LOL the accusation of a shill without even so much as a counter argument. I wish Monsanto would pay me for arguing with the anti-GMO brigade. Fuck off you anonymous coward pussy. You don't have to be a paid shill to be pro-science, pro-fact, and anti-bullshit.
How could the RIAA sue people for downloading songs that the RIAA themselves uploaded to make available? After all, the RIAA owns the distribution rights, and as the uploader themselves, they are the ones distributing for free. Where does infringement come into play when the uploader IS the copyright holder?
The Schmeiser case and Bowman cases are the most oft-repeated examples of Monsanto suing innocent farmers. Except that the farmers weren't innocent victims and acted specifically to violate Monsanto's patents. It's hilarious that they anti-GMO/anti-Monsanto crowd continues to trot them out as shining examples of corporate evil. OTOH, I've never seen anyone provide a citation for Monsanto actually suing innocent farmers who are victims of unwanted cross pollination.
Why is it Monsanto's responsibility to ensure that neighboring farmers institute barrier crop practices? Aren't the farmers the ones responsible for their own fields? Monsanto only makes and sells the seeds, they don't plant and cultivate them.
There was a big fight going on between organic farmers and Monsanto....
Was, because the case was thrown out a year ago because the organic farmers simply couldn't cite an example of what they claimed happens. They created a false controversy, couldn't cite an example, judge threw out the case. Try to keep up with the latest news if you're going to attempt to use it in your arguments.:P
Please cite a case of this actually happening. The Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association case that was brought against Monsanto was thrown out specifically because they couldn't actually cite a case of where this has happened. But you keep on spreading that FUD, I'm sure it makes you feel like you're sticking it to The Man...
Actually the case appears to have been thrown out because not one single farmer could cite an example of what they were claiming could happen... of actually happening.
The seed companies also invested metric shit-tons of money into the R&D to create these crops in the first place. Why shouldn't they profit from that work?
Please cite a court case where someone who was actually innocent due to simple cross-pollination has been sued and not someone like Schmeiser who deliberately selected for only the Round-Up Ready cross-pollinated crops. Monsanto only sues farmers who deliberately select for their patented genes, not for simple cross-pollination. Can you cite a case otherwise? I'm willing to bet you can't.
You want to avoid getting into specifics because you apparently have no credible evidence to back up your claims. The entire problem with the anti-GMO crowd is their lack of specifics and trying to speak about a technology that they only have the most passing knowledge of without any knowledge of specifics. Please please please show some actual instances of allergic reactions occurring due to GMO food. If you really know about how allergies work, you would understand how it is almost trivial to test for a common allergies and why just saying "chicken protein" is so non-specific that your entire argument is worthless. It took you a lot longer than I thought it would for you to scream out "paid shill!" Not everyone who argues for a technology are paid shills; some people are just pro-science anti-bullshit. You are obviously not one of them.
Please cite the particular corn that you're talking about that was recently in the media and how dangerous is it. (Hint: if you're referring to the thoroughly debunked Seralini study, then don't waste my time and actually go and read up on the follow ups to that failure.)
Ok, so you really are an idiot that doesn't have any real knowledge of genetic engineering or allergies. Thanks for showing us all that.
Allergic responses occur due to exposure to PARTICULAR proteins, not just "chicken" proteins. What is it about a protein that make it "chicken" anyway? Did you know that you share tons of proteins in your body with many many other organisms? Move a gene from a chicken to a tomato and it will produce a protein. If it doesn't produce the particular protein that causes an allergy, NO ALLERGIC REACTION. These things are almost trivially easy to check for: find the protein that has been transferred, run it through the very very large database of known allergens and toxins for molecular property or structure similarity. Unless someone has a completely unique and brand new allergy (in which case they would be the only one), no match means significantly low enough probability of an allergic event in the general population as to be safe enough for general consumption. How can you guarantee that some random fruit crop growing somewhere isn't the result of a random genetic mutation event that produces a new or similar protein that is a potential allergen? Unless you are also in favor of testing EVERY SINGLE CROP on the planet for natural random mutations that could also produce differently shaped proteins that might possibly produce allergic reactions as well, you're a fucking retard. While "natural" crops subject to random mutations that could cause this same scenario with no way of knowing since they aren't test, GMO foods are engineered to produce specific, known proteins, verified that the process worked as intended, and don't even make it even close to market without testing to determine allergenicity which, if found, takes the project back to the drawing board or scraps it completely.
