Yes. That is the process. What proof do you have that member nations are not following the asylum process?
And the lies about immediately collecting welfare are a conservative joke. If it were that easy, why would anyone not just "lose" their travel papers, then apply for asylum?
You're confusing "mandatory warning labels for things people are scared of but nobody can prove cause any harm" (this situation)
Who, other than the pro-GMO group has been calling for warning labels? The pro-GMO love to call them warning labels, then attack the general idea of warning over something "safe".
Some of them have toyed with the idea on and off. I think Arnold claims he recognized the damage it did and stopped. Those that are tested, like olympic weight lifters have regular tests, not just at competition because you can be cleat at the competition and still had had an unnatural advantage.
The CDC is publishing the surgeon general's opinion as fact. Also, it falls on the side of whether there's scientific proof (there isn't), or evidence beyond some arbitrary standard (there is, according to the CDC and SG).
The plural of evidence isn't proof (well, it is in court, but not in science).
That is the crux of the issue. To many people a label is a warning.
So you object to people knowing a useful piece of information because someone might get confused by it? Protect the dumb people from themselves. Usually warnings are there to protect dumb people from themselves, like the "do not touch spinning blades with fingers" warnings on lawn mowers, but this time it's the "protect people from themselves trying to legislate against labels so people don't get confused by too much information.
I'd prefer people be free to make a choice, even if it's the wrong one, rather than making them all slaves to my opinion of what they should think and do.
But if the GM food was modified to allow more toxic chemicals used in its creation without harming the plant, why would you ban me from knowing it's a GM food?
Cigarettes still have never been proven to cause harm. There are correlations drawn, but a correlation, despite being a huge neon sign pointing at the cause, isn't proof. The pro-GMO nuts are as much or more anti-science as the anti-GMO crowd. The anti-GMO crowd aren't necessarily saying they know it's bad, just that they want it identified. Nothing more. Not registered, not banned, not even with a warning. Just labeled. If it's safe, why object to a simple, plain label?
So you are against "country of origin" labels as well? After all, they only identify the means it came to be, and have no useful data about the item itself.
And since when is an ingredient list or origin tag a "warning". The only person here asserting that GMOs need a warning, but you are against using that warning is you. The rest of us are talking about labels, not warnings.
What harm to the consumer happens when the consumer has more information? If there's no harm to the consumer to have more information, then your stance is the one that doesn't make sense. Label it and let people choose, even if they choose poorly, it's still their choice.
You have too much faith in corporations. You are telling me that if they made 999 safe products and 1 unsafe one, they'd destroy the 1 unsafe, but profitable product? Or would they release the 999 first, then when someone demands they test the 1,000th product, some A/C pipes up "They've already been shown safe, you idiot" we don't test the one the corporation knows to be unsafe? How is that reasonable? If you trust GMO, that means you blindly trust Monsanto to *never* do the wrong thing. I don't have that much faith in Monsanto.
The problem is that the anti-GM people are not logical.
You sound like a bigot. Anyone who doesn't want GM must be irrational. Or maybe those who don't want GM know that GM includes making plants more resistant to pesticides, so more pesticides can be used on them, meaning some GM food may be worse for you. So you want to be able to know whether it's GM so you can decide if you do or don't want to consume it. There are direct health consequences to some of the GM.
Also monoculture lead to the Irish potato blight and associated famine. Maybe you can't avoid all monoculture, but just want to rebel quietly by rejecting the GMO part of monoculture.
Maybe you just hate Monsanto.
Who are you to say that *every* reason someone may choose to reject GM proves that they are illogical? Seems the only illogical one here is you. You are rejecting a true label because you have the irrational fear of anti-GM people. Why should we support your superstition?
More like using a videocam to record your neighbor's TV, and using the recording for your personal pleasure, and being sued into the ground for playing the recording at a dinner party.
This is a good thing, but it's nothing to bow down and worship them over either.
It is when Chrysler latches kill children, and Chrysler spends millions of dollars fighting the recall. Or Ford and GM who have both been found to have covered up safety issues, and quietly fixed them, hoping nobody would notice and they wouldn't have to recall the proven and known unsafe vehicles.
For a car company to do a recall like that hasn't ever been done in the USA. So yes, it is quite extraordinary.
Exhibition vs test match. They are the Globetrotters vs Washington Generals, not a competition. If you ignore any of the rules to make it more entertaining, it shouldn't be able to legally be called a sport.
