[Kyanos]

TerminX, on 25 February 2015 - 04:05 AM, said:

Given the choice between food that was modified by scientists who have an understanding of what they're doing and are flipping specific switches in the genetic code to achieve a desired effect and the "forced mutation" radiation bombardment techniques that have been used for decades, I would take the GMO stuff. It's just a better way to achieve some of what has been going on for a long, long time.

If I was given a choice between a firing line and a gas chamber, I'd choose the firing line. Killing political opposition has been going on for a long, long time.

Seriously though, you are not given the choice in this debate. You do eat GMO foods. Both kinds.

[TerminX]

Robman, on 25 February 2015 - 04:33 AM, said:

The farmer across the road had a tank of atrazine, they had a spill and then it rained hard. You could see where the flow of diluted atrazine went killing a swath of grass 3 meters wide for approx 100 meters until it led right into the pond in our back yard.

It killed all the life in the pond, My dog at the time liked to swim in the pond and he did so without me knowing right after this spill.

3 months later my dog had lymphoma, tried to fight it but only succeeded in prolonging the inevitable for one extra month. It killed my dog. He was not even 5 years old and healthy as an ox beforehand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------
Atrazine is a herbicide of the triazine class. Atrazine is used to prevent pre and post-emergence broadleaf weeds in crops such as maize (corn) and sugarcane and on turf, such as golf courses and residential lawns.

It is one of the most widely used herbicides in US[2] and in Australian agriculture.[3] It was banned in the European Union in 2004 because of persistent groundwater contamination.[4]

As of 2001, atrazine was the most commonly detected pesticide contaminating drinking water in the United States.[5]:42 Studies suggest it is an endocrine disruptor, an agent that may alter the natural hormonal system in animals.[6][7] In 2006 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that "the risks associated with the pesticide residues pose a reasonable certainty of no harm",[8] and in 2007 the EPA said that atrazine does not adversely affect amphibian sexual development and that no additional testing was warranted.[9] The EPA opened a new review in 2009[10] that concluded that "the agency’s scientific bases for its regulation of atrazine are robust and ensure prevention of exposure levels that could lead to reproductive effects in humans."[11]

The EPA review was criticized,[2] and atrazine's safety remains controversial.[2][7][12][13]

Sounds like the same contamination risks associated with things like drilling for oil (or that retarded fracking fad).

Anyway, nice pictures of tumor rats. Too bad they're from a study that was panned by the scientific community due to lack of evidence and questions over the validity of the results. Some of the specific concerns related to the breed of rat used being prone to spontaneously develop tumors on its own, a control group size of less than a dozen rats of each sex, no photos of the control group being shown, etc. The study was later retracted.

Since you hate Hendricks so much, here's respected professor emeritus Bruce Chassy from his university weighing in on this particular study:

Quote

The original Séralini paper was rejected for many reasons. Perhaps the most important of these was that the design of the study and the described methods for data collection were fatally flawed in a number of ways. No amount of rewriting or excuses for faults can make the data whole again. When the data are faulty, the experiment must be repeated with proper design and methods.

Food and Chemical Toxicology and Elsevier have acted poorly throughout this affair. It is difficult for experts to understand why Food and Chemical Toxicology published the paper since it is exceedingly challenging to find an expert peer-reviewer who cannot find numerous flaws in the paper. The journal then consumed more than a year to retract the paper.

Among the several reasons for retraction that Food and Chemical Toxicology failed to cite was the unethical use of animals in experiments which the Committee on Publication Ethics states is a reason for retraction.

Séralini now states that the research was not a cancer study. If that is true, then there was no reason not to euthanize animals when tumors were first detectable. There was nothing to gain or learn. This is unethical treatment of animals.

Drek, on 25 February 2015 - 02:57 PM, said:

If I was given a choice between a firing line and a gas chamber, I'd choose the firing line. Killing political opposition has been going on for a long, long time.

Seriously though, you are not given the choice in this debate. You do eat GMO foods. Both kinds.

Yes, we all eat both kinds--and the new kind are better than the irradiated mutations we've been fed for decades. They aren't a bad thing.

