It's pretty obvious when someone is using a wheel or fire.
But the wheel and the fire share the fundamental danger that people see in GMOs: they are a "pandora box", and "unforeseen consequences" could happen because of the "butterfly effect". People are afraid of what would happen if "artificial genes mix with the natural ecosystem". Well, I say: what would happen to a small tribe if it invents the wheel? The effects are unpredictable. It could - for one example - set in motion a chain of events that ultimately results in an industrial revolution, then the invention of atom bombs, then a nuclear catastrophe. In fact, the impact of inventing the wheel is _immensely_ greater than the impact of using GMOs.
In fact, if you are so scared of the butterfly effect, there is only one solution: advocate mass suicide, then set an example by killing yourself.
Their benefits are obvious.
The benefits of GMOs are obvious too:
1) Making plants that produce far more
2) Making plants that produce in soil and climate conditions where it was previously impossible
3) Making more nutritious plants (such as vitamin-enriched rice)
4) Making disease-resistant plants
The sky is the limit.
You have presented a fallacy of your own. It is not "Monsanto or organic". If you hate Monsanto, then you should try to get their patents revoked, not to ban GMOs.
Banning GMOs because you hate Monsanto is like banning computers because you hate Microsoft.
Here's a thought, reduce population growth instead.
This "original thought" exists at least since 1798 (when Malthus published his bullshit). And the elites have bought it.
Anyway, I don't think it is wise the castrate humanity's flourishing because some Luddites are scared of GMOs.
Oh, and vaccines. If you believe in this "butterfly effect" phobia, then you should absolutely freak out at the idea of mass vaccination.
Sure. You can always take an extreme position to prove your point. Who can argue against that?
The GP does make an excellent point. The domestication of animals, the invention of agriculture, the discovery of the wheel and of planned fire have made an _immensely_ greater impact on the ecosystem than GMOs. If you were there when the first man decided to make fire on purpose, would you scourge him?
Fear. You mean like asbestos? Cigarettes? Global warming?
No. Like "it is not natural so it must be EVIL!". You know, like those wackos who take herbs instead of industrialized pills.
How long do you want to wait to learn that GMOs damage the environment? Humans?
Developed countries demand testing and research before a GMO can be sold as food.
Thanks for the red herring.
The GP definitely makes a good point. Just like "haunted food must be labeled", forcing GMO labels would
1) Add costs - a farmer would have to cerfity his crop to be "natural" and that no GM pollen has fertilized his plants by accident.
2) Create unnecessary fear - "if the government mandates this stuff to be labeled, it must be dangerous"
3) Be motivated by unreasonable fear - in this case, "everything must be natural" Luddism
These new online Ubunt ufeatures don't help me, but they do not harm me either.
I wish Ubuntu success. I am a loyal fan.
Its also funny to note that install base of Ubuntu has taken a nose dive in the last year(two?). with mint taking up the slack.
You say this based on what?
Out of all my colleagues using Linux, one uses Debian, one uses Fedora, and all the rest use Ubuntu.
What makes you think Ubuntu's install base has "taken a nose dive"? Distrowatch click rates? Those are just interesting numbers, with poor correlation with actual install base.
Okay, then "marriage is between one man and one woman" based on what? If you say the Bible, you're not only wrong, you're injecting your beliefs into law.
Based on moral philosophy.
Also, even if we have religion-based opinions on law, it does not remotely mean that we are "forcing our religion on others". By your logic, whenever a DEM politican makes a law enforcing an environmental rule, he is "forcing environmental progressivism on others". We have the same right to make judgements based on religion that other people have to make judgements based on progressivism, feminism, etc.
Good for you, not for gays. Just for you, not for gays. You should really practice the Golden Rule and visit someplace where you're denied your rights to see what oppression feels like.
You unilaterally decreed that "redefining marriage" is a human right.
If you support that false "human right" for homosexuals but not for the practicers of incest or group marriage, then you are enormously inconsistent.
> "Like I said, I don't have time to pursue this, but rest assured I will fight tooth and nail against people like you who think government is a tool for enforcing your religious beliefs on everyone."
This was simply an empty ad hominem attack. No one is forcing other people in America to follow a religion they don't want.
> "Marriage as a civil institution crosses religious boundaries and you are on the losing side of history."
Ridiculous. I don't care one bit about the "losing side of history". I fight for what is good and just, instead of cheerleading for whatever is popular and politically correct.
So the best you got is ad hominem, sarcasm, and no logical arguments?
Will you please stop ad hominem attacks and actually respect logic?
I repeat: equating normal couples with same-sex pairs because the normal couple MAY practice buggery is like equating cow meat with poison because the meat MAY be poisonous.
Another example: by your logic, we should allow children to have driver licenses, because some adults MAY behave like children.
> "When you deny someone something that would make them happy, and doesn't affect your life at all"
Wrong premise. See below.
> "for no reason except that you don't want them to have it for your own personal religious reasons"
It is not just about religion. It is also about natural law.
> "then yes, you are. It's disgustingly selfish."
Oh, the people who lost their jobs in California to defend traditional marriage are "selfish"?
> "There is incest and group marriage in the bible. At some point, someone (in "your tradition") decided to "redefine" marriage at least before."
Can you possibly be serious? The bible also features a man killing his brother, yet no one says that the Bible supports fratricide. Please learn the difference between "describe" and "command".
> "There is absolutely no evidence that same-sex marriages are any more or less damaging to "society" than opposite-sex ones"
It gives tax benefits without any good reason; therefore it makes other people pay more taxes.
It forces people (health insurance companies, bead&breakfast owners, etc.) to recognize the "marriage" and have their sheets stained with blood and feces (in the case of the bed&breakfast owners).
It promotes a behavior which is intrinsically disordered and is associated with mental problems and lower life expectancy.
It forces orphanages to give children to same-sex pairs.
> I don't have time to pursue the finer points of this argument, but I strongly recommend you read this book [archive.org]
Absolutely irrelevant. Very few people defend punishing people who practice buggery. It is _precisely the opposite_. We are simply asking the State to refrain from forcing same-sex "marriage" on us (see above).
New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman