Hybridization happens all the time, but these are not interchangeable terms.
Genes from different species are never 'spliced' in nature as they are frequently done in the lab.
The jury is still out on GMOs and much of the studies debunking the harm have been funded by the companies that sell the technology. There is still compelling evidence regarding the effects of GMO pollen on Bees and Butterflies, for example.
This is one of the biggest problems in our society today...Scientists can be bought to produce whatever data the sponsor wants.
The problem is lack of funding for independent studies.
no. the problem is that there is no law that forces people to report negative results. if you run 100 tests and 1 is positive, you can report that one and throw out the other 99.
this also pertains to why people believe in unbelievable things. the brain physiologically responds more to 'hits' than it does to 'misses'.
This is one of the biggest problems in our society today...Scientists can be bought to produce whatever data the sponsor wants.
The problem is lack of funding for independent studies.
So you agree that if a scientist is paid by someone who is looking for a specific outcome, they are likely to produce that outcome, factual or not. Especially if they know thet they won't be funded if they don't produce that outcome.
This is one of the biggest problems in our society today...Scientists can be bought to produce whatever data the sponsor wants.
The problem is lack of funding for independent studies.
So you agree that if a scientist is paid by someone who is looking for a specific outcome, they are likely to produce that outcome, factual or not. Especially if they know thet they won't be funded if they don't produce that outcome.
No, because any reputable scientist will put their work up for peer review.
If they figures don't add up and/or the methods aren't sound, it will be discovered, quickly.
Cons love to pretend that hundreds of thousands of scientists are on the take. It's hilarious.
This is one of the biggest problems in our society today...Scientists can be bought to produce whatever data the sponsor wants.
The problem is lack of funding for independent studies.
So you agree that if a scientist is paid by someone who is looking for a specific outcome, they are likely to produce that outcome, factual or not. Especially if they know thet they won't be funded if they don't produce that outcome.
No, because any reputable scientist will put their work up for peer review.
If they figures don't add up and/or the methods aren't sound, it will be discovered, quickly.
Cons love to pretend that hundreds of thousands of scientists are on the take. It's hilarious.
That's right....because scientist is the last bastion of integrity....or is that lawyers?
No, because any reputable scientist will put their work up for peer review.
If they figures don't add up and/or the methods aren't sound, it will be discovered, quickly.
Cons love to pretend that hundreds of thousands of scientists are on the take. It's hilarious.
That would assume that all scientists are reputable.
Anyone can potentially be corrupted. I think it would be ridiculous to suggest that hundreds of thousands of scientists are, but it does happen... that's why, for example, studies funded by Exxon have invariably told us that fossil fuels have no connection to climate/environmental issues.
Corporations and lobbying groups have been known to offer large amounts of cash to those willing to undermine studies that don't support their goals.
Sometimes it doesn't even have to happen that way. Clever and intentional misinterpretation of data can go a long way. As a colleague of mine is fond of saying, you can use statistics to prove anything.
Guys sorry I've been neglecting this thread bit I'm in turkey right now! Beautiful country. Viruses genetically modify the cells they are attacking to get them to create more viruses. Which I would say is genetic modification which happens in nature but I can see of that doesn't make you feel any safer.
Nonetheless, appeals to nature are a fallacy. Just because something occurs naturally doesn't make it "good" and vice versa. Putting humans on the moon isn't exactly natural but we did it...,
Nonetheless, appeals to nature are a fallacy. Just because something occurs naturally doesn't make it "good" and vice versa. Putting humans on the moon isn't exactly natural but we did it...
There's a fallacy right there. Why are the dams beavers build "natural" and the things humans build something else?
Suppose I were monstanto and I really wanted to sell my GMO strawberries.
So my scientist do some tests and uh-oh! They cause cancer. So I tell my scientist, hey just fake the results, no one will ever know!
So my scientist says "Hey boss, what if somebody else decides to test them, we'll be found out!"
But I say "Eh, what are the odds that of all the scientists in the world and all the controversy surrounding GMO foods that some other scientist that doesn't work for me will test them and publish honest results? Honestly, I think we're good here guys!"
That kind of conspiracy just doesn't hold up to me. I'm not going to bet everything and keep my fingers crossed that nobody else will test my food.