Then it's no longer a game of skill, but instead a sports exhibition. The rules as written aren't followed, but the interpretation of the rules dominates the rules.
That's not a requirement in the current 100m dash, so why would you change the rules? The issue was about equipment and if there was no limit on equipment, not if you also changed the rules of the game. It'd no longer be a 100m dash at that point. It'd be a long jump, with a stick. If you wanted to hear my plan for a long jump, it involves renting a 777 ER, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In most places, they are parking tickets. You fine the car (well, the car's registered owner), for the car moving too fast on a road. You don't fine the driver. So you don't assign points or otherwise treat it as a speeding ticket, as they aren't.
Not to mention the fact that not all medications list their full contents,
It's not that nobody knows what's in the medicines, but that the list of regulated substances from the sport don't match the legal regulations, so an ingredient isn't required by law to be listed, so it isn't, but it's still a banned substance.
Further is that the banned substances lists are often silly, as the body will create or metabolize the banned substance, such that consuming a non-banned substance can generate a "fail" because the non-banned substance will be metabolized into a banned substance in the body, or trigger the release of a banned substance by the body itself. If you made a pill that was not banned, but it triggered a release of HGH inside your body, then the pill is effectively banned, even if nothing in it is banned, nor is metabolized into a banned substance.
Almost all of this is known and not a surprise, but the trainers feign ignorance as they guide athletes to the best performance they can, hopefully (but not always) within the rules.
And none of that matters, as Lance can dope for years, over many tests, and never test positive. The tests are obviously beatable. The only way to win is cheat, for most sports. Train with steroids, then stop at some threshold before testing, so you get a pass result. Worked for Arnold (and almost everyone else in the sport). The muscles you cheat on don't disappear when you stop taking the steroids. But the tests will come back with a pass.
You can do whatever you want, you just can't play a sanctioned NFL game while doing so. Want to start your own league? Go for it. But the established sporting bodies say "not in my league".
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. That is the process. What proof do you have that member nations are not following the asylum process?
And the lies about immediately collecting welfare are a conservative joke. If it were that easy, why would anyone not just "lose" their travel papers, then apply for asylum?
You're confusing "mandatory warning labels for things people are scared of but nobody can prove cause any harm" (this situation)
Who, other than the pro-GMO group has been calling for warning labels? The pro-GMO love to call them warning labels, then attack the general idea of warning over something "safe".
Some of them have toyed with the idea on and off. I think Arnold claims he recognized the damage it did and stopped. Those that are tested, like olympic weight lifters have regular tests, not just at competition because you can be cleat at the competition and still had had an unnatural advantage.
Sorry but theCDC disagrees
The CDC is publishing the surgeon general's opinion as fact. Also, it falls on the side of whether there's scientific proof (there isn't), or evidence beyond some arbitrary standard (there is, according to the CDC and SG).
The plural of evidence isn't proof (well, it is in court, but not in science).
That is the crux of the issue. To many people a label is a warning.
So you object to people knowing a useful piece of information because someone might get confused by it? Protect the dumb people from themselves. Usually warnings are there to protect dumb people from themselves, like the "do not touch spinning blades with fingers" warnings on lawn mowers, but this time it's the "protect people from themselves trying to legislate against labels so people don't get confused by too much information.
I'd prefer people be free to make a choice, even if it's the wrong one, rather than making them all slaves to my opinion of what they should think and do.
Then why do most countries have the same requirements, when it's a USA specific protectionist requirement?
But if the GM food was modified to allow more toxic chemicals used in its creation without harming the plant, why would you ban me from knowing it's a GM food?
GMOs have not been shown to cause harm
Cigarettes still have never been proven to cause harm. There are correlations drawn, but a correlation, despite being a huge neon sign pointing at the cause, isn't proof. The pro-GMO nuts are as much or more anti-science as the anti-GMO crowd. The anti-GMO crowd aren't necessarily saying they know it's bad, just that they want it identified. Nothing more. Not registered, not banned, not even with a warning. Just labeled. If it's safe, why object to a simple, plain label?
So then lets drop the country of origin labels on everything when we identify whether it is GMO. That should be an even trade.
So you are against "country of origin" labels as well? After all, they only identify the means it came to be, and have no useful data about the item itself.
And since when is an ingredient list or origin tag a "warning". The only person here asserting that GMOs need a warning, but you are against using that warning is you. The rest of us are talking about labels, not warnings.