If a guy with a known chicken allergy dies after eating a tomato but knows that he wasn't eating chicken, do you think that might not cause some red flags to go up? That there might not be an autopsy done to determine cause of death with a follow up investigation? Are you really enough of a moron to think that random deaths don't get investigated?
I'm not sure why you also think that corn that makes its own insecticide is either a mistake or somehow dangerous. If you know anything about the BT bacteria and its Cry proteins that were engineered into the GM corn, you'd know that this particular insecticide is not only harmless to humans but is incapable of being harmful to humans due to the very way that it works as an insecticide.
Did you not read a single thing I wrote? You're an idiot and you don't have the first clue how evolution works. You should stop before you make yourself look any dumber.
So basically you can't provide the evidence and citations that you claim. Gotcha.
While I can find plenty of links about tomatoes with chicken genes, I have yet to find any single reference to an allergic reaction because of this. Perhaps this stems from you completely not understanding how both genetic engineering and allergies work. Please provide a reference of someone dying from eating a tomato that had chicken genes. So far as I have ever found, any instances of a GMO event causing allergenicity in a resulting organism have been tested for, found, and removed or the product canceled.
If you really can't provide any citations, just say so; don't blame someone else's lack of Google-fu for your lack of evidence. You have still yet to cite your many instances of dangerous food other than hypotheticals that you continue to pull out of your ass. Good luck.
I have googled this stuff extensively. I've also read most of the links posted and usually fall into one of the following camps:
- They link to some article about the Seralini long-term study that was utter science fail and was eviscerated by the scientific community for its obvious bias and lack of scientific rigor. It's pretty much an example of how not to do science properly and has been rejected by oversight and governing boards around the world.
- They link to articles about Monsanto suing some poor little farmers somewhere for growing crops that were innocently pollinated by RoundUp Ready crops nearby them. They somehow always fail to report that the farmer than actively sprayed their fields with glyphosate to intentionally separate and harvest the RoundUp Ready crops which they then replanted.
- They link to some study that is tangentially related to GMO crops and make claims of doom and gloom, hoping that no one will ever actually click through and read the study and find out that lo and behold, the study doesn't actually say what they claimed it did.
I asked YOU for some evidence. You made the claim. You have still yet to provide any. So has anyone else. Until you do, I'm going to assume that you're just full of shit and making things up because you want it to be true.
A three year old probably does not have a belief in god. They would qualify as atheist, lacking a belief in god. They do not, however, have an active belief in there being no god.
"Is" does not imply "ought". The way that something is it nature does not imply that it is the way things ought to be in society. Also, guns and atomic bombs are not genetic traits or influenced by any reproductive selection pressure so have nothing to do with evolutionary fitness. Get your logic right before you try to tell someone what they can or can't say logically.
Are you seriously talking about the French Seralini study? Did you even read ANY of the follow up to that study and how it was absolutely SHREDDED in the scientific community and deemed completely useless by governing bodies due to its faulty methodology and questionable statistical methods? And obviously you don't have the first clue about how the Cry protein from the BT bacteria work, or you would also realize that they ARE in fact harmless to humans due to the exact reasons why they work as pesticides for particular insects.
Seriously, how long do you imagine that the modern crops that we use today have been around? A thousand years? Are you kidding me? You might want to look into the history of modern crops such as potatoes, corn, wheat, bananas, and others, and how they compare to the original plants they were bred from. You probably wouldn't even recognize that they are the same plant. Educate yourself, n00b.
You do realize that all plants naturally produce their own pesticides right? And that the particular pesticide that you're complaining about is chemically and physiologically incapable of harming humans that consume it due to the very mechanism of how it works in killing insects? If you don't know this, then please educate yourself before spouting off ignorant, wrong arguments that are so typical of the anti-GMO crowd.
Are you kidding me? With all the backlash against GM food in the last 20 years, NO ONE has been looking to see if there are any deaths or other health issues related to it? If no one looks for it, then where the hell does all of the anti-GMO propaganda come from about GMOs causing cancer/diabetes/hypertension/autism/restless leg syndrome/erectile dysfunction/anything else that sounds good for propaganda? Either no one is looking for it and you can't possibly make the claims that the anti-GMO crowd does or the anti-GMO crowd is simply making up bullshit. Which is it?
