BF2S Forums EE Chats 2015

You shouldn't eat anything with chemicals in it or ingredients than an 8 year old can't pronounce.

It's a super simple philosophy.

Jay wrote:

My political beliefs are divorced from how I feel about things like GMOs and that is my entire point. The scientific consensus is that they are perfectly safe.

Everyone who has been critical of them in this thread hasn't raised any points besides terminator seeds being unethical or Monsanto being evil or not messing with nature. These are all emotional arguments, not rational.

Frankly, the anti-GMO hysteria is a good object lesson in how religions are formed.

No they aren't emotional at all dude.  They are based on 100s of years of historical fact - corporations exploiting producers and consumers for their own benefit, to the detriment of the free market as a whole and the health and safety of the population, along with the destruction of nature. 

Who's being emotional?  You're trying to approach this from a scientific and libertarian perspective, when no one here is saying that as far as, "Are GMO foods ok to eat", GMO's aren't safe.  You keep pointing to the same argument (scientific consensus - GMOs are just as safe from a health perspective as 'naturally' occuring foodstuffs) as if that addresses the very real problem about lack of corporate ethics, which you conveniently forget to address because they don't fall in line with your libertarian "invisible hand guides the market!" nonsense.

You call yourself a rational thinker with a scientific approach but for some reason dismiss the decades upon decades of historical fact when it's in regards to corporations acting unethically, exploiting whatever they can for profit and destroying the environment.  You don't even acknowledge that evidence.  But we are the ones acting emotional because we are using historical evidence as a basis to form a viewpoint.

You pretending to have the high ground in this argument because you champion yourself as a rational, science-based thinker is probably the funniest thing about this conversation.  Just another example of Jay the hypocrite.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

I have nothing against Kim. K. There are a lot worse things people have done for fame and fortune than sleep with a bunch of black guys.

I like this for several reasons.
1. Will never get fat.
2. Our children will have skinny person genes.
3. I'm 5'9 and 140 lbs. I need something smaller than me. I was with a girl who was in an inch taller than me a little while back. I did not like feeling like the weaker one in the relationship.

I bet she has a such a busted grill.  But she won't get fat!

And yeah, triple post.  I win

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Several of my food scientists friends lament how idiotic the public is when it comes to ingredients in food. There are so many articles saying "Food has scary sounding chemicals in it!" and a fair amount, but not nearly enough, of actually educated people debunking that chemophobic claptrap.

I blame white women. Seriously, it all seems to originate with the yuppie yoga and spa lifestyle. Just look at all the marketing: pure young healthy natural organic super-foods etc. Couple vanity with a fear of death, and sell a product that includes those terms and you're making money. It doesn't even have to do what it says and they'll buy it just in case. See: anything homeopathy.

I hope you yell at your white female wife every day for perpetuating this.  In other news, here's a non-white woman offering up a rebuttal to another non-white woman's asinine views on the evil chemicals in food.

http://gawker.com/the-food-babe-blogger … 1694902226

Read that a few weeks ago. Made me happy.

And yes, I try to steer my wife away from all that shit but between her mom and her friends there's always something new. It's like playing whack-a-mole, and I'm tired of it and just pick my battles to fight against the really dumb ones.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

I have nothing against Kim. K. There are a lot worse things people have done for fame and fortune than sleep with a bunch of black guys.

I like this for several reasons.
1. Will never get fat.
2. Our children will have skinny person genes.
3. I'm 5'9 and 140 lbs. I need something smaller than me. I was with a girl who was in an inch taller than me a little while back. I did not like feeling like the weaker one in the relationship.

I bet she has a such a busted grill.  But she won't get fat!

And yeah, triple post.  I win

Braces and dental work can be bought. A smaller frame and superior genetics cannot.

I had sex with an asian a few times.

Eh

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

https://youtu.be/WlBiLNN1NhQ

I guess chuy disabled embeds

Nope you simply fail at internetz

Jay wrote:

scientific proof

Jay wrote:

scientific consensus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

There is no such thing as 'scientific proof', except in mathematics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific … c_proof.22
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th … ific-proof

The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes.  Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists.

While its possible to prove something is wrong, or unsafe, it is not possible to prove definitively something is right, or safe, unless you have decades or centuries of data and no conflicting evidence, even then its still a theory albeit an accepted one. You'd know this if you had the slightest smattering of scientific background.

Scientific consensus doesn't really mean much either, more so when the 'scientists' are paid by the people with the agenda, if they're claiming 'proof' then they're hacks.

