2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Djehutynakht » Wed Jul 15, 2015 5:04 am UTC

Private Policies are truly interesting places on a website.

Thanks for selling my personal info to third parties for fundraising, certain unnamed Presidential candidates. This has increased my trust of you.


Also, curse all those who don't have clear contact-info on their websites. Curse you all.
______________

Oh hey. Let's take a look at some of the illustrious lesser known candidates, (both past and present) according to the FEC:

http://www.fec.gov/press/resources/2016 ... m2nm.shtml

#4. Danny Google Aguilar

#57 Sydneys Voluptuous Buttocks

#59 President Emperor Caesar

#90 Crawfish Crawfish

#101 HRM Caesar Saint Augustine de Buonaparte (Emperor of the United States of Turtle Island)

#364 Ol' Savior

and of course

#391 Jack Sparrow.

User avatar
cyanyoshi
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:30 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cyanyoshi » Wed Jul 15, 2015 4:17 pm UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:Oh hey. Let's take a look at some of the illustrious lesser known candidates, (both past and present) according to the FEC:

http://www.fec.gov/press/resources/2016 ... m2nm.shtml

#4. Danny Google Aguilar

#57 Sydneys Voluptuous Buttocks

#59 President Emperor Caesar

#90 Crawfish Crawfish

#101 HRM Caesar Saint Augustine de Buonaparte (Emperor of the United States of Turtle Island)

#364 Ol' Savior

and of course

#391 Jack Sparrow.

For a second, I thought you were making a statement about Jeb Bush (who is currently #57), but it appears that the numbers have shifted a bit!

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jul 15, 2015 7:43 pm UTC

Cradarc wrote:BERNIE SANDERS

Okay, I'll leave now.


I just have two criticisms of Bernie Sanders

1) He opposes GMO crops
2) He opposes nuclear energy

No one is perfect, but those are two HUGE issues for me. And don't give me any of that "precautionary principle" bullshit; GMO foods are proven as safe as conventional food and likely safer long-term (also proven safer than Organic; every major e coli outbreak was linked to an organic farm). They are proven safe. Even if the US were to have the equivalent of a Chernobyl accident twice a year, that's still far fewer deaths and illnesses than from coal.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mathmannix » Wed Jul 15, 2015 8:06 pm UTC

I'm pretty sure all crops are genetically modified. Apples, watermelons, bananas, corn, carrots... not to mention cows, pigs, and chickens... all very different from their "natural" states two thousand years ago... or 50 years ago in many cases. OK, so scientists can do it faster in labs now, big whoop. No need for Chipotle to go all crazy.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:16 pm UTC

Yeah but it's scary now because we can do things that nature couldn't, injecting DNA from entirely different organisms. Except that nature already does that all the time. Also, humans? Turns out we have at least 141 genes that originated from bacteria and fungi. Does injecting an organism with human DNA make it human? Well, the e coli in your gut have your DNA, so if something that is "genetically part human" has the right to life, stop flushing the toilet.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:21 pm UTC

I don't have a problem with GMOs in general, I have a problem with what they are being used for. Specifically, making them herbicide resistant so we can drop an extra few shittons of herbicides on them and making them produce pesticides so all the pests become resistant and we have to increase the use of pesticides. That's about 90% of what GMOs are actually being used for today.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Qaanol » Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:25 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I just have two criticisms of Bernie Sanders

1) He opposes GMO crops

Citation needed.

I am aware that he supports allowing states to require labeling of GMO foods. Currently, the federal government is considering a law that would prohibit states from creating any such labeling standard, even if the people of a state want to have those labels.

CorruptUser wrote:2) He opposes nuclear energy

I am completely okay with that. If we are going to make a serious national investment in overhauling our energy infrastructure, why on earth would we waste time and money on something that requires the ongoing cost of a fuel obtained by mining huge amounts of ore, processing it with toxic chemicals to isolate the useful parts, and transporting it long distances across the country?

Even it were not radioactive, didn’t produce any waste but water, and could easily be utilized in small-scale distributed generators—in other words, even it were natural gas for fuel cells—it would still not be what we should aim for as a nation.