Now---- I don't think GMO foods directly harm humans but I wasn't specific. It is entirely plausible that GMO crops harm bees (who are insects), which might have a negative effect on humans. I have no idea, but that doesn't seem to far fetched. But that sort of indirect effect is the same as saying that cars are harmful to humans (because they pollute the air, which is bad for humans). I don't think that is splitting hairs, because you could create cars that don't pollute the air, and the problem goes away. Same thing with bees- create a GMO plant that doesn't harm bees and problem solved. But then the argument that GMOs are harmful to humans goes away.
There may be effects of GMO plants that weren't foreseen (like a negative impact on bees), just like Henry Ford didn't predict the impact of cars on the environment. But just because we run into unforeseen effects doesn't mean we should abandon the entire thing entirely. We don't need to abandon modern transportation because of pollution. We fix things and make them work. If GMOs have any negative effects then we should fix them and move on, not abandon GMOs entirely.
Finally, starving people in third world countries who could plant crops that resist insect plagues and disease (and therefore feed a village that might otherwise starve) don't give a *&^% about some bees. They Hungry!
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Gary said:
Finally, starving people in third world countries who could plant crops that resist insect plagues and disease (and therefore feed a village that might otherwise starve) don't give a *&^% about some bees. They Hungry!
Yet, the most "starving" country in our part of the world rejected Monsanto's oh-so-generous seed donation...
Finally, starving people in third world countries who could plant crops that resist insect plagues and disease (and therefore feed a village that might otherwise starve) don't give a *&^% about some bees. They Hungry!
Well, if there are no bees to pollinate their crops and their harvest fails they will certainly give a *&^% about some bees.
That's right....because scientist is the last bastion of integrity....or is that lawyers?
Again, "peer reviewed" is the operative phrase I'm using.
It has nothing to do with integrity, but everything to do with verification. Those are two different things.
There's also no evidence of mass conspiracy or mass compromises of integrity, but that doesn't seem to prevent integrity challenged people from making baseless accusations, and attempting to impugn the integrity of others.
That would assume that all scientists are reputable.
Anyone can potentially be corrupted. I think it would be ridiculous to suggest that hundreds of thousands of scientists are, but it does happen... that's why, for example, studies funded by Exxon have invariably told us that fossil fuels have no connection to climate/environmental issues.
Corporations and lobbying groups have been known to offer large amounts of cash to those willing to undermine studies that don't support their goals.
Sometimes it doesn't even have to happen that way. Clever and intentional misinterpretation of data can go a long way. As a colleague of mine is fond of saying, you can use statistics to prove anything.
I'm not presuming that because I was specific as to who I was referring to: "any reputable scientist", not "all scientists".
As to your Exxon example, I think that proves my point. Those studies have been peer reviewed (by way of comment and counter-study) and been rejected by 95+% of their peers.
I love all of you guys by the way. I wouldn't wasted time arguing with a bunch of strangers. But soulstrut is family which means I love you all enough to try to convince you how right I am.
7 fucking pages and not one person has said why anyone would believe that the Boston Marathon and Sandy Hook were staged? What is the reasoning behind believing those are staged.
7 fucking pages and not one person has said why anyone would believe that the Boston Marathon and Sandy Hook were staged? What is the reasoning behind believing those are staged.
Serious question, I would like to know.
How? Because folks will believe a lot of crazy shit. I remember in the summer of '86 walking into a party on the Oregon coast and the first quote I hear is, "The CIA is responsible for Len Bias' death..." Why the fuck would the CIA kill Len Bias? I am sure the old Hippy that uttered those words had a "logical" reason for his adamant belief that the CIA would decide to off the Boston Celtics #2 pick.
I suppose it fit into his paranoid view of the American government and the fact that the CIA was using drug money to fund black operations. It certainly lends a more dignified death as a "martyr" than just some super talented kid straight up ODing on cocaine.
As to why folks would believe that Boston or Sandy Hook was a false flag operation meant to distract from or push some public policy through, well you will have to find one the wing-nuts to walk you through the convoluted thought process that gets you there. Since I am not one of those folks, I can't do that for ya...
7 fucking pages and not one person has said why anyone would believe that the Boston Marathon and Sandy Hook were staged? What is the reasoning behind believing those are staged.
Serious question, I would like to know.
Of course it was asked.
It just wasn't answered by the Official Tinfoil Hat Of Soulstrut.
Evidently, way down deep, even he knows how utterly insane he is.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
To the question of: How could anyone think these were hoaxes?
Let me get this straight. You are so curious that you haven't even tried Google?
To the question of: How could anyone think these were hoaxes?
Let me get this straight. You are so curious that you haven't even tried Google?
If you do try Google you get a pretty clear picture of the dubious and half-witted origins of these "theories"... if they succeed at anything then it's at making the "zionist controlled mass media" look legit and reputable in comparison. Granted, I didn't go too deep with my research since the whiff of sparetime-militia-nutterness soon turned into the acrid stench of mean-spirited propaganda the source of which I would not care to find.
But hey, if you believe in this shit then more power to you. You should go and confront some of the victims and their families and explain to them that their blood didn't look real enough and point out how it didn't oxidize properly. Expose them for squirting around theatrical blood and tell them to quit the whining and to move on with their acting careers. Don't be a wimp. Stand up for your beliefs.
To the question of: How could anyone think these were hoaxes?
Let me get this straight. You are so curious that you haven't even tried Google?
If I can get an answer from someone who is in the know, I prefer that as my first option. But since your answers to the repeated questions of asking for any evidence as to why you believe what you believe has been QUIT BEING A DICK, I'M OUTTA HERE, I guess I'll try google.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
prof_rockwell said:
HarveyCanal said:
To the question of: How could anyone think these were hoaxes?
Let me get this straight. You are so curious that you haven't even tried Google?
If I can get an answer from someone who is in the know, I prefer that as my first option. But since your answers to the repeated questions of asking for any evidence as to why you believe what you believe has been QUIT BEING A DICK, I'M OUTTA HERE, I guess I'll try google.
There's that damned word again.
Well again, here's all the "evidence" I have right here: _______________________________.
You really think I'm personally sitting on unseen footage and unused vials of fake blood?
Seriously, formulate a conversation rather than an inquisition (granted Rockwell, you've been better than most in here which is why I even bothered to respond to you at all) and maybe I'll play along more than I am now. Maybe.
And for the record, I have no interest in trying to sway people who should already know how blatantly evil their government is that it's so. Y'all should already be there and if you aren't I actually see you as at least somewhat complicit.
To the question of: How could anyone think these were hoaxes?
Let me get this straight. You are so curious that you haven't even tried Google?
If I can get an answer from someone who is in the know, I prefer that as my first option. But since your answers to the repeated questions of asking for any evidence as to why you believe what you believe has been QUIT BEING A DICK, I'M OUTTA HERE, I guess I'll try google.
There's that damned word again.
Well again, here's all the "evidence" I have right here: _______________________________.
You really think I'm personally sitting on unseen footage and unused vials of fake blood?
Seriously, formulate a conversation rather than an inquisition (granted Rockwell, you've been better than most in here which is why I even bothered to respond to you at all) and maybe I'll play along more than I am now. Maybe.
And for the record, I have no interest in trying to sway people who should already know how blatantly evil their government is that it's so. Y'all should already be there and if you aren't I actually see you as at least somewhat complicit.
To paraphrase: "quit being a dick, I'm outta here"
To the question of: How could anyone think these were hoaxes?
Let me get this straight. You are so curious that you haven't even tried Google?
If I can get an answer from someone who is in the know, I prefer that as my first option. But since your answers to the repeated questions of asking for any evidence as to why you believe what you believe has been QUIT BEING A DICK, I'M OUTTA HERE, I guess I'll try google.
There's that damned word again.
Well again, here's all the "evidence" I have right here: _______________________________.
You really think I'm personally sitting on unseen footage and unused vials of fake blood?
Seriously, formulate a conversation rather than an inquisition (granted Rockwell, you've been better than most in here which is why I even bothered to respond to you at all) and maybe I'll play along more than I am now. Maybe.
And for the record, I have no interest in trying to sway people who should already know how blatantly evil their government is that it's so. Y'all should already be there and if you aren't I actually see you as at least somewhat complicit.
So Harvey, I keep asking the same question but it's because I don't really think I have been given an answer, but I will try again.