Slashdot Mirror
It would probably be trivial to short out the power source to the gun, rendering the entire mechanism pointless.
Then how would that, as the GP put it, make "all your existing ammunition (is) useless"?
LOL the accusation of a shill without even so much as a counter argument. I wish Monsanto would pay me for arguing with the anti-GMO brigade. Fuck off you anonymous coward pussy. You don't have to be a paid shill to be pro-science, pro-fact, and anti-bullshit.
How could the RIAA sue people for downloading songs that the RIAA themselves uploaded to make available? After all, the RIAA owns the distribution rights, and as the uploader themselves, they are the ones distributing for free. Where does infringement come into play when the uploader IS the copyright holder?
The Schmeiser case and Bowman cases are the most oft-repeated examples of Monsanto suing innocent farmers. Except that the farmers weren't innocent victims and acted specifically to violate Monsanto's patents. It's hilarious that they anti-GMO/anti-Monsanto crowd continues to trot them out as shining examples of corporate evil. OTOH, I've never seen anyone provide a citation for Monsanto actually suing innocent farmers who are victims of unwanted cross pollination.
Why is it Monsanto's responsibility to ensure that neighboring farmers institute barrier crop practices? Aren't the farmers the ones responsible for their own fields? Monsanto only makes and sells the seeds, they don't plant and cultivate them.
There was a big fight going on between organic farmers and Monsanto....
:P
Was, because the case was thrown out a year ago because the organic farmers simply couldn't cite an example of what they claimed happens. They created a false controversy, couldn't cite an example, judge threw out the case. Try to keep up with the latest news if you're going to attempt to use it in your arguments.
Please cite a case of this actually happening. The Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association case that was brought against Monsanto was thrown out specifically because they couldn't actually cite a case of where this has happened. But you keep on spreading that FUD, I'm sure it makes you feel like you're sticking it to The Man...
Actually the case appears to have been thrown out because not one single farmer could cite an example of what they were claiming could happen... of actually happening.
The seed companies also invested metric shit-tons of money into the R&D to create these crops in the first place. Why shouldn't they profit from that work?
Please cite a court case where someone who was actually innocent due to simple cross-pollination has been sued and not someone like Schmeiser who deliberately selected for only the Round-Up Ready cross-pollinated crops. Monsanto only sues farmers who deliberately select for their patented genes, not for simple cross-pollination. Can you cite a case otherwise? I'm willing to bet you can't.
Please cite the particular corn that you're talking about that was recently in the media and how dangerous is it. (Hint: if you're referring to the thoroughly debunked Seralini study, then don't waste my time and actually go and read up on the follow ups to that failure.)
Allergic responses occur due to exposure to PARTICULAR proteins, not just "chicken" proteins. What is it about a protein that make it "chicken" anyway? Did you know that you share tons of proteins in your body with many many other organisms? Move a gene from a chicken to a tomato and it will produce a protein. If it doesn't produce the particular protein that causes an allergy, NO ALLERGIC REACTION. These things are almost trivially easy to check for: find the protein that has been transferred, run it through the very very large database of known allergens and toxins for molecular property or structure similarity. Unless someone has a completely unique and brand new allergy (in which case they would be the only one), no match means significantly low enough probability of an allergic event in the general population as to be safe enough for general consumption. How can you guarantee that some random fruit crop growing somewhere isn't the result of a random genetic mutation event that produces a new or similar protein that is a potential allergen? Unless you are also in favor of testing EVERY SINGLE CROP on the planet for natural random mutations that could also produce differently shaped proteins that might possibly produce allergic reactions as well, you're a fucking retard. While "natural" crops subject to random mutations that could cause this same scenario with no way of knowing since they aren't test, GMO foods are engineered to produce specific, known proteins, verified that the process worked as intended, and don't even make it even close to market without testing to determine allergenicity which, if found, takes the project back to the drawing board or scraps it completely.
If a guy with a known chicken allergy dies after eating a tomato but knows that he wasn't eating chicken, do you think that might not cause some red flags to go up? That there might not be an autopsy done to determine cause of death with a follow up investigation? Are you really enough of a moron to think that random deaths don't get investigated?