What harm to the consumer happens when the consumer has more information? If there's no harm to the consumer to have more information, then your stance is the one that doesn't make sense. Label it and let people choose, even if they choose poorly, it's still their choice.
You have too much faith in corporations. You are telling me that if they made 999 safe products and 1 unsafe one, they'd destroy the 1 unsafe, but profitable product? Or would they release the 999 first, then when someone demands they test the 1,000th product, some A/C pipes up "They've already been shown safe, you idiot" we don't test the one the corporation knows to be unsafe? How is that reasonable? If you trust GMO, that means you blindly trust Monsanto to *never* do the wrong thing. I don't have that much faith in Monsanto.
The problem is that the anti-GM people are not logical.
You sound like a bigot. Anyone who doesn't want GM must be irrational. Or maybe those who don't want GM know that GM includes making plants more resistant to pesticides, so more pesticides can be used on them, meaning some GM food may be worse for you. So you want to be able to know whether it's GM so you can decide if you do or don't want to consume it. There are direct health consequences to some of the GM.
Also monoculture lead to the Irish potato blight and associated famine. Maybe you can't avoid all monoculture, but just want to rebel quietly by rejecting the GMO part of monoculture.
Maybe you just hate Monsanto.
Who are you to say that *every* reason someone may choose to reject GM proves that they are illogical? Seems the only illogical one here is you. You are rejecting a true label because you have the irrational fear of anti-GM people. Why should we support your superstition?
Cross bred isn't GMO. Cross grafted isn't GMO either.
More like using a videocam to record your neighbor's TV, and using the recording for your personal pleasure, and being sued into the ground for playing the recording at a dinner party.
It is when Chrysler latches kill children, and Chrysler spends millions of dollars fighting the recall. Or Ford and GM who have both been found to have covered up safety issues, and quietly fixed them, hoping nobody would notice and they wouldn't have to recall the proven and known unsafe vehicles.
For a car company to do a recall like that hasn't ever been done in the USA. So yes, it is quite extraordinary.
Exhibition vs test match. They are the Globetrotters vs Washington Generals, not a competition. If you ignore any of the rules to make it more entertaining, it shouldn't be able to legally be called a sport.
Then it's no longer a game of skill, but instead a sports exhibition. The rules as written aren't followed, but the interpretation of the rules dominates the rules.
When people stop advertising science, that'll work, but for now, they are the same, with people doing science for profit.
Already one of the worst in the world for paid time off, and you want to move down on the list?
That's not a requirement in the current 100m dash, so why would you change the rules? The issue was about equipment and if there was no limit on equipment, not if you also changed the rules of the game. It'd no longer be a 100m dash at that point. It'd be a long jump, with a stick. If you wanted to hear my plan for a long jump, it involves renting a 777 ER, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In most places, they are parking tickets. You fine the car (well, the car's registered owner), for the car moving too fast on a road. You don't fine the driver. So you don't assign points or otherwise treat it as a speeding ticket, as they aren't.
Not to mention the fact that not all medications list their full contents,
It's not that nobody knows what's in the medicines, but that the list of regulated substances from the sport don't match the legal regulations, so an ingredient isn't required by law to be listed, so it isn't, but it's still a banned substance.
Further is that the banned substances lists are often silly, as the body will create or metabolize the banned substance, such that consuming a non-banned substance can generate a "fail" because the non-banned substance will be metabolized into a banned substance in the body, or trigger the release of a banned substance by the body itself. If you made a pill that was not banned, but it triggered a release of HGH inside your body, then the pill is effectively banned, even if nothing in it is banned, nor is metabolized into a banned substance.
Almost all of this is known and not a surprise, but the trainers feign ignorance as they guide athletes to the best performance they can, hopefully (but not always) within the rules.
And none of that matters, as Lance can dope for years, over many tests, and never test positive. The tests are obviously beatable. The only way to win is cheat, for most sports. Train with steroids, then stop at some threshold before testing, so you get a pass result. Worked for Arnold (and almost everyone else in the sport). The muscles you cheat on don't disappear when you stop taking the steroids. But the tests will come back with a pass.
Well seems to me like they could answer that question easily in a weekend. They can even have fun with it.
You and I have vastly different definitions of "fun".
So the 100m dash will be a race between two people shot from cannons. Entertaining I agree, but hardly "sporting".
*spoiler alert*
the human cannonball wearing rocket boosters wins.
You can do whatever you want, you just can't play a sanctioned NFL game while doing so. Want to start your own league? Go for it. But the established sporting bodies say "not in my league".