Europe about to embrace GM?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Summarize one claim.

That is not how it works. The claims are there for all to see. Do you really think we are all that stupid? Admit it, you have no rebuttal at all and you are just playing games instead of confronting the facts. Evasiveness is not working for you and everyone reading this thread sees that.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
No, it is not a contradiction at all. I established reasonable doubt which is all that is needed to justify clear labeling of GMOs in the ingredient list.

I didn't just do it with one link either, I did it with all 3 and you stil avoid the others like the plague because you can't prove your OP is true at all. Your OP is FALSE!

I established reasonable doubt

reasonable doubt about what exactly? If that all GMs are safe, we are not claiming that ALL GMs are safe for the same reason we are not claiming that ALL non-GMs are safe -it just depends exactly on what item your are talking about and whether it is a GM item is irrelevant. Would you claim that all non-GMs are safe? if so, what about the death cap fungus? If not, then the fact that a GM could be theoretically made to be dangerous is irrelevant.

If that GMs are no more likely to be unsafe than non-GMs, you CLEARLY have NOT established “reasonable doubt” on that for you still haven't even presented us with any valid reason at all why it would make a difference whether it is GM!

and you stil avoid the others

Nope -I have seen the others and they are all garbage as well. I think twhitehead has already covered that nicely so I didn't bother.
NONE of your links show any reason to think GMs are generally less safe than non-GMs.

Originally posted by humy
I have just read the link and it is just totally worthless garbage from begging to end!
It is so bad that, if it wasn't for the horrifying fact that many ignorant people seem so gullible as to be taken in by this total crap, I would laugh at it!

They claim to have found small bits of RNA (NOT to be confused with DNA of course! ) in the blood and organs of h ...[text shortened]... othing to do with real science that has proven GMs are generally no more dangerous than non-GMs.

You scientists are too dangerous to be let on the loose, if you are not engaged in weapons programs you are modifying peoples foods for the sole benefit of greedy and corrupt corporations. You pose the biggest danger to mankind since Sarah Palin decided to run for office.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In what way was Dolly the sheep 'flawed science'? I agree that cloning is not ready for use on humans, but that doesn't equate to the description 'flawed science'.

[b]Don't just cherry pick to mislead others.
You provided the articles, you should have checked them before posting them.[/b]

Dolly the sheep had a shorter lifespan than her genetic origin and diseases that her genetic origin also did not have.

By your logic cloning people would be fine and good until the flaws become apparent. Then what? Then you would have to admit your science is flawed and you would have to backtrack your position, just as you are doing now. Only now you are trying to change the rules instead of admitting you are wrong which you know full well you are wrong now. I proved it, you just will not admit your flawed position overtly.
You already admitted that some GMOs can be harmful which begs clear labeling, but you cannot admit labeling is justified. That is a clear contradiction and you are too stubborn to admit it. You lose!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You scientists are too dangerous to be let on the loose, if you are not engaged in weapons programs you are modifying peoples foods for the sole benefit of greedy and corrupt corporations. You pose the biggest danger to mankind since Sarah Palin decided to run for office.

WOW you are delusional!

Originally posted by humy

I established reasonable doubt

reasonable doubt about what exactly? If that all GMs are safe, we are not claiming that ALL GMs are safe for the same reason we are not claiming that ALL non-GMs are safe -it just depends exactly on what item your are talking about and whether it is a GM item is irrelevant.
If that GMs are no more likely t ...[text shortened]... t bother.
NONE of your links show any reason to think GMs are generally less safe than non-GMs.

" If that all GMs are safe, we are not claiming that ALL GMs are safe for the same reason we are not claiming that ALL non-GMs are safe"

You are avoiding the point and it is clear for all to see. Peanuts should be labeled because some people are allergic to them. They are harmful to some people but not most people like myself.

You want a double standard where harmful GMOs don't require labeling but non-GMOs do require labeling. FAIL!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Dolly the sheep had a shorter lifespan than her genetic origin and diseases that her genetic origin also did not have.

By your logic cloning people would be fine and good until the flaws become apparent. Then what? Then you would have to admit your science is flawed and you would have to backtrack your position, just as you are doing now. Only now you ...[text shortened]... ling is justified. That is a clear contradiction and you are too stubborn to admit it. You lose!