[Robman]

What you have there just says they threw it out for using animals...
They tested the effects of modified organisms on animals? How dare they! Let's just force it out to the human public, they can be the guinea pigs.
That's much more politically correct.

They are a bad thing. What was wrong with natural? Other than it couldn't be controlled and people could never claim their food is killing them.

And you see, it's not that I hate Hendricks. I enjoy the programming he does and the site he has for these build games. But if the guy is going to be considered smart, than he better understand the whole picture.

Even if GMO was to be considered, I would want to know every little minute detail of what has gone on with the modified organism I'm eating.
But hey, good luck even getting proper labeling. Even then I'd be mighty wary of it, providing you even get told the truth.

The big picture is: Humans are directly manipulating DNA now, let's see how this unfurls because it's not a good idea.

The chemicals sprayed and used make their way into the ecosystem, not to mention killing a shitload of insects instantly.

GMO is surrounded in secrecy, lawsuits and is immoral. There was never a problem with our natural food to begin with.

Hey, pass this bill, but you won't be allowed to read it until you pass it.

"I did not have sexual relations with this gmo"

eyesys is not izlahmick.

fluoride is good for you.

The government is created and maintained for the people, by the people. When the government gets controlled by corporate and special interests and grows out of control large, becomes a tyranny. The people fear the government now. Much accelerated in the 1920-30's. The gov doesn't fear the people (liberty). The matrix was a metaphor and I have a rageboner.

The gov is completely transparent? That's classified.
Record cold temperatures, Global warming

"The people we are fighting today, are the people we funded "20 years ago"."

[Kyanos]

TerminX, on 25 February 2015 - 03:43 PM, said:

Yes, we all eat both kinds--and the new kind are better than the irradiated mutations we've been fed for decades. They aren't a bad thing.

Why do you argue for them?

What makes any "thing" bad?

Where did the Monsanto family get its start?

[High Treason]

You do realize that rice, natural rice, contains arsenic don't you Robman?

Funny, I don't see you complaining about that.

[Robman]

And apple seeds contain cyanide.


Your point is?
Why you turning weird on me HT?

[Mblackwell]

Quote

...even the most rigorous epidemiological studies suffer from a fundamental limitation. At best they can show only association, not causation. Epidemiological data can be used to suggest hypotheses but not to prove them.

[Mark]

From what I remember, injecting the DNA changing material into the seeds does nothing until an "activator " is introduced. The worry by some scientists is the risk that the activator may also trigger changes to the cell structure of the people or animals that eat it and that there has not been enough serious study to prove if its harmful or not.

Activator and trigger. This could be a Mapster discussion.

[High Treason]

The number of the beast! Muahahahaha! Tempted to make a sock account so I can make it stay there.

Anyway, I've been trying to fix my Zenith. I have gotten it to work with a 4GB CF Card, the battery still works too. The motherboard needs new capacitors, they are leaky, bulgy and making the system a little unstable until it gets warm, I wanted to hold off doing it but one exploded today when I plugged the Null Modem cable in for Interlink... Probably not good.



POWERRR!

Edit: Almost forgot;

[Kyanos]

Mblackwell. said:

...even the most rigorous epidemiological studies suffer from a fundamental limitation. At best they can show only association, not causation. Epidemiological data can be used to suggest hypotheses but not to prove them.

interesting read.
http://www.nytimes.c...o-eat.html?_r=0

Quote

Uncertain science should no longer guide our nutrition policy. Indeed, cutting fat and cholesterol, as Americans have conscientiously done, may have even worsened our health. In clearing our plates of meat, eggs and cheese (fat and protein), we ate more grains, pasta and starchy vegetables (carbohydrates). Over the past 50 years, we cut fat intake by 25 percent and increased carbohydrates by more than 30 percent, according to a new analysis of government data. Yet recent science has increasingly shown that a high-carb diet rich in sugar and refined grains increases the risk of obesity, diabetes and heart disease — much more so than a diet high in fat and cholesterol.

we ate more grains GMO

[Kyanos]

rich in sugar

a topic of its own. Anyone read, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks And Jews?

[Wienerhole]

TerminX, on 25 February 2015 - 03:43 PM, said:

Since you hate Hendricks so much...

Humbug and Hagglejive.

[Mblackwell]

The problem isn't that the grains are GMO, the problem is the grains provide little nutrition, particularly when refined.

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominy

How natives ate corn.

[Kyanos]

Mblackwell, on 25 February 2015 - 07:33 PM, said:

The problem isn't that the grains are GMO, the problem is the grains provide little nutrition, particularly when refined.

My point has nothing to do with american obesity. I accuse GMO foods of being responsible for birth defects. A GMO seed will not produce a fertile seed. A GMO feed human will not produce a fertile human. Amirite? Would you give 2 shits?

[Robman]

TerminX, on 25 February 2015 - 03:43 PM, said:

Since you hate Hendricks so much.

Hokum and hogwash!


Let's have a look at how the weeds we lace our land with chemicals to kill are becoming resistant to said chemicals.
You see, you can't stop nature but we sure can try another science bandaid that will only make things worse.

The same as we need oxygen to breathe(created mainly by plants/trees), we should be in harmony with nature.
Humans are trying to dominate nature and we are foolish. Sorry, the assbackwards human hating globalists are trying to dominate nature ( and humanity.)

These people desecrate for the sake of desecration.

" I don't like round eggs, they don't stand up easily and I can't stack them... I guess we should bio-engineer some square eggs!"
Don't like or want square eggs? Well let me just pay off/kill or politically assassinate the opposition and you'll never see a round egg again.

des·e·crate
"treat (a sacred place or thing) with violent disrespect; violate."

[Lunick]

[Radar]

The U.S. needs GMOs because we live in a country of over 300 million people. It's the only way we can feed everybody. You will generally find less GMOs in countries with less people. We wouldn't use it if we didn't need to. Natural food tastes so much better.

Either way, life expectancy and quality of life is higher in the U.S. than it was say 50 or 100 years ago. And this is after the rise of GMOs, vaccines, microwaves, fluoride water, and every other advancement some fear. Obviously we're doing something right.

What the heck does "natural" mean anyway? Did we actually create anything? Anything we can do to a plant to modify its genetic structure is possible because nature allows it.

[Robman]

Brony-Aur Stomp, on 26 February 2015 - 06:46 AM, said:

The U.S. needs GMOs because we live in a country of over 300 million people. It's the only way we can feed everybody. You will generally find less GMOs in countries with less people. We wouldn't use it if we didn't need to. Natural food tastes so much better.

Either way, life expectancy and quality of life is higher in the U.S. than it was say 50 or 100 years ago. And this is after the rise of GMOs, vaccines, microwaves, fluoride water, and every other advancement some fear. Obviously we're doing something right.

What the heck does "natural" mean anyway? Did we actually create anything? Anything we can do to a plant to modify its genetic structure is possible because nature allows it.

Flawed on so many levels, not sure if I want to even waste the time.

The same train of thought brought this gem my way:


-------------------
Flutter on...

“Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.” – Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, 1952

[Radar]

You could try using that time to focus on the flaws in your own arguments instead.

[Wienerhole]

Do not question The Holy Growth!!!

[Wienerhole]

Brony-Aur Stomp, on 26 February 2015 - 06:46 AM, said:

The U.S. needs GMOs because we live in a country of over 300 million people. It's the only way we can feed everybody. You will generally find less GMOs in countries with less people.

It's like India doesn't exist to you. Not that India and similar nations are targets to aim for either... they play their own role in this dialectic.

That said... You get more of what you pay for, and we pay people for having children without any means to support them.

Brony-Aur Stomp, on 26 February 2015 - 06:46 AM, said:

Either way, life expectancy and quality of life is higher in the U.S. than it was say 50 or 100 years ago.

Quality of life? By who's value system? How many of those extra years are being spent in public school, prisons, multiple jobs just to make ends meet, retirement homes, on government welfare just sitting around watching TV, etc?

It's worth remembering who *taught* you that life expectancy and more importantly... "quality of life" is higher. Pharaoh needs you to believe.

Brony-Aur Stomp, on 26 February 2015 - 06:46 AM, said:

Obviously we're doing something right.