I'm not sure why you also think that corn that makes its own insecticide is either a mistake or somehow dangerous. If you know anything about the BT bacteria and its Cry proteins that were engineered into the GM corn, you'd know that this particular insecticide is not only harmless to humans but is incapable of being harmful to humans due to the very way that it works as an insecticide.
Did you not read a single thing I wrote? You're an idiot and you don't have the first clue how evolution works. You should stop before you make yourself look any dumber.
While I can find plenty of links about tomatoes with chicken genes, I have yet to find any single reference to an allergic reaction because of this. Perhaps this stems from you completely not understanding how both genetic engineering and allergies work. Please provide a reference of someone dying from eating a tomato that had chicken genes. So far as I have ever found, any instances of a GMO event causing allergenicity in a resulting organism have been tested for, found, and removed or the product canceled.
If you really can't provide any citations, just say so; don't blame someone else's lack of Google-fu for your lack of evidence. You have still yet to cite your many instances of dangerous food other than hypotheticals that you continue to pull out of your ass. Good luck.
- They link to some article about the Seralini long-term study that was utter science fail and was eviscerated by the scientific community for its obvious bias and lack of scientific rigor. It's pretty much an example of how not to do science properly and has been rejected by oversight and governing boards around the world.
- They link to articles about Monsanto suing some poor little farmers somewhere for growing crops that were innocently pollinated by RoundUp Ready crops nearby them. They somehow always fail to report that the farmer than actively sprayed their fields with glyphosate to intentionally separate and harvest the RoundUp Ready crops which they then replanted.
- They link to some study that is tangentially related to GMO crops and make claims of doom and gloom, hoping that no one will ever actually click through and read the study and find out that lo and behold, the study doesn't actually say what they claimed it did.
I asked YOU for some evidence. You made the claim. You have still yet to provide any. So has anyone else. Until you do, I'm going to assume that you're just full of shit and making things up because you want it to be true.
The very label of Christian or Catholic implies by definition a positive assertion of a belief in the existence of a God. You're just being an idiot.
A three year old probably does not have a belief in god. They would qualify as atheist, lacking a belief in god. They do not, however, have an active belief in there being no god.
"Is" does not imply "ought". The way that something is it nature does not imply that it is the way things ought to be in society. Also, guns and atomic bombs are not genetic traits or influenced by any reproductive selection pressure so have nothing to do with evolutionary fitness. Get your logic right before you try to tell someone what they can or can't say logically.
In that case, you should be able to cite all these many many instances of dangerous food for me. Please, show me your evidence.
Are you seriously talking about the French Seralini study? Did you even read ANY of the follow up to that study and how it was absolutely SHREDDED in the scientific community and deemed completely useless by governing bodies due to its faulty methodology and questionable statistical methods? And obviously you don't have the first clue about how the Cry protein from the BT bacteria work, or you would also realize that they ARE in fact harmless to humans due to the exact reasons why they work as pesticides for particular insects.
Seriously, how long do you imagine that the modern crops that we use today have been around? A thousand years? Are you kidding me? You might want to look into the history of modern crops such as potatoes, corn, wheat, bananas, and others, and how they compare to the original plants they were bred from. You probably wouldn't even recognize that they are the same plant. Educate yourself, n00b.
Who the fuck else would do biotech studies besides the biotech industry?
You do realize that all plants naturally produce their own pesticides right? And that the particular pesticide that you're complaining about is chemically and physiologically incapable of harming humans that consume it due to the very mechanism of how it works in killing insects? If you don't know this, then please educate yourself before spouting off ignorant, wrong arguments that are so typical of the anti-GMO crowd.
Are you kidding me? With all the backlash against GM food in the last 20 years, NO ONE has been looking to see if there are any deaths or other health issues related to it? If no one looks for it, then where the hell does all of the anti-GMO propaganda come from about GMOs causing cancer/diabetes/hypertension/autism/restless leg syndrome/erectile dysfunction/anything else that sounds good for propaganda? Either no one is looking for it and you can't possibly make the claims that the anti-GMO crowd does or the anti-GMO crowd is simply making up bullshit. Which is it?