A lot of people in other countries make fun of us and also stand in awe about it. The primary reason some countries don't have as many prisoners as the US is simply they couldn't afford it.
So, if I understand correctly, what you're saying is, "Our enormous prison population has the highest standard of living in the world, because freedom! We're Number One!"
remember that we are descended from Puritans deemed too vile for Europe, refugees from everywhere, and a race of native Americans so tough they often went to war with no clothes on.
Australians are descended from the inmates of a literal penal colony and a race of native Australians so tough they often went to war with no clothes on, and walked 500 miles there and back in >100 degree temperatures through a land where even the goddamn butterflies are trying to kill you in order to fight those wars. And then came back and partied for five straight days.
And they still only have about 1/4th the incarceration rates of the United States.
That's all fine. But I always wonder why nobody talks about all the murders and lives ruined by the dictator Castro?
I always wonder why nobody talks about the fact that the United States represents 4 percent of the world's population but has 22 percent of the world's prisoners.
Do you quiz car dealerships on where and under what conditions the raw materials of their vehicles were mined?
No, but I can get a list of the patented products that go into my car.
All I want is the same thing for food. Because I do not want basic foodstuffs to be covered by intellectual property laws. That's the number one concern that makes me want all GMO foods labeled.
There is no need for the law to get involved, because this problem can be solved perfectly well with a voluntary "does not contain GMO products" label.
Do you realize that the GMO industry has sued companies for using the "does not contain GMO products" label? I bet you didn't know that.
Also, non-GM organisms could be patented too, or threaten biodiversity, and the companies that you don't like may also produce non-GM crops that you'd want to avoid. This isn't something that the law needs to get involved with.
No, it shouldn't be something the law needs to get involved with, but the GMO industry has had plenty of time to accede to the demands of their customers (over 90% want GMO labeling). So now the law gets involved because these corporations won't do what consumers demand.
Fiber content has been scientifically proven to affect health.
So, you're saying that there are no benefits to GMO foods? Nothing good Monsanto can say about them that might people want to buy and consume them? Good to know,
"Manufacturers wouldn't spend billions on an information campaign if they didn't have something to hide"
Dummy, manufacturers already spend untold billions promoting their products. Why is it just in the area of GMOs that companies aren't expected to, you know, actually do a little marketing?
You're very confused. Obviously, red/blue is just a personal preference, whereas GMO/non-GMO is based on health-related fears.
I think you might be confused. There are reasons to oppose GMO foods that have nothing to do with health related fears. You might oppose the patenting of organisms, or the threat GMOs pose to biodiversity, or simply the companies that are involved.
They should organize boycotts and similar free-market actions.
How can you boycott a product based upon certain properties if the manufacturer purposely obfuscates whether or not the product has those properties?
Bottom line: the people who are paying the bills - the consumers - want to know the provenance of their food. If it promotes "ignorance and stupidity" for people to know this, then it's the responsibility of the ones who are selling the product to do education and/or marketing to make sure people understand all the miraculous properties of the shit they want to sell.
Obviously anybody can make a decision based on what they read on the label, but in most cases, that decision won't be based on the latest scientific insights
Where did you get the ridiculous notion that consumer decisions have to be based on the "latest scientific insights"? Do you believe someone who chooses a blue shirt over a red shirt must only do so if there is scientific evidence that supports blue being superior to red?
I'm all for choice, but the problem is that 99% of consumers are lacking the knowledge to make an informed decision relating to GMO products.
That sounds like a marketing opportunity for companies.
If the manufacturers had taken the billions they've spent fighting labeling and used it to tell consumers about all the miraculous, world-saving properties of their GMO products, maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Too bad you can't handle freedom of manufacturers to choose what they want to display.
I'll bet that if you think about the sentence you wrote for a little while, you'll come to realize why it's the stupidest goddamn thing.
Can you maybe think of a reason you wouldn't want manufacturers to have the ability to put whatever they damn well please on the label of their products?
Make everyone wear beanies with propellers on top. Not only will it generate a lot of energy, but everyone will be too busy laughing at one another to start wars.