As for GMOs, there is no consensus by any stretch that its completely safe to be releasing them into the environment, and you only care because to do so fits with the libertarian nonsense you keep harping back to.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6572130

Dilbert_X wrote:

That's great but that's not what we're talking about, food being typically dead for one thing.
Eating GMO's may be safe, and 12% of scientists say not, whereas no doubt 0.0001% would say eating non-GMO food is not safe.

The issue is whether releasing live GMOs into the environment is safe or not. No-one can predict the result, we won't know until we try it.

Eating a dead and cooked python is perfectly safe, releasing them into the local environment alive is fucking retarded.

Conflating two unlinked issues and claiming one proves the other is also fucking retarded, please stop.

And it seems your link is bullshit anyway.
http://www.independentsciencenews.org/n … organisms/

Change your argument when you see you've lost...

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

My political beliefs are divorced from how I feel about things like GMOs and that is my entire point. The scientific consensus is that they are perfectly safe.

Everyone who has been critical of them in this thread hasn't raised any points besides terminator seeds being unethical or Monsanto being evil or not messing with nature. These are all emotional arguments, not rational.

Frankly, the anti-GMO hysteria is a good object lesson in how religions are formed.

No they aren't emotional at all dude.  They are based on 100s of years of historical fact - corporations exploiting producers and consumers for their own benefit, to the detriment of the free market as a whole and the health and safety of the population, along with the destruction of nature. 

Who's being emotional?  You're trying to approach this from a scientific and libertarian perspective, when no one here is saying that as far as, "Are GMO foods ok to eat", GMO's aren't safe.  You keep pointing to the same argument (scientific consensus - GMOs are just as safe from a health perspective as 'naturally' occuring foodstuffs) as if that addresses the very real problem about lack of corporate ethics, which you conveniently forget to address because they don't fall in line with your libertarian "invisible hand guides the market!" nonsense.

You call yourself a rational thinker with a scientific approach but for some reason dismiss the decades upon decades of historical fact when it's in regards to corporations acting unethically, exploiting whatever they can for profit and destroying the environment.  You don't even acknowledge that evidence.  But we are the ones acting emotional because we are using historical evidence as a basis to form a viewpoint.

You pretending to have the high ground in this argument because you champion yourself as a rational, science-based thinker is probably the funniest thing about this conversation.  Just another example of Jay the hypocrite.

I didn't address it because it's pointless. It's like arguing religion. You believe corporations are evil by default. I see them as groups of people, some of which are sometimes led by unethical people, but for the most part are rather benign or even beneficent. Sort of like everything else in life.

By condemning corporations, you're condemning mankind (not in a Citizens United sense) and saying that the default state for everyone is to be bullying and exploitative. It's a very pessimistic way to look at the world and I tend towards optimism. We'll just never see eye to eye on the topic so I chose to ignore it.

No, I don't think corporations are evil by default.  Corporations aren't assigned a moral value - they just exist.  However, we can use overwhelming historical evidence of corporations exploiting natural resources and destroying the environment and shrinking and handcuffing customers and creating artificial barriers to market entry as part of many factors in deciding whether to support an industry at large.  And many of the large corporations that operate within the GMO industry (Monsanto, Cargill, Unliver to name a few) have historically terrible track records.  It's not me condemning corporations because i think they or people are inherently evil - it's me using historical fact to form a viewpoint. 

I think it's incredibly naive to think that corporations that have a history of exploitation will magically NOT be exploitative.

As far as mankind is concerned, I'm a firm believer in the idea that power corrupts.  I think the quest for money and power sometimes corrupts otherwise ethical and moral people.  And I think when there is a board or shareholders that make decisions on behalf of a company, it further removes personal responsibility for those actions.

Food shortages

They are building a building farm thing in NJ. It is supposed to be like 75 times more productive than a regular farm and use 90ish% less water. That's pretty cool.

Energy costs must be crazy and if the price of food bottoms out due to oversupply then it isn't worth it. It's nice to see new things in agriculture production though.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

They are building a building farm thing in NJ. It is supposed to be like 75 times more productive than a regular farm and use 90ish% less water. That's pretty cool.

Energy costs must be crazy and if the price of food bottoms out due to oversupply then it isn't worth it. It's nice to see new things in agriculture production though.

The guy that came up with the system i mentioned reduced an entire 16 foot long growing bed into a 4'x4' box. With the old way you're wasting water and fertilizer on the 3 feet of walking space between each 1 foot wide row. It increases the overall production by a factor of 4