DiverseSanctuary
Active Member
but all apply to my side of the argument not just most sorry my glass if full and yours is half empty and it doesn't take a peehole to see that
Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013
- Thread starter DNAprotection
- Start date
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
and what do you propose this document proves?
there certainly was no proof of any of the claims from this thread, nor of the anti-GMO lobby in general, merely a symposium on "ethics" featuring the catholic clergy (not my first choice on scientific research or ethics, thank you) and some members of the "Unit on Environmental Ethics" at the University of Stellenbosch (second best uni in africa, 454th best in the world, take that how you may)
a Prof Rawlings of the microbiology dept at stellenbosch gave a report which apparently makes clear wht i ben saying all along (despite holding no advanced degrees myself)
"In his Viewpoint on Genetically Engineered Organisms, Professor Rawlings offers the opinion that a general debate is of little value and that sense can only be made of for-and-against arguments on a case-by-case basis. As such, there are cases of virtually zero risk associated with substantial benefit, like the genetic engineering of bacterium to produce human insulin. In other cases organisms are constructed that express selected characteristics, such as herbicide resistance in crops or greater growth potential in animals which carry varied degrees of uncertainty regarding impacts on environmental and human health. The point is made that organisms are not harmful simply because they are transgenic, but should be assessed based on the confidence in techniques on the one hand, and objective risk assessment regarding potential impacts on the other. However, public perception of GMO's is critical insomuch as it affects both consumers' and investors' behaviour." ~ source, your own PDF file.
zounds. looks like your own document recommends that GMO's not be binned as a class, but instead careful thought research and critical thinking should win the day.
DiverseSanctuary
Active Member
WANT MORE SCIENCE HOWS THIS dozens of scientists from around the world joined us in ISIS to form the Independent Science Panel ... and produced a report, The Case for a GM-Free ...A WORD DOCUMENT FOR YOU **http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/resurgence/212/cover09.doc
DiverseSanctuary
Active Member
" [FONT="]Genetic modification is based on an obsolete theory and hence ineffective and dangerous [/FONT] [FONT="] [/FONT] [FONT="]Genetic engineering of plants and animals began in the mid-1970s in the belief that the genome (the totality of all the genetic material of a species) is constant and static, and that the characteristics of organisms are simply hardwired in their genome. But geneticists soon discovered that the genome is remarkably dynamic and 'fluid', and constantly in conversation with the environment. This determines which genes are turned on, when, where, by how much and for how long. Moreover, the genetic material itself could also be marked or changed according to experience, and the influence passed on to the next generation.[/FONT] [FONT="]The best thing about the human genome project is to finally explode the myth of genetic determinism, revealing the layers of molecular complexity that transmit, interpret and rewrite the genetic texts [3]. These processes are precisely orchestrated and finely tuned by the organism as a whole, in a highly coordinated molecular 'dance of life' that's necessary for survival. [/FONT] [FONT="]In contrast, genetic engineering in the laboratory is crude, imprecise and invasive. The rogue genes inserted into a genome to make a GMO could land anywhere - typically in a rearranged or defective form, scrambling and mutating the host genome - and have the tendency to move or rearrange further once inserted, basically because they do not know the dance of life. That's ultimately why genetic modification doesn't work and is also dangerous."[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
yep. science isnt fair.
everyone with an opinion, no matter how shaky and unreliable should have equal weight, and evidence is just a tool of oppression used by the evil establishment scientists to keep you down.
science doesnt work by playground rules, and the personn who makes a claim that is disproved by evidence doesnt get to demand that everybody else share the wrongness just to be nice.
when youre wrong, youre WRONG, and claiming the science was stacked against you merely illustrates that you are WRONG.
cannabineer was able to change my mind on CO2 buildup inn the atmosphere with EVIDENCE despite my initial steadfast disbelief.
even uncle buck was able to convince me that i was wrong, and the silly light bulb ban DID pass the congress (despite a bizarre 4 year delay in implementation), so no, i am not intractable. provide evidence and you can change my mind.
DiverseSanctuary
Active Member
yes because the research does win look at my last post for more science. Lol! Yet, mainly it points out that ethics is a major issue here in this issue.