Yes... "we're" getting more bang for our buck. No longer burning out the slave population in 20 years... we can extract 40-60 years and THEN leave them to die alone. But at least they've got quality shows to watch to forget just how empty their existence really is.

The goal was to get a population to love their servitude, or at least so incapable of questioning it they think it "has to be this way". You're swimming in it.

But never forget... it's not anyone's fault... the SYSTEM makes them do it. For our own good of course... not at all to manufacture slave labor justifications: http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=28869467

[Radar]

A force much stronger than apathy is fear. Why do you fear? Don't you have control over your own life? And if you don't, how will fear help you?

We all value what we're conditioned to believe in. No one has an exception to this. Oh well this is life.

[Wienerhole]

Brony-Aur Stomp, on 26 February 2015 - 08:24 AM, said:

A force much stronger than apathy is fear.

A farce much stranger than arrogance is foolishness.

Fear is part of sensing the world in order to interact back with it.
Apathy is disconnection from sensing in order to surrender accountability.

Do you really think it's "fear" that motivates people like me to put a giant public target on my head... knowing what historically happens when doing so?

Brony-Aur Stomp, on 26 February 2015 - 08:24 AM, said:

Why do you fear?

Why do you check for traffic before crossing the street?

Brony-Aur Stomp, on 26 February 2015 - 08:24 AM, said:

Don't you have control over your own life?

Depends on which part you're asking about.

Brony-Aur Stomp, on 26 February 2015 - 08:24 AM, said:

And if you don't, how will fear help you?

How does fear of being stolen from help you?

Brony-Aur Stomp, on 26 February 2015 - 08:24 AM, said:

We all value what we're conditioned to believe in.

Clearly not all of us.

Brony-Aur Stomp, on 26 February 2015 - 08:24 AM, said:

No one has an exception to this. Oh well this is life.

Except for the exceptions.

[Robman]

Homework assignment everyone:

Spend atleast 1 year intentionally looking for the "bad side" of everything discussed. Not only searching by way of the internet, but world observation, human interaction, books, videos and whatever other medium.

Then come back and state your case.

[Hendricks266]

CharlesT, on 24 February 2015 - 01:32 PM, said:

So public school is a perfectly fine place to teach BDSM, golden showers and shit play, non-intercourse real incest or full intercourse incest roleplay?

There is no need to enumerate all sexual possibilities. My point is that teaching consent would be "teaching a man to fish".

Robman, on 26 February 2015 - 07:22 AM, said:

Flawed on so many levels, not sure if I want to even waste the time.

The same train of thought brought this gem my way:

My point is that no matter what label you slap on something, it is not limited to just that thing. Sexual activity is part of overall health and wellness, both mentally and physiologically, regardless of whether you produce offspring or not.

[Robman]

Turn on the TV anytime of day and count how many times a pair of tits are flashed in your face.

Ms Magazine was funded by the cia.

It's like nobody bothers to do any searching at all, they just love to bitch.

“Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.” – Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, 1952

Maybe you just need a topic with some lube, war on drugs perhaps?

Hendricks266, on 26 February 2015 - 09:30 AM, said:

My point is that teaching consent would be "teaching a man to fish".

Sounds more like the punchline to a joke... do you even get it?

[Radar]

Maybe I'd take you seriously if you didn't live in Canada. You complain about the CIA and the U.S. government but you don't even live here.

[Robman]

Brony-Aur Stomp, on 26 February 2015 - 09:56 AM, said:

Maybe I'd take you seriously if you didn't live in Canada.

What flavour of response would you like? I have many.

[Radar]

Robman, on 26 February 2015 - 09:59 AM, said:

What flavour of response would you like? I have many.

One where you stop instigating and become a productive member of the build game community.

[Robman]

Brony-Aur Stomp, on 26 February 2015 - 10:03 AM, said:

One where you stop instigating and become a productive member of the build game community.

I've maintained an Sw website for 16 years, created lots of sw maps and incase you haven't looked in the sw cpb thread, there's been lot's of recent activity.

I'm not the one instigating. I am merely presenting information. Those who care to look into the topics at length will do so.
There will also be the ones who provide blind opposition. Spend some good time researching the topics guys, that's what we're saying.

You've filled your reply limit from me today.