Anti-GMO 'Santo' movie

Or myself... although it would be nice to be able to sometimes.

Meanwhile, on the Oregon Anti-GMO Front....

RUN!!!



:rofl:arty:

 

As far as I know, there has never been a majority green government anywhere in the world. But correct me if I'm wrong. The problem with this is that their economic, environmental or social policies have never been implemented to a large degree and therefore never tested in the real world. As with other philosophies, they can sound good in theory but lack practicalities. The green success thus far has been to get some of their policies implemented by means of power sharing and giving votes in minority governments. They have never been responsible for the whole kit and caboodle of the running of government. This can lead to some speculating as the adequacy of minor parties and their ability to steer the country in a direction for the benefit of the majority. They have no proven record in government.

As for an open immigration policy, how would that work in reality? Do we just let everyone that wants to come here in? How would that effect our economic and social fabric? What about those poor refugees that don't have the money to get to Indonesia and are sitting in camps waiting. Do they get left behind while we take all boat and plane arrivals? There are approximately 44 million refugees worldwide. Do we welcome all of them with open arms?

There are no easy answers folks. I don't think the greens have all the answers either. Nobody does.

 

sorry I put this in the wrong thread. But I can't edit anymore?

 

Yes, it's not easy. And yes, the Greens do not have all the answers. Although, I do think they are heading in the right direction.

In reality, an open immigration policy is what we (Australia) had before we enacted the Immigration Restriction Act (C'wealth) 1901, otherwise known as the White Australia Policy. And for the most part - the attempted genocide of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and the demonisation of gold-rush era 'Asiatic' people aside - it worked pretty well. Pre-Federation Australian people (generally) shared the 'commonwealth', and we all pretty well much got along. We had to, we had no choice.

At present, our 'economic fabric' rates as one of the highest GDPs (per capita) on the planet. I don't know about you, but I'm certainly no millionaire. Yet I'd happily (indeed, regularly do) share a percentage of my income with others less fortunate. If I can do it, so can those that not only have millions, but billions (mind you, largely stolen from raping the Earth and exploiting its people). Despite being one of the richest countries in the world, Australia has a very poor record of philanthropy. Sure, there are one or two exceptions, but we could do a hell of a lot more.

The redistribution of Australia's 'commonwealth' (e.g. the profits from mining), is one of policies that the Greens have got right. The only reason people see it (indeed, they) as 'dangerous', is because they are greedy and do not want to share. It's a common enough trait among the human populace, but one that can be overcome through education.

Of course, the Greens (or any other 'party') are not the ultimate answer. Until such time as the people become fully informed and engage in the political process via a direct democracy, representative democracy will continue to provide us with a very poor second cousin. We get the type of government we allow. On the whole, Australian people are too well fed. We have forgotten what it feels like to go hungry (or fear for our safety). And we allow our ignorance (fuelled by political party slogans) to dictate our actions or mostly non-actions concerning immigration in general, and asylum seekers in particular. It's easier to say and do nothing (or worse, mindlessly bleat slogans such as 'stop the boats'), than it is to stand up and do something.

As such, an open invitation to 'do something':

https://forums.permaculturenews.org...logy-A-study-and-discussion-group-All-welcome!

 

I love the double standard and favouritism here

Well, let's examine THIS thread for a moment. I posted a news link on a newer Anti-GMO movie coming out. I didn't read or listen to the interview, but I posted a link to it for others to discuss. Admittedly, I hate GMOs. Modern Industrial Science shows no hint of respect for the informational content of DNA which they manipulate for their obsession with wealth. Many Geneticists are saying the same thing. They simply don't give a rat's back side and you already know that.

But then you came along and posted this link: https://permaculturenews.org/2013/08/...os/#more-10477

Now, I'm actually kool with that. It was a great post from the main Permaculture Institute which is against GMOs from what I've read and more about replication of Nature which real hardcore industrial science rejects and thumbs their arrogant nose at. The problem came when Mark Chesterfield as usual hijacks a thread infavour of Industrial Science with three junk links from cheezy websites of the usual pitbulls using the lying standard of personal attacks against the scientists and other researchers who conducted those studies which was the subject of your link.

This guy never reads this junk when he posts. He had no idea Dr Judy Carmen had answered those critics and the team posted them on a site for which she hired to post her work. As she stated, she's not an anti-gmo activist as they lyingly criticized. But that wasn't the worst of it. Your response to his posting these facilitated his usual obsession to hijack threads, hand wave for attention and demonize anything against his religious affirmations for industrial science. Here's what you said that set the ball rolling:

"The critiques you posted are making the original study's conclusions seem not too credible. Thanks."

And he is the translation of how it's taken. You apologized and practically groveled at his feet and begged his Lordship's forgiveness. Why ? You didn't post anything wrong and you also didn't even bother to call him on his usual inaccurate assertions. Nobody here seems to have the backbone to stand up to this self-promoting intellect for fear of being put down.

