1. New forums are up at http://www.vgf.com/phpBB3. You will need to use the forgot password feature to be able to login. If you do not receive the password reset e-mail, send me a PM.

GMO Skepticism

Discussion in 'Politics, Philosophy, and Religion' started by I REALLY HATE POKEMON!, Dec 5, 2016.


    I REALLY HATE POKEMON! Goku lives on the Sun

    Jun 8, 2000
    California, U.S.A
    You say it is unnecessary to prove it is unhealthy but then immediately say it is necessary to do so (more or less) by providing evidence of flaws in research. How do we know the research is even conducted properly in the first place? It certainly wasn't for tobacco, and this is just tobacco all over again. The burden doesn't fall on doubters because nearly half the country doesn't even want that junk in the first place. Maybe you'll change your mind once it exceeds 50% for a majority (desire for organic foods is rising).

    You're not understanding that it doesn't need to be evidence against a new product. Tobacco, radioactive, and heroin products had evidence for them (the latter of which was pushed by Bayer) and now just add GMOs to the list. Why should we be guinea pigs for this junk? There's a history of selling dangerous things to people under the guise of health and I won't be fooled and nobody should be forced to disprove someone else's snake oil's value.

    If nobody is being forced then are you telling me that the poverty stricken can afford organic? They are forced to.

    Random Joes aren't in anyone's pocket. I'd trust my own lawyer for legal advice, not someone else's who is working in their interest and not mine. And no I'm not saying all scientists are bought, they probably aren't, but that doesn't mean they can't be wrong because, as I will keep hammering in, they have been before. Their track record is far from pristine so my concern is not unwarranted.

    Since we're becoming reliant on GMOs and chemicals I'm sure it wouldn't be easy to go 100% organic, but we shouldn't have even got to this point. For thousands of years humans didn't have GMOs and chemicals (but it actually dates back to thousands of years of use as well). It proves we can survive without them, especially today. Other countries ban them as well so it's obviously doable.

    Maybe we should, maybe we shouldn't, but pointing to another problem won't solve the one before us which has more concerned people with better arguments (presumably, based on what you said that 30% are making baseless claims) anyway.

    The same ones who were for radioactive products and heroin as medicine? Or better ones cuz it's '16 & Super Perfect Science now?


    But we don't need to go out of our way to get arsenic in our diet, we do need to seek out significant amounts of water and it is good for us. That's not a good comparison.

    Sure, sounds good.
    I am nobody

    I am nobody I am not mean spam Staff Member

    Aug 7, 2007
    No, you're misunderstanding. You don't need to show anything about GMOs, and even if you did, you'd have to explain why it was more likely that you'd discovered something hundreds (if not thousands) of other peer-reviewed papers missed than that you'd made a unique mistake.

    You're not going to be able to do that unless all of the research done so far is fundamentally flawed and therefore invalid. I'm suggesting you need to prove that, which is again a process independent of GMOs. It's the same thing you'd need to do if you wanted to cast doubt on any other widely accepted principle.

    If this is true, the flaws should be easy to find.

    Have you seen the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement? There's an almost unfathomable amount of money to be had from proving deliberate and harmful industry coverups. Why isn't anyone from a body of thousands of researchers coming forward to say "So and so suppressed our results!" with that as precedent? No company can outbribe what attorneys would offer you from the inevitable class-action suit, and you'd be a legend around the world.

    No, and I'm not going to support banning airplanes if chemtrails somehow gets to 50.01%. Blind belief that something is harmful is not enough to take action in the face of significant evidence that it is not. The burden does fall on doubters to prove that there is any legitimate reason for their doubt.

    Again, this doesn't prove your point any more than the fact that average people still believe so much superstitious nonsense about their health proves mine. You are correct, products need to be proven safe before being used, not unsafe before being banned. Thankfully, GMOs have already been proven safe to overwhelmingly majority of people qualified to make that judgement.

    As I said above, you still don't need to show GMOs are safe, just that that conclusion was reached prematurely. Your doubts must be justified, and you haven't attempted to do so beyond saying we've been wrong before.

    I've repeatedly said this is an issue with capitalism. You're fighting the wrong battle.

    But they have no or minimal understanding of biology and everything to gain financially from becoming the leader of an unfounded conspiracy movement. Corruption doesn't need to come from a corporation.

    Repeating myself only because you did: Having been wrong before is not evidence that someone is wrong again. Unless you're advocating never trusting anyone on anything, because we've all been wrong about something, you need a reason to doubt them in the current situation. You've provided none beyond appeals to the past.

    Never said we'd die. It's just not going to help the poor in the short term.

    Why are they better arguments?

    Only because water is used for more things in your body. Ultimately, too much or too little will kill you, regardless of whether we're talking about arsenic, water, oxygen, or anything else. My point remains that meaningful safety is relative to average consumption, and there is absolutely nothing that won't kill you if you go too far beyond that. 100% safety in all cases is unprovable, and in any case impossible.
    SKELETOR likes this.

Share This Page