I stated that belief in pink unicorns is irrational, and I think you would agree.
I then states that the reason that belief in pink unicorns is irrational is because there is no evidence that pink unicorns exist.
This is the part that I think you would disagree with. But if you don't think that belief in pink unicorns is irrational becuase of the lack of evidence, then what exactly makes it irrational?
I'm using pink unicorns as an example, but you could replace any non-evidence based belief here (the moon is made of cheese, the earth is flat, etc) and the argument does not change.
So again, the simple questions is this. If beleif in "pink unicorns" is irrational, what makes it irrational?
Comments
what he said.
The problem is lack of funding for independent studies.
no. the problem is that there is no law that forces people to report negative results. if you run 100 tests and 1 is positive, you can report that one and throw out the other 99.
this also pertains to why people believe in unbelievable things. the brain physiologically responds more to 'hits' than it does to 'misses'.
So you agree that if a scientist is paid by someone who is looking for a specific outcome, they are likely to produce that outcome, factual or not. Especially if they know thet they won't be funded if they don't produce that outcome.
No, because any reputable scientist will put their work up for peer review.
If they figures don't add up and/or the methods aren't sound, it will be discovered, quickly.
Cons love to pretend that hundreds of thousands of scientists are on the take. It's hilarious.
That's right....because scientist is the last bastion of integrity....or is that lawyers?
That would assume that all scientists are reputable.
Anyone can potentially be corrupted. I think it would be ridiculous to suggest that hundreds of thousands of scientists are, but it does happen... that's why, for example, studies funded by Exxon have invariably told us that fossil fuels have no connection to climate/environmental issues.
Corporations and lobbying groups have been known to offer large amounts of cash to those willing to undermine studies that don't support their goals.
Sometimes it doesn't even have to happen that way. Clever and intentional misinterpretation of data can go a long way. As a colleague of mine is fond of saying, you can use statistics to prove anything.
It's not proof of anything.
The IRS investigated applicants of all political persuasions. It's their job.
No conservative groups were denied approval. At least one liberal group was.
You have swallowed a Fox fantasy whole. Did it taste like chicken?
Nonetheless, appeals to nature are a fallacy. Just because something occurs naturally doesn't make it "good" and vice versa. Putting humans on the moon isn't exactly natural but we did it...,
... Or did we??!!!! Muahahahahaha
There's a fallacy right there. Why are the dams beavers build "natural" and the things humans build something else?
So my scientist do some tests and uh-oh! They cause cancer. So I tell my scientist, hey just fake the results, no one will ever know!
So my scientist says "Hey boss, what if somebody else decides to test them, we'll be found out!"
But I say "Eh, what are the odds that of all the scientists in the world and all the controversy surrounding GMO foods that some other scientist that doesn't work for me will test them and publish honest results? Honestly, I think we're good here guys!"
That kind of conspiracy just doesn't hold up to me. I'm not going to bet everything and keep my fingers crossed that nobody else will test my food.
Now---- I don't think GMO foods directly harm humans but I wasn't specific. It is entirely plausible that GMO crops harm bees (who are insects), which might have a negative effect on humans. I have no idea, but that doesn't seem to far fetched. But that sort of indirect effect is the same as saying that cars are harmful to humans (because they pollute the air, which is bad for humans). I don't think that is splitting hairs, because you could create cars that don't pollute the air, and the problem goes away. Same thing with bees- create a GMO plant that doesn't harm bees and problem solved. But then the argument that GMOs are harmful to humans goes away.
There may be effects of GMO plants that weren't foreseen (like a negative impact on bees), just like Henry Ford didn't predict the impact of cars on the environment. But just because we run into unforeseen effects doesn't mean we should abandon the entire thing entirely. We don't need to abandon modern transportation because of pollution. We fix things and make them work. If GMOs have any negative effects then we should fix them and move on, not abandon GMOs entirely.
Finally, starving people in third world countries who could plant crops that resist insect plagues and disease (and therefore feed a village that might otherwise starve) don't give a *&^% about some bees. They Hungry!
Yet, the most "starving" country in our part of the world rejected Monsanto's oh-so-generous seed donation...
https://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/06/11/10000-haitians-march-against-monsanto-terminator-seed-donation/
http://www.naturalnews.com/029222_GMOs_Haiti.html
Well, if there are no bees to pollinate their crops and their harvest fails they will certainly give a *&^% about some bees.
