Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is reductio ad Hitlerium in its purest form. Hitler was a vegetarian, should therefore vegetarians be pilloried? The Nazis took bits and bobs of various political and social theories to justify their scapegoating. Incidentally the Nazis were pretty equivocal about Christianity - there was a movement among them towards a form of neo-paganism. They were anti-Catholic as Catholicism wasn't German enough for them. At a fundamental level they represented a social reaction against Social Democracy, Bolshevism, and Trade Unionism which could be used to bolster a segment of the German Industrialists who feared the Left. They'd use any old argument to further their aim of destroying independent unions and the left in Germany. Their science was the science of Orwell's Big Brother - it has little to do with the science of laissez faire capitalism, which has it's own pro-business distortions, and even less to do with the genuinely unbiased science I think all of the posters here would like to see.
Hitler was a mad scientist high on the Darwinian theory of evolution, its demonstrable that he was no more a Christian than you, for a Christian is one who adopts and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. It was the Darwinian theory of evolution as I cited directly from his book which formed the catalyst for his murderous traits and megalomania. S ...[text shortened]... t up Humy my man like the USA sucked up all those Nazi rocket scientists! ouch that gotta hurt!
Originally posted by humyLighten up, he's just winding you up.
I have already covered this twice now and you just ignore my posts yet again; -WHICH evolutionary theory? biological Darwinism or social Darwinism? Because they are NOT the same thing.
If biological Darwinism, that is what Darwin scientifically discovered and who would NOT have supported social Darwinism.
If social Darwinism, that is the religious belie ...[text shortened]... ut that his theory either is or supports social Darwinism -which it logically isn't and doesn't.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe only thing I want is that GM products should be declared so i have the choice of buying it or buy something GM free. Nothing else. I want to know when I am in the super market or elsewhere. That
Well why don't you simply tell us the real reason you don't want to buy GM products and that should resolve the whole issue.
I have been accused of being anti science because of this opinion.
I have been accused of having irrational fear because of this opinion.
I have been accused of being ignorant because of this opinion.
And the opinion I have is nothing more than the fact that I want information of what I buy.
This is a low rhetorics. I often find this rhetorics in the Spiritual Forum, and I wouldn't think that this would be found here in Science Forum. I'm surprised. It makes me to compare it with the methods of Sovjet to hide information from the public. Isn't there an open society in USA? Is it so as closed as in Sovjet? Of course not. So why is the question about GM so infected?
The title of this thread is "Europe about to embrace GM?" and I give my answer "Not as long I cannot chose between GMO and GMO-free products."
I don't want to discuss what is bad or and what is good about GM. That's outside the topic i want to discuss. I don't want a Spiritual Forum like marathon debate between fundamentalists and free thinkers. I don't want to bring Spiritual Form kind of rhetorics into the Science Forum.
Because Science is open for debate. Not to hide information, like they are secrets, from the public.
So I repete my opinion: "I want to knwo what is GM and not, on the label, so I can chose what I want to buy and not." What's wrong with that?
Originally posted by FabianFnasThat is simply a lie. You quite clearly stated several times that you would not buy a GM product. You also refused to explain why.
The only thing I want is that GM products should be declared so i have the choice of buying it or buy something GM free. Nothing else.
And the opinion I have is nothing more than the fact that I want information of what I buy.
This is simply not true. You don't just want information, you want very specific information - and wanting that information tells us that you are unscientific and irrational.
I don't want to discuss what is bad or and what is good about GM. That's outside the topic i want to discuss.
It is only outside the topic you wish to discuss because discussing it would betray the fact that you are being unscientific and irrational - or more likely, you just need an excuse for not buying american products.
I don't want a Spiritual Forum like marathon debate between fundamentalists and free thinkers. I don't want to bring Spiritual Form kind of rhetorics into the Science Forum.
Then stop bringing them. It is you that keeps being irrational here.
Because Science is open for debate. Not to hide information, like they are secrets, from the public.
So lets debate it. The only person hiding secrets here is you. Why do you not want to buy GM products. Tell us.
So I repete my opinion: "I want to knwo what is GM and not, on the label, so I can chose what I want to buy and not." What's wrong with that?
What is wrong is that putting GM on the label will not really tell you anything of value about the product. It will however stir up your irrational fear of anything GM.
You don't want to know what GM was made. You don't want to know how this will affect you. You just want to know if it is GM or not so you can irrationally choose not to buy it.
3 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungeven that would be wrong for that would imply to certain irrational ignorant minds that the food is labelled is safer or better in some way simply because it is non-GM -which it isn't. Whether the food is GM is completely irrelevant! Even though you wouldn't literally be telling the those irrational minds actual lies, in effect you would be because the effect would be exactly the same.
Label the non-GM foods. Everybody's happy. Right?
I would say; don't feed irrational ignorant minds with irrelevant information that they have the delusion of thinking is relevant else you would only fuel that ignorance!
2 edits
Originally posted by humyOr instead you could trust people to make informed decisions. (please note the use of the term informed, it is etymologically linked with information) Indeed it is rather ironic that your reason for not having GM's clearly labeled is not logical in itself but amounts to some kind of vain assertion that people will act out of fear and ignorance when the very stance that you are promoting is intended to keep them ignorant of whats actually in their food.
even that would be wrong for that would imply to certain irrational ignorant minds that the food is labelled is safer or better in some way simply because it is non-GM -which it isn't. Whether the food is GM is completely irrelevant! Even though you wouldn't literally be telling the those irrational minds actual lies, in effect you would be becaus ...[text shortened]... ion that they have the delusion of thinking is relevant else you would only fuel that ignorance!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWould you be in favour of labeling food that was produced by Jehovah's Witnesses?
Or instead you could trust people to make informed decisions. (please note the use of the term informed, it is etymologically linked with information) Indeed it is rather ironic that your reason for not having GM's clearly labeled is not logical in itself but amounts to some kind of vain assertion that people will act out of fear and ignorance when ...[text shortened]... stance that you are promoting is intended to keep them ignorant of whats actually in their food.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhat if? all foods share the same basics, starches, sugars etc etc The point is that Jehovahs Witnesses might have a reputation for excellence and its important for people that they know that the food they eat has been produced to a certain standard using the finest quality ingredients.
What if it was otherwise indistinguishable from other food?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI see. Is there a limit to the amount of irrelevant information that should be put on food packaging? What about the favourite colour of the farmer? Or the song that topped the Croatian charts when it was produced? Or maybe consumers would want to know whether or not I took a dump on the day their potatoes were harvested? They have to be informed to make an informed decision, after all.
What if? all foods share the same basics, starches, sugars etc etc The point is that Jehovahs Witnesses might have a reputation for excellence and its important for people that they know that the food they eat has been produced to a certain standard using the finest quality ingredients.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is not an irrational fear, it could possibly be a very rational fear. Until further studies are done people have a right to know if GMOs are in their food.
It is if what you want to know about the product is based on and irrational fear. You don't really care about what is different about the product, you only care about whether or not it is GM. That is unscientific and irrational.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/11/us-gmo-pigs-study-idUSBRE95A14K20130611
http://foodrevolution.org/blog/former-pro-gmo-scientist/
I find it interesting that some on this thread are using the term "anti-science" which is misleading at best. Cloning people is illegal in some countries, is that anti-science too?