Now take a look at where this thread ended up which is what he wanted in the first place. Everyone has posted comments on their dislike of GMOs since your chastising. [which is fine] But then he continues to hijack each of those post by replying with a syrupy phony affectionate compliment for their post, but proceeds to gradually insert the pros of GMO talking points generally used by Monsanto and other underhanded Biotechs and preaches his religious sermon of there being no absolutes and who really knows the truth about GMOs. Seriously, the thread is now effectively ruined and he runs it which is what he was determined to do all alone and sadly, YOU gave him the green light.

Well isn't that the whole point, everyone is entitled to beliefs ? One of the main tenants of the Permaculture Institute which I read on the main website among other things is the part about Permaculture furthering spirituality. Personally, I don't agree with everyone's beliefs and i very rarely deviate from a few topics. I'm not political, so usually stay away from that, but on this subject of religion, why do you allow this man to promote his atheism [which is not a problem and none of my business] but allow him to denigrate and make fun of other members religious beliefs ? He is continually baiting Len to get a rise out of him and start a fight and you all do nothing about it. He continually roams the forum threads and inserts his philosophy after his bias perceives someone doesn't have his politically correct slant on the matter. He constant prosyletizes his religious affirmations on peer-review but then sarcastically criticizes real peer-review when it's put to his attention. Much of the junk he throws up he hasn't totally read, as he is prone to not totally read other members posts and jumps to slanderous conclusions. He accused me of calling his homosexuality as degenerate and I said no such thing. I don't care what is sexual preferences are. I was talking about Nonylphenols and their effects on the natural world as being degenerate because homosexuality in Nature is causing things which live in and around aquatic systems to go extinct. I also posted links and videos which are coming out more and more.

Industrial Science is killing this planet and with regards GMOs, it's his side's religious worldview which has infected the way science views nature as imperfect, flawed as a result of this dumb unscientific "Bad Designer" argument which has given Biotechs a green light to do what they view as nature as being less than perfect. Irrespective how anybody believes everything got here, I have never viewed nature as falwed and in dire need of improvement. I actually finished my opinion post on that here: A Paradigm Shift (revolutionary science) or More of the Same ?

This religious dogma infection science has is like a disease and it's spreading. It is doing nothing to unite and benefit humankind. If anything, this perverted viewpoint of Industrial Science has caused most of the major disconnection between Europe and the Third world Nations as I mentioned here: Shedding Some Light on Mankind's Most Asinine Philosophies

Thank you for reading and I apologize. But I am going to request now that you delete my account here. Again, thank you very much on this matter.


-Cheers



-

 

I know that GMO Blob in front of the movie theater scares me too!! Was it too much?

 

Oh Pak - you crack me up!

 

It'd be great if this were to spell the beginning of the end for Monsanto. But unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be the case .

When viewed across the previous decade, their stock levels (and volumes) still appear to be rather healthy:

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=MON

Oh, and the Seralini (2012) paper (and the study that preceded it) has been thoroughly discredited:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gilles-Eric_Séralini

 

When the monsanto protection act finishes in just over a month(30th September), we'll probably have a better view of it.

 

https://permaculturenews.org/2012/10/17/excess-cancers-and-deaths-with-gm-feed-the-stats-stand-up/

 

This video has a segment about how high nitrate levels turns crops toxic:

https://permaculturenews.org/2013/08/17/we-are-chlorophyll-managers/#more-10533

So I would tend to believe any positive information concerning gmo and roundup (any plant killer for that matter) is only to confuse and control the weak minded.

 

High nitrogen levels in any form are never a good thing, it's just one of the many ways we pollute.

I have found nothing good concerning GMO technology when it is used merely to survive a particular herbicide. I wouldn't necessarily say that people are weak minded, because it is confusing. We could just as easily find out that a lot of the anti-GMO articles are likewise meant to confuse(some of them are far fetched).

 

Yeah, that is fine. But the industry has a money motivation, then using the money to bend minds (market) these products. On the opposing side, their motivation is from a concern for obtaining higher nutrition food and the ecology. So we can choose sides, and you can choose the side of agri-business is alright by me (I don't think you are), but it is weird to have this debate on a Permaculture website.. Normally I am debating the NEOCONS and those who invest in these companies on non-ecologically minded forums.

 

Oh, did you watch that video I linked?

 

Thanks, Craig. Please note the date of the Saunders' article: 17 October 2012. Now note the dates of the numerous letters/papers/statements from the respected scientists/scientific organisations that refute the findings of the original study and which are cited in the RationalWiki article: most if not all post-date 17 October 2012. The peer review process is not perfect, as this case clearly shows. However, given enough time, good science eventually catches up. With much respect, Mark.