Again, "peer reviewed" is the operative phrase I'm using.
It has nothing to do with integrity, but everything to do with verification. Those are two different things.
There's also no evidence of mass conspiracy or mass compromises of integrity, but that doesn't seem to prevent integrity challenged people from making baseless accusations, and attempting to impugn the integrity of others.
I'm not presuming that because I was specific as to who I was referring to: "any reputable scientist", not "all scientists".
As to your Exxon example, I think that proves my point. Those studies have been peer reviewed (by way of comment and counter-study) and been rejected by 95+% of their peers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/05/17/97-percent-of-scientific-studies-agree-on-manmade-global-warming-so-what-now/
.
Because there were plentiful reports that he died of kidney failure in 2001.
Serious question, I would like to know.
I don't remember any reports, just speculation.
There are videos of him discussing the 2004 US presidential elections among other events from years later, at least as far as 2007.
How? Because folks will believe a lot of crazy shit. I remember in the summer of '86 walking into a party on the Oregon coast and the first quote I hear is, "The CIA is responsible for Len Bias' death..." Why the fuck would the CIA kill Len Bias? I am sure the old Hippy that uttered those words had a "logical" reason for his adamant belief that the CIA would decide to off the Boston Celtics #2 pick.
I suppose it fit into his paranoid view of the American government and the fact that the CIA was using drug money to fund black operations. It certainly lends a more dignified death as a "martyr" than just some super talented kid straight up ODing on cocaine.
As to why folks would believe that Boston or Sandy Hook was a false flag operation meant to distract from or push some public policy through, well you will have to find one the wing-nuts to walk you through the convoluted thought process that gets you there. Since I am not one of those folks, I can't do that for ya...
Of course it was asked.
It just wasn't answered by the Official Tinfoil Hat Of Soulstrut.
Evidently, way down deep, even he knows how utterly insane he is.
Let me get this straight. You are so curious that you haven't even tried Google?
Wimp answer.
If you do try Google you get a pretty clear picture of the dubious and half-witted origins of these "theories"... if they succeed at anything then it's at making the "zionist controlled mass media" look legit and reputable in comparison. Granted, I didn't go too deep with my research since the whiff of sparetime-militia-nutterness soon turned into the acrid stench of mean-spirited propaganda the source of which I would not care to find.
But hey, if you believe in this shit then more power to you. You should go and confront some of the victims and their families and explain to them that their blood didn't look real enough and point out how it didn't oxidize properly. Expose them for squirting around theatrical blood and tell them to quit the whining and to move on with their acting careers. Don't be a wimp. Stand up for your beliefs.
Which is why he needs a gun. He's even afraid of his own vapid thoughts.
If I can get an answer from someone who is in the know, I prefer that as my first option. But since your answers to the repeated questions of asking for any evidence as to why you believe what you believe has been QUIT BEING A DICK, I'M OUTTA HERE, I guess I'll try google.
There's that damned word again.
Well again, here's all the "evidence" I have right here: _______________________________.
You really think I'm personally sitting on unseen footage and unused vials of fake blood?
Seriously, formulate a conversation rather than an inquisition (granted Rockwell, you've been better than most in here which is why I even bothered to respond to you at all) and maybe I'll play along more than I am now. Maybe.
And for the record, I have no interest in trying to sway people who should already know how blatantly evil their government is that it's so. Y'all should already be there and if you aren't I actually see you as at least somewhat complicit.
To paraphrase: "quit being a dick, I'm outta here"
So Harvey, I keep asking the same question but it's because I don't really think I have been given an answer, but I will try again.
I stated that belief in pink unicorns is irrational, and I think you would agree.
I then states that the reason that belief in pink unicorns is irrational is because there is no evidence that pink unicorns exist.
This is the part that I think you would disagree with. But if you don't think that belief in pink unicorns is irrational becuase of the lack of evidence, then what exactly makes it irrational?
I'm using pink unicorns as an example, but you could replace any non-evidence based belief here (the moon is made of cheese, the earth is flat, etc) and the argument does not change.
So again, the simple questions is this. If beleif in "pink unicorns" is irrational, what makes it irrational?