Not when we have a gigantic, ready-made fusion reactor that rises every morning, provides a gigawatt of power per square kilometer, accelerates the wind rapidly across the plains, and lifts vast quantities of water up into the mountains, all without any input from us. We just need to build the power takeoff units.

CorruptUser wrote:No one is perfect, but those are two HUGE issues for me. And don't give me any of that "precautionary principle" bullshit; GMO foods are proven as safe as conventional food and likely safer long-term

I recently saw an article about Bernie Sanders and GMO labeling that I think you might appreciate.

CorruptUser wrote:(also proven safer than Organic; every major e coli outbreak was linked to an organic farm).

Citation needed.

CorruptUser wrote:They are proven safe. Even if the US were to have the equivalent of a Chernobyl accident twice a year, that's still far fewer deaths and illnesses than from coal.

Citation needed.
Last edited by Qaanol on Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:42 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
wee free kings

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:28 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:I don't have a problem with GMOs in general, I have a problem with what they are being used for. Specifically, making them herbicide resistant so we can drop an extra few shittons of herbicides on them and making them produce pesticides so all the pests become resistant and we have to increase the use of pesticides. That's about 90% of what GMOs are actually being used for today.


Considering that glyphosate biodegrades pretty rapidly and doesn't spread, I don't see how it's a problem. As for pesticides, it replaces spraying and reduces the speed at which pests become resistant as it only affects the pests that attempt to eat the crops. And the ones that become resistant are actually weaker than regular versions (otherwise they'd acquire resistance without the pesticide). No to mention that by allowing things like wasps to live, it actually slows the spread of pesticide-resistant insects.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:45 pm UTC

Qaanol wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:I just have two criticisms of Bernie Sanders

1) He opposes GMO crops

Citation needed.

I am aware that he supports allowing states to require labeling of GMO foods. Currently, the federal government prohibits states from creating any such labeling standard, even if the people of a state want to have those labels.

CorruptUser wrote:2) He opposes nuclear energy

I am completely okay with that. If we are going to make a serious national investment in overhauling our energy infrastructure, why on earth would we waste time and money on something that requires the ongoing cost of a fuel obtained by mining huge amounts of ore, processing it with toxic chemicals to isolate the useful parts, and transporting it long distances across the country?

Even it were not radioactive, didn’t produce any waste but water, and could easily be utilized in small-scale distributed generators—in other words, even it were natural gas for fuel cells—it would still not be what we should aim for as a nation.

Not when we have a gigantic, ready-made fusion reactor that rises every morning, provides a gigawatt of power per square kilometer, accelerates the wind rapidly across the plains, and lifts vast quantities of water up into the mountains, all without any input from us. We just need to build the power takeoff units.

CorruptUser wrote:No one is perfect, but those are two HUGE issues for me. And don't give me any of that "precautionary principle" bullshit; GMO foods are proven as safe as conventional food and likely safer long-term

I recently saw an article about Bernie Sanders and GMO labeling that I think you might appreciate.

CorruptUser wrote:(also proven safer than Organic; every major e coli outbreak was linked to an organic farm).

Citation needed.

CorruptUser wrote:They are proven safe. Even if the US were to have the equivalent of a Chernobyl accident twice a year, that's still far fewer deaths and illnesses than from coal.

Citation needed.


1) I don't oppose the hiring of black people, I just think all food handled by black people should be labeled [/sarcasm]. Let's be honest about why people who want "gmo labeling" actually want the labeling.
2) Breeder reactors pretty much produce their own energy. And it's estimated to cost about $300/kilogram to harvest uranium from seawater, about enough uranium for $2.4m worth of electricity. And since the vast majority of people live near the coast anyway, there's very little transportation.
3)
One
Two
Three
4)
Coal kills 15,000 annually in US
Chernobyl disaster projected to kill a total of 4000

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Qaanol » Wed Jul 15, 2015 10:12 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:1) I don't oppose the hiring of black people, I just think all food handled by black people should be labeled [/sarcasm]. Let's be honest about why people who want "gmo labeling" actually want the labeling.

I’m glad you have the self-awareness to recognize when you are creating a straw argument. The next step is to notice yourself about to do it, and choose not to.

CorruptUser wrote:2) Breeder reactors pretty much produce their own energy. And it's estimated to cost about $300/kilogram to harvest uranium from seawater, about enough uranium for $2.4m worth of electricity. And since the vast majority of people live near the coast anyway, there's very little transportation.

Let me know when seawater extraction is price-competitive with tearing up the earth.

CorruptUser wrote:One
Two
Three

You used the word “every”—are you now claiming there have been exactly 3 major E. coli outbreaks ever?


Your first link does not say what you claim. It says that there are 15,000 coal-related deaths per PWh in the USA. Wikipedia tells me the USA produced just over 1.5 TWh from coal in 2013. That is 0.0015 PWh. Multiplying by 15,000 deaths per PWh gives a total number of annual coal-related deaths in the United States equal to… 22.5.
wee free kings

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jul 15, 2015 10:56 pm UTC

Spoiler:
Qaanol wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:1) I don't oppose the hiring of black people, I just think all food handled by black people should be labeled [/sarcasm]. Let's be honest about why people who want "gmo labeling" actually want the labeling.

I’m glad you have the self-awareness to recognize when you are creating a straw argument. The next step is to notice yourself about to do it, and choose not to.

CorruptUser wrote:2) Breeder reactors pretty much produce their own energy. And it's estimated to cost about $300/kilogram to harvest uranium from seawater, about enough uranium for $2.4m worth of electricity. And since the vast majority of people live near the coast anyway, there's very little transportation.

Let me know when seawater extraction is price-competitive with tearing up the earth.

CorruptUser wrote:One
Two
Three

You used the word “every”—are you now claiming there have been exactly 3 major E. coli outbreaks ever?


Your first link does not say what you claim. It says that there are 15,000 coal-related deaths per PWh in the USA. Wikipedia tells me the USA produced just over 1.5 TWh from coal in 2013. That is 0.0015 PWh. Multiplying by 15,000 deaths per PWh gives a total number of annual coal-related deaths in the United States equal to… 22.5.


I don't even know where to begin with you.

It's more or less obvious that the people pushing for GMO labelling are trying to restrict GMOs altogether. it's like the Tipper Stickers; the point of the label is not to inform people about possible dangers but to get places like WalMart to not stock it at all.

I'm not going to list every single case of e coli, those are just the first three. Sure, some e coli outbreaks might not be from organic farms, but its disproportionately high.

$300/kilo is 6 times the current price of uranium, but that's not the point. The point is that it's economically feasible if the price of uranium rises, and there is effectly an inexhaustable supply of it.

We use 4.7 petawatt-hours. So yeah, there was a mistake; that number should be closer to 70,000 deaths per year from coal.

User avatar
DaBigCheez
Posts: 837
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:03 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby DaBigCheez » Thu Jul 16, 2015 12:19 am UTC

The wikipedia link gave it in thousands of MWh (so, GWh). 1.58 PWh from coal, 4-4.7 PWh total. So about 23k/yr.
existential_elevator wrote:It's like a jigsaw puzzle of Hitler pissing on Mother Theresa. No individual piece is offensive, but together...

If you think hot women have it easy because everyone wants to have sex at them, you're both wrong and also the reason you're wrong.

User avatar
WibblyWobbly
Can't Get No
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby WibblyWobbly » Thu Jul 16, 2015 12:28 am UTC

Qaanol wrote:Your first link does not say what you claim. It says that there are 15,000 coal-related deaths per PWh in the USA. Wikipedia tells me the USA produced just over 1.5 TWh from coal in 2013. That is 0.0015 PWh. Multiplying by 15,000 deaths per PWh gives a total number of annual coal-related deaths in the United States equal to… 22.5.


CorruptUser wrote:We use 4.7 petawatt-hours. So yeah, there was a mistake; that number should be closer to 70,000 deaths per year from coal.


I think you both need to recheck your figures. 4.7 PWh is total electricity consumption in the US per year. Unless you're telling me coal generates 15,000 deaths per year from electricity generated by hydroelectric plants, it might be a good idea to look at how much electricity is generated from coal.

That said, the Wikipedia article Qaanol linked lists electricity production in thousands of megawatt-hours. So that 1,581,115 figure from 2013 means 1.581 billion MWh, or 1.581 PWh, which means about 23,700 deaths in 2013.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Qaanol » Thu Jul 16, 2015 12:38 am UTC

Yep, I missed the word “thousands”. My mistake.

I don’t have time to investigate how the death rate of 15,000 per PWh was derived, but regardless I think we’re all on the same side here:

Coal, and other fossil fuels, are a serious problem. The question is what we should invest in to replace them. United States Senator Bernard Sanders wants renewables.

And for GMOs, did you read the article I linked?
wee free kings

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jul 16, 2015 3:03 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Cradarc wrote:BERNIE SANDERS

Okay, I'll leave now.


I just have two criticisms of Bernie Sanders

1) He opposes GMO crops
2) He opposes nuclear energy

No one is perfect, but those are two HUGE issues for me. And don't give me any of that "precautionary principle" bullshit; GMO foods are proven as safe as conventional food and likely safer long-term (also proven safer than Organic; every major e coli outbreak was linked to an organic farm). They are proven safe. Even if the US were to have the equivalent of a Chernobyl accident twice a year, that's still far fewer deaths and illnesses than from coal.


Those irk me a bit, yeah. He's a little bit too far on the naturalistic side of things, with too much apparent unreasoned skepticism of science/progress/etc.

His "not liking growth for the sake of growth" also bothered me. Growth is perfectly fine. Yeah, wanting other things as well is fine, and maybe tradeoffs have to be made but economic growth is a positive. Hillary seemed to take a more reasoned approach here, I think. Somewhat more moderate, anyway.

That said, there's no candidate I don't have *some* reservations about.

Qaanol wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:2) He opposes nuclear energy

I am completely okay with that. If we are going to make a serious national investment in overhauling our energy infrastructure, why on earth would we waste time and money on something that requires the ongoing cost of a fuel obtained by mining huge amounts of ore, processing it with toxic chemicals to isolate the useful parts, and transporting it long distances across the country?


So, you hate solar, then?

Because solar panels don't last forever, and are not made from trees.

We don't have a perfect non-anything affecting power option. That just doesn't exist. Nuclear, however, is VASTLY better than coal in many ways. If it wasn't for the NIMBY problem, it could get very close to being strictly superior. And right now, a great deal of power is being produced via coal, etc. Opposing nuclear power doesn't provide better alternatives, it prolongs worse ones.

Qaanol wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:1) I don't oppose the hiring of black people, I just think all food handled by black people should be labeled [/sarcasm]. Let's be honest about why people who want "gmo labeling" actually want the labeling.

I’m glad you have the self-awareness to recognize when you are creating a straw argument. The next step is to notice yourself about to do it, and choose not to.


This is not a straw argument, it's an analogy. It's pretty apparent that those pushing for labeling are doing so in order to attempt to quash GMO.

I like labeling where it is a matter of accuracy. Listing ingredients correctly to avoid allergic reactions and stuff, rock on. But it should have actual meaning. Requiring GMO labeling is roughly on par with requiring homeopathic claims on every bottle of water. It's not conveying legitimate info, it exists only to provide false legitimacy to an unscientific viewpoint.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1198
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby commodorejohn » Thu Jul 16, 2015 3:44 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I like labeling where it is a matter of accuracy. Listing ingredients correctly to avoid allergic reactions and stuff, rock on. But it should have actual meaning. Requiring GMO labeling is roughly on par with requiring homeopathic claims on every bottle of water. It's not conveying legitimate info, it exists only to provide false legitimacy to an unscientific viewpoint.

I'm not sure how "I don't want people to have information about the food they consume because they might use that information to make unscientific judgements" is supposed to be a convincing argument. I'm not bothered about it myself, but I don't see why people shouldn't be informed of what is, after all, a simple fact about a food product. After all, we require damn near everything else about food to be labeled. (And as for the "but that's different because potential allergies!" thing, well, sure, we don't have any clear evidence that genetically-modified foods have potential health issues. On the other hand, a hundred years ago we didn't know about peanut allergies, either.)
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jul 16, 2015 8:55 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I like labeling where it is a matter of accuracy. Listing ingredients correctly to avoid allergic reactions and stuff, rock on. But it should have actual meaning. Requiring GMO labeling is roughly on par with requiring homeopathic claims on every bottle of water. It's not conveying legitimate info, it exists only to provide false legitimacy to an unscientific viewpoint.