DiverseSanctuary
Active Member
WANT MORE SCIENCE HOWS THIS dozens of scientists from around the world joined us in ISIS to form the Independent Science Panel ... and produced a report, The Case for a GM-Free ...A WORD DOCUMENT FOR YOU **http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/res...12/cover09.doc
" [FONT=&]Genetic modification is based on an obsolete theory and hence ineffective and dangerous [/FONT] [FONT=&]Genetic engineering of plants and animals began in the mid-1970s in the belief that the genome (the totality of all the genetic material of a species) is constant and static, and that the characteristics of organisms are simply hardwired in their genome. But geneticists soon discovered that the genome is remarkably dynamic and 'fluid', and constantly in conversation with the environment. This determines which genes are turned on, when, where, by how much and for how long. Moreover, the genetic material itself could also be marked or changed according to experience, and the influence passed on to the next generation.[/FONT] [FONT=&]The best thing about the human genome project is to finally explode the myth of genetic determinism, revealing the layers of molecular complexity that transmit, interpret and rewrite the genetic texts [3]. These processes are precisely orchestrated and finely tuned by the organism as a whole, in a highly coordinated molecular 'dance of life' that's necessary for survival. [/FONT] [FONT=&]In contrast, genetic engineering in the laboratory is crude, imprecise and invasive. The rogue genes inserted into a genome to make a GMO could land anywhere - typically in a rearranged or defective form, scrambling and mutating the host genome - and have the tendency to move or rearrange further once inserted, basically because they do not know the dance of life. That's ultimately why genetic modification doesn't work and is also dangerous."[/FONT]
DiverseSanctuary
Active Member
I never claimed it was stacked against me. You did dr. Fraud is it? I only pointed out the facts
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
i am familiar with mae-wan ho and her "organization" of one, called ISIS. i find her arguments unconvincing for several reasons
1) she makes sweeping declarations not supported in the scientific journals
2) her claims are published solely in her blog, which is disguised as a scientific foundation
3) her claims are quite scattershot in their lack of focus
4) she makes assertions with no experimental data attached, merely hypothesis
5) she makes claims which are invariably quite sensational, and then offers to sell her books and other trinkets. like alex jones with an advanced degree.
6) her blog (as she is the primary author and contributor calling it a foundation is dubious) makes extensive use of inline references, but these references invariably go to another of her own works.
read the citations in your own document, she cites herself as the proof of her claims pretty much exclusively.
sometimes the madman shouting in the wilderness is NOT a prophet, sometimes he is just nuts.
seriously just pick a single issue, and lay out evidence to support it.
DiverseSanctuary
Active Member
You obviously know more than all the scientist mentioned with-in these 85 pages and none of the evidence is suitable or their reports are suitable for you. Nor do they all collaborate each others findings according to you. It must be nice to be smarter than all those doctors, scientist, ...
No we are not to believe in Eugenics or that there is a take over of our food and seed supply happening... For Profit and Control of a few...
We are to believe in a Hippie conspiracy of Hippie Tree Hugging Doctors and Scientist... who have all concocted lies against Big Corps... To stop the mutation so they might gain what exactly from it all... ??? rolmafo!!!!!
DiverseSanctuary
Active Member
TY! for your theory I am still laughing
DiverseSanctuary
Active Member
sorry I am still hysterically rolling in laughter TY! too funnyDiverseSanctuary
Active Member
Have you noticed the more you all talk the more votes we get??? lmao!!!
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
No Frank its funny because its very much the same 'arguments' doc and you and other SHDT members have continually made, the only problem for yall is that it avoids addressing the never ending 'fact' that ends it all for yall...you and especially doc lol still dont have all the numbers to lifes equations and you certainly dont even know exactly what the numbers you do have mean...of course when I say you I also mean Monsanto et al...so you dont have anywhere near all the numbers but you want to start making equations that all our lives will depend on...is that about right doc, Frank et al? Ok then I think we all get it.
Oh and tell your keen doc that the ballot proposition would ban all living GM cannabis from cali, no genetically engineered cannabis would be allowed to be grown in cali if the people of cali put this proposal into law. It would also ban all other living GE/GM organisms from cali.
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
doc why never address or respond to my many posts which go to point out the unavoidable and game stopping facts that make your posts (such as quoted above) obsolete, irrelevant and even mute and moot lol etc...
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
doc, try putting forward a challenge that hasn't already been met and crushed at least a dozen times in this thread lol...
I love the smell of you and Frank in the morning...smells like victory lol...
[video=youtube;bPXVGQnJm0w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPXVGQnJm0w[/video]
ps doc you do know that its not about what we know, its about what we dont know that ends the game for ya right? also doc...the 'yes' voters on the poll are on your team lol it means they want GE/GM cannabis...not the other way around as you have made reference to...the no voters are on my team
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
doc all the proof anyone should need on this issue is self evident. Why you cant see or understand such is beyond me.