Dolly the sheep had a shorter lifespan than her genetic origin and diseases that her genetic origin also did not have.

irrelevant; He just said “I agree that cloning is not ready for use on humans, “ and I should add cloning has NOTHING to do with GM crops only partly because cloning is NOT GM by definition!

Talking about cloning is going off-topic but; if you are against coning, are you against propagating strawberries from their runners? because that is also cloning!

By your logic cloning people would be fine and good until the flaws become apparent.

No. He just implied that, currently, the exact opposite is true i.e. it is NOT fine. He just said “I agree that cloning is not ready for use on humans, “ which make the rest of your post nonsense.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
So you admit that some GMOs can be harmful.

No, I admit that some GMOs may be harmful. A GMO peanut for example could be potentially harmful as could a GMO wheat that was designed to express the peanut allergens. I am however not aware of any GMOs in production that are known to be harmful.

That is an incredible admission for you.
Why do you say that.

... but not GMOs that you admit are harmful to people's health.
OK now you are outright lying. Nothing I said could lead you to the conclusion that I admit that GMOs in general are harmful to peoples health.

You have destroyed your own position.
No, you just tried to make it look like I had.

Originally posted by humy
WOW you are delusional!

He is not delusional at all. You think all new science is good and that anybody that questions your opinion is primitive and wants to cling to outdated views, but that is not reality.

Dolly the sheep proves that new science can be flawed and dangerous, yet you are a denier much in the same way you label man made global warming skeptics deniers.

You are an educated idiot that is slave to your own "group think". Even when we prove you wrong you can't accept it. Give up the fight. You are just embarrassing yourself.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You can't accept the premise of reasonable doubt. That is all that is required to justify labeling GMOs on food ingredients.

No, it isn't all that's required.

You want absolute proof which is unreasonable and you know it.
Why is it unreasonable? Surely if GMOs are harmful it would not be that hard to provide proof of this? We can do it for peanuts - and we didn't start labelling peanuts until it was proved.

Your position is that ALL GMOs are safe...
Try and quote me on that - because you can't.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
That is not how it works. The claims are there for all to see.

Actually it is how it works. I say there are no real claims in the article, you say there are. So try to summarise one of them. You can't - because there arn't any.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
" If that all GMs are safe, we are not claiming that ALL GMs are safe for the same reason we are not claiming that ALL non-GMs are safe"

You are avoiding the point and it is clear for all to see. Peanuts should be labeled because some people are allergic to them. They are harmful to some people but not most people like myself.

You want a double standard where harmful GMOs don't require labeling but non-GMOs do require labeling. FAIL!

You are avoiding the point and it is clear for all to see. Peanuts should be labeled because some people are allergic to them. They are harmful to some people but not most people like myself.

since nobody is allergic to GM in particular and since there is no reason to think a person would be more likely to react badly to eating GM than eating non-GM, this is totally irrelevant.
We have REASON to think that some people react badly to eating peanuts. We have NO reason to think that some people react badly to eating food just because it is GM.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You scientists are too dangerous to be let on the loose, if you are not engaged in weapons programs you are modifying peoples foods for the sole benefit of greedy and corrupt corporations. You pose the biggest danger to mankind since Sarah Palin decided to run for office.

I suspect you don't realise that all crops, GM or otherwise, are mostly produced by scientists.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
He is not delusional at all. You think all new science is good and that anybody that questions your opinion is primitive and wants to cling to outdated views, but that is not reality.

Dolly the sheep proves that new science can be flawed and dangerous, yet you are a denier much in the same way you label man made global warming skeptics deniers.

Yo ...[text shortened]... n we prove you wrong you can't accept it. Give up the fight. You are just embarrassing yourself.

You think [/b]all[/b] new science is good

Nope.

and that anybody that questions your opinion is primitive and wants to cling to outdated views

Nope.

Now you are just trolling here.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Dolly the sheep had a shorter lifespan than her genetic origin and diseases that her genetic origin also did not have.

I know that. But why do you label that 'flawed science'?


By your logic cloning people would be fine and good until the flaws become apparent.
Where do you get that from?

You already admitted that some GMOs can be harmful which begs clear labeling, but you cannot admit labeling is justified. That is a clear contradiction and you are too stubborn to admit it. You lose!
The problem is, that despite a very long thread on the subject you still don't know what GMOs actually are, nor do you know what I am arguing for - despite I and others explaining it many times over.