Or... here's a thought.... don't cater to sexuality at all.
Have a little sympathy. For most of the guys at that party, a professional dancer is the closest they'll ever get to a scantily-clad woman.
As someone who once worked in the music industry, I really don't care what kind of party a company chooses to throw, as long as they don't cry about it if they end up alienating a really big portion of their customer base.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, Reagan's innovation was in giving them weapons.
Before you congratulate yourself for cleverness, you might want to look at this:
http://cache2.asset-cache.net/...
If these millionaires are so smart, then why ain't they rich?
You've never paid property tax have you? That's exactly how property tax (the one that funds your local government, schools, etc) works.
So, if I understand correctly, what you're saying is, "Our enormous prison population has the highest standard of living in the world, because freedom! We're Number One!"
You don't know what a fiat currency is, do you?
Australians are descended from the inmates of a literal penal colony and a race of native Australians so tough they often went to war with no clothes on, and walked 500 miles there and back in >100 degree temperatures through a land where even the goddamn butterflies are trying to kill you in order to fight those wars. And then came back and partied for five straight days.
And they still only have about 1/4th the incarceration rates of the United States.
I always wonder why nobody talks about the fact that the United States represents 4 percent of the world's population but has 22 percent of the world's prisoners.
Who's your dictatorship now, Moses?
No, but I can get a list of the patented products that go into my car.
All I want is the same thing for food. Because I do not want basic foodstuffs to be covered by intellectual property laws. That's the number one concern that makes me want all GMO foods labeled.
Read 'em and weep.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07...
Here is one example. There are more.
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/oakh...
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07...
Do you realize that the GMO industry has sued companies for using the "does not contain GMO products" label? I bet you didn't know that.
No, it shouldn't be something the law needs to get involved with, but the GMO industry has had plenty of time to accede to the demands of their customers (over 90% want GMO labeling). So now the law gets involved because these corporations won't do what consumers demand.
Would you support the vaccination of people without their knowledge or consent?
So, you're saying that there are no benefits to GMO foods? Nothing good Monsanto can say about them that might people want to buy and consume them? Good to know,
Dummy, manufacturers already spend untold billions promoting their products. Why is it just in the area of GMOs that companies aren't expected to, you know, actually do a little marketing?
I think you might be confused. There are reasons to oppose GMO foods that have nothing to do with health related fears. You might oppose the patenting of organisms, or the threat GMOs pose to biodiversity, or simply the companies that are involved.
How can you boycott a product based upon certain properties if the manufacturer purposely obfuscates whether or not the product has those properties?
Bottom line: the people who are paying the bills - the consumers - want to know the provenance of their food. If it promotes "ignorance and stupidity" for people to know this, then it's the responsibility of the ones who are selling the product to do education and/or marketing to make sure people understand all the miraculous properties of the shit they want to sell.
Where did you get the ridiculous notion that consumer decisions have to be based on the "latest scientific insights"? Do you believe someone who chooses a blue shirt over a red shirt must only do so if there is scientific evidence that supports blue being superior to red?
That sounds like a marketing opportunity for companies.
If the manufacturers had taken the billions they've spent fighting labeling and used it to tell consumers about all the miraculous, world-saving properties of their GMO products, maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I'll bet that if you think about the sentence you wrote for a little while, you'll come to realize why it's the stupidest goddamn thing.
Can you maybe think of a reason you wouldn't want manufacturers to have the ability to put whatever they damn well please on the label of their products?
Food also has labeling for amounts of fiber. is that to stigmatize fiber?
Don't be a dope. If GMO's have the benefits you say they do, then labeling will help sell them.
Technically, those aren't uniforms, they're cosplay.
Make everyone wear beanies with propellers on top. Not only will it generate a lot of energy, but everyone will be too busy laughing at one another to start wars.
Have a little sympathy. For most of the guys at that party, a professional dancer is the closest they'll ever get to a scantily-clad woman.
As someone who once worked in the music industry, I really don't care what kind of party a company chooses to throw, as long as they don't cry about it if they end up alienating a really big portion of their customer base.