Is liberalism becoming more anti-intellectual?

[dead0man]

There's an entire major political party in the US that denies climate change.

Don't lecture me about anti-intellectualism.

who is lecturing you?

"Liberals", as a group isn't anti-intellectual, but there are many that are.  Most anti-GMO stuff comes from the left, the same with anti-nuclear power.  The "gender" issue...really any time a field has both biology and social sciences together the left is often there to put to limits on it.

[dead0man]

yes yes guys, conservatives aren't "becoming" anti-science, they already were....perhaps start a thread about it instead of dropping your whataboutism in here?

The question on the table has nothing to do with that.  And the answer to it is "yes, some of them".  You can think that's perfectly ok because the other side is often anti-science too if you want.  I think that's pretty funking stupid though.

[dead0man]

Well Beet thanks you Adam, an easy win for blue Beet.

..but I want to play too.

What part of the GMO fearmongering got to you?  Please say "because monocultures are bad", I don't think we've done that one here yet (or if we have, not very good).  If it's just the one Crabby likes (we just don't know, more study needs to be done, ya can't be too safe!) save your breath and search through past threads.

[dead0man]

Well Beet thanks you Adam, an easy win for blue Beet.

..but I want to play too.

What part of the GMO fearmongering got to you?  Please say "because monocultures are bad", I don't think we've done that one here yet (or if we have, not very good).  If it's just the one Crabby likes (we just don't know, more study needs to be done, ya can't be too safe!) save your breath and search through past threads.

Show me the independent studies then.   

before I waste my time, tell me true, will it change your mind if I show you studies showing their safety?  Or will you nit pick, dodge and weave or just never come back, continuing on with your ignorance.


'cause it seems to me if you care about this issue you would have Googled by now and found out on your own.  So I assume you've seen the science and still came to the other conclusion....probably because the people you assume are telling you the truth really really REALLY hate Monsanto and thus you do to.

So have you decided already?

[dead0man]

? I support GMO crops?

sometimes, but you're way softer on it than I remember

You must be logged in to read this quote.

do you want this for all new foods or are GMOs special?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

there is nothing stopping farmers from using their own seed now (they can even purchase new seed like this...they don't though....want to guess why?) and seed companies were operating under this model long before GMOs

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I must be missremembering, my bad.  Let Adam know though, k?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

the last few times I've hoe'd this row have been elsewhere and for some reason "monoculture:how bad it is and why the GMO companies invented it are all evil" have kept coming up.  Of course it's not bad (or at least not not good....what?) and existed long before GMOs.

[dead0man]

link-Cornell

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[dead0man]

Yeah, that was unfunkingbelievable and will no doubt be fixed by a higher court. 12 people in a jury don't know more than scientists/science shouldn't be decided in a court room.

[dead0man]

I think the main issue is what you're basically implying here: the big issue isn't GMO crops, but agriculture in general.

indeed.  Many of the complaints about GMOs have little to do with them and have everything to do with how we do modern agriculture.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

countries shouldn't pay farmers, markets should.  Like all other producers of things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know enough about all that to properly discus it (like that ever stopped me before! or stops anybody that is anti-GMO from talking out their ass).  I know monocultures are neither inherently good nor inherently bad.  I know farmers have been buying "terminator seeds" for a long time.  I know yields are higher than they've ever been (and higher than anywhere else on the planet).  I know we're using less and safer herbicides than ever (and less and safer than anywhere else on the planet).  Sure, we probably grow too much corn and we certainly shouldn't be subsidizing it.  It (too much and subsidized) does make food cheaper, and that's great news for poor people, but maybe food would be even cheaper without the subsidies...we'd certainly get more back in taxes or that money could be used by another wing of the govt.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

but the thing is, conventionally bred crops are infinitely more likely to have negative side affects (Torie?) because we don't know what the mutations are exactly.  We know EXACTLY what's been changed in GM crops, and nothing extra is changed.  I still think it should be "tested", but not as rigorously as the more "randomly" bred foods.....do we even still do that?  Why?