My reply comment: Define interest. 3rd-hand? Do you have firsthand knowledge? You do not. You have 2nd at best. You dodge points. Did she lie? She was and is there. You are not. I trust her reports on the issue. You either do or dont. Since you are insisting that her reports are false, how do you explain them other than that you consider her reports as deliberately false? conterfactual according to those who hold your position concerning the tens of thousands who were there who say otherwise. no implication? Thats if one is foolish enough to live by a standard where the preponderance of evidence is always illogical. Regardless, I didnt say that the suicides prove GMO food is bad, now did I. I didnt allege it or suggest it or imply it. The subject was GMO harm to people. The suicides fall under that, and you know that but continue the same bad pattern of selectivity (retroactively redefining the subject to narrow it to the exclusion of my overarching points), which bad pattern Id already pointed out to you but youve continued on unchanged. The connection with food is suspicion due to a long history of bad doings. Monsanto has a bad history. They do not appear to have repented and changed their ways. To ignore that is foolish. If they do some things that are clean, it should not lift all suspicion concerning everything they do. If you think otherwise, youre promoting a degree of recklessness (and you are). So what is your ideological bent? Are you a libertarian capitalist? You speak against neoliberal economics but you side with the big corporations being very poorly regulated. Whats your position on all the nanoparticles being introduced into the environment before testing? Is that wise in your view, or would you have thoroughly tested first? Should dioxins have been introduced into the environment? You didnt address that when I raised the issue before. Are you an environmentalist, or do you side with the likes of James G. Watt, who was the Secretary of the Interior under Ronald Reagan? Was the Ronald Reagan administration good for the environment in your view? Do you think that Jimmy Carter was right that all new chemicals should first be tested and cleared before being introduced into the environment? If you dont answer my questions, I wont be interested in continuing a dialogue with you. I havent asked anything even remotely unreasonable here, and each question is designed to further the discussion to get at the root cause for why we disagree: whose approach is the sounder. Lastly, where do you come down on Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Posted on: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 00:01:48 +0000