I've tried to explain many times in my own words yet to no avail with respect to you and the SHDT.
There are others who say it far better and more condensed than I, but it can most simply be related to the notion of Occam's Razor and is well described by Doni and his gang...while you only acknowledge the 'known known's' (and even that's not yet settled), others like the 'no' voters on this thread wisely and appropriately put more weight on the rest of the explanation which goes to what we don't know because its what we don't yet know that is the wild and possibly fatal card, so at this point we need still learn all the cards in the game as well as the rules of the game...we are drowning in unknown unknowns in that respect.
That alone should be the red flag for us all...we should learn first then apply, measure twice and cut once you might say...
[video=youtube;_RpSv3HjpEw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_RpSv3HjpEw[/video]
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
despite NUMEROUS attempts to engage in rational discussion with you, your preference is to make what you mistakenly believe are clever comments, then you deflect to a completely different subject of post a stack of non-sequitors and opinion pieces from the lefty eco-press.
you still have not provided a SINGLE shred of evidence to support your claims that:
GM feed caused livestock die-offs.
GM corn causes Bee Colony Collapse Syndrome
GM organisms are dangerous to those who consume them
GM organisms are dangerous to native plants
GM organisms cause disease in people or animals
UC Davis and Monsanto teamed up to make GM fusarium leaf wilt to kill off non-GM cannabis
that ANYONE is even makinng GM cannabis
that GM fusarium (or any GM pathogen) is being made to target cannabis by ANYONE
instead of trying to be clever and making pop cultuure references why dont you take even ONE of those topics and provide evidence for it from any source not impeached by their own endlessly self-referencing citations.
you can do this yourself through your fake lawyer persona, or through your fake farm manager sockpuppet. i dont really give a shit.
when you make wild claims you must have good proof to support it or your just a shitty cut rate internet version of Baron Munchhausen, singing your own praises through the megaphone of your own imaginary brilliance.
of course i expect youll revert to your usual tactic when confronted with a direct challenge to your faulty assumptions and specious claims, two bit word salad prose, and a video clip from a 70's sitcom.
ill do you one better.
I do hereby dub thee Mister Furley, and heres your theme song
[video=youtube;6f3UFzsBnRI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f3UFzsBnRI[/video]
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
rule number one for sock-puppeteers, dont defend your sock puppets yourself. it makes your sock puppetry obvious.
as to the "meat" of your latest post, it is not "self-evident" to anyone but you.
the lack of evidence of harm is not proof of harm, and posting a clip of donald rumsfeld indulging in his love of absurdity proves even less than the lack of evidence.
your ad hominem attacks by proxy through rummy, attempting to imply that any who doubt your wisdom are just like rummy himself; clinically brain dead, is transparent and clownish.
for all you bluster about your supposed lawyer credibility you sure suck at making a point.
prop up your claims with evidence that supports those claims in specific or stuff it.
a real lawyer would know, you cant convict monsanto for murder by making unsupported claims that they beat their dog or cheated on their wife. even perry mason couldnt make that crap stick, and you aint no perry mason.
PS, word on the street is, Jack Tripper was making time on a cute waitress down at the Regal Beagle last week. the smart money suspects Jack may not be as gay as initially thought.
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
lol oh doc its hard to know where to begin because your arguments are like that of one who has not read the thread.
First though what is all your talk of 'sock-puppets' etc...not sure what you mean? I can only guess that your trying to say that anyone who disagrees with you is apparently my 'sock-puppet'? That could be the weakest thing you've put forward to date...ok well its right up there with your par lets say.
Also why would you assume that I am a lawyer?
I never claimed such.
Finally, doni says it all doc, even you should be able to grasp what he's saying, it ends the 'debate' if there ever was one...your reaction to being dispatched with such prejudice is not unlike if the head of a snake is severed, the head can and will still bite and the body can continue to strike out in reflex even into the next day...so once again here is the blade that severs your head doc no matter what reflexive responses still remain lingering in your nerves system of disconnected logic:
"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
Donald Rumsfeld
I understand how degrading it must feel to be finally slayed by a Rumsfeld quote of all things, but as I have stated before everything is relative and relevant, even that which you have put forward in irrelevance to the 'debate' still holds relevant in the challenge of this thread as I have also explained in the conclusions page #70...but at least you did respond to me doc, thats progress...first admitting you have a flawed analysis (like in aa) is the first step to a healthier perspective
