doesn't seem substantiated.
RNA from foods can get into your bloodstream, but it will not become part of the genome. Mammalian genomes are DNA, and without a reverse transcriptase, cannot be coded into DNA.
At least one of those cases was brought about by the farmer suing Monsanto because their seed started creeping into their land, and Monsanto successfully sued them for patent infringement in retaliation.
So, perhaps you should apologize?
"Everyone with a different opinion is a shill: A child's guide to internet discussions"
the data and conclusions remain robust
The paper was retracted because the lead author screwed up consent forms, not because the data were wrong.
Companies are free to label their food GMO or not GMO. There's no reason to force them to label it one way or another, however, since we don't label many other things on the food. Mingot's reply points out some of those.
A situation that happened entirely without GMOs is why we shouldn't use GMOs? Now that's some interesting logic.
Lots of crops are already somewhat homogeneous, and I'm not sure I agree that GMO is going to make that more likely. If anything, GMOs should let us add resistance genes to crops faster than they would evolve them on their own.
Most crops that large farms use don't breed true either; plants are weird, and often there's a "hybrid advantage" where it's advantageous for the plants to be heterozygous at a number of different genes. If you breed those together, most of the offspring aren't going to be as good as the parents, so you can't collect seed stock from them either. Yes, this makes the food supply a little more tenuous, but GMO isn't really different from farming that's going on right now anyway.
Most of those organizations are pro business growth at any cost
That comes with a massive [citation needed].
That's partly why I don't participate in it much. It's probably a little bit of both.
That's sort of the problem; some people who make frequent contributions form cliques and consolidate power.
Your sig says "I don't read or reply to ACs. Ever." but you replied to an AC.
I would argue no, because it sets a price control on the market.
First off, I'm not sure it would - I doubt they'd sell well, but you could call them a Charlie Chaplin bear if you wanted to. That used to be quite a popular style for facial hair.
Who said I'm against regulation of corporations? I'm just saying what a free market is. I haven't been arguing for or against a position.
If I understand your proposed regulation, you're saying that somebody (Person A) who works for (or is in charge of) a company has household staff. These staff are not part of the company, and are paid directly by Person A. This regulation would prevent Person A from earning more than 200x more than the lowest amount they pay their household staff, yes? That is an instance where it would regulate both personal action and the market, in that it directly sets price controls on an unincorporated individual.
It may affect the market for stuffed toys, but not teddy bears specifically. More importantly, making a toy that is offensive to some people isn't actually covered by most "hate speech" laws that I'm aware of. I will concede, however, that what I said was poorly phrased. Regulations on people even if they affect the market are not necessarily regulations on the market itself.
No, that would be a law regulating the actions of a company (setting salaries). It is not a law that controls personal action.
The summary isn't completely correct; eukaryotes are defined by having a distinct nucleus. All other known eukaryotes until now have also had organelles and mitochondria, but they are not part of what defines Eukarya.