I'm not sure how "I don't want people to have information about the food they consume because they might use that information to make unscientific judgements" is supposed to be a convincing argument. I'm not bothered about it myself, but I don't see why people shouldn't be informed of what is, after all, a simple fact about a food product. After all, we require damn near everything else about food to be labeled. (And as for the "but that's different because potential allergies!" thing, well, sure, we don't have any clear evidence that genetically-modified foods have potential health issues. On the other hand, a hundred years ago we didn't know about peanut allergies, either.)


How is it not?

And, objectively, how would you not put that label on basically everything? It's not as if supermarket food was naturally found in the woods or some shit. It's *all* been modified.

How could you possibly use it in a meaningful way that would actually convey information, instead of misinformation?

Also, allergies have been known about for far longer than a hundred years. Yes, we may not have fully understood the mechanism, but "this food disagrees with me" is pretty GD old. And, "we don't have any clear evidence" IS an excellent reason not to embrace something. Yes. We didn't know about specific facts a hundred years ago. But...it's ludicrous to think that embracing a policy of labeling based on pseudoscience would have only labeled the things we actually discovered since then.

It's historical fact that a bunch of truth in advertising laws had to be passed to limit bullshit non-scientific claims. Requiring non scientific claims would have been the worst possible reaction.

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Puppyclaws » Thu Jul 16, 2015 10:09 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I just have two criticisms of Bernie Sanders

1) He opposes GMO crops
2) He opposes nuclear energy


Given the choice between the above two and a candidate who is pro endless war (every other candidate in the race except Rand Paul, who opposes the Civil Rights Act), I am pretty sure I know which is the worse choice without engaging in a lengthy debate about the relative merits of GMO labeling and opposition to nuclear energy.

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Thu Jul 16, 2015 10:48 pm UTC

Rand Paul has never opposed the Civil Rights Act. His dad may have, but probably in the sense that Barry Goldwater (who founded an NAACP chapter) did - wanted a slightly different versions that he didn't view as unconstitutional. But Rand is not his dad, he is a bit closer to the mainstream and probably more electable.

commodorejohn wrote:After all, we require damn near everything else about food to be labeled.

I disagree. I don't see anything labeled on a banana, especially not "This product has been selectively bred over thousands of years to optimize its genetics." I don't see a list of chemicals in a bottle of water (it's not just H2O you know), and they didn't print the warning "Thousands per year die from accidental inhalation of dihydrogen monoxide."
Last edited by duckshirt on Thu Jul 16, 2015 10:57 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
lol everything matters
-Ed

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Qaanol » Thu Jul 16, 2015 10:49 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:This is not a straw argument, it's an analogy. It's pretty apparent that those pushing for labeling are doing so in order to attempt to quash GMO.

Looking at people who want labels describing the physical contents of their food, and comparing them to nonexistent people who want racism-based labels is definitely both a straw-man argument and an ad hominem attack.

What next, remove all nation-of-origin labels from products because some people might make purchasing decisions based on racism or nationalism?

Or cease distinguishing between cabbage, broccoli, collard greens, brussels sprouts, kale, cauliflower, and kohlrabi on labels, because they are all the same species?

“Yes I’d like a large pizza with mushrooms and brassica oleracea. I don’t care which cultivar, so neither should anyone else.”

Tyndmyr wrote:I like labeling where it is a matter of accuracy. Listing ingredients correctly to avoid allergic reactions and stuff, rock on. But it should have actual meaning. Requiring GMO labeling is roughly on par with requiring homeopathic claims on every bottle of water. It's not conveying legitimate info, it exists only to provide false legitimacy to an unscientific viewpoint.

The fact of whether a given food contains GMO ingredients is just that: a scientifically verifiable fact. There is nothing “pseudo” about it.

Honestly, before this conversation, I didn’t really have an opinion on GMO labeling. But you know what? Now that I’ve seen how blithely the anti-labelers go about disparaging their opponents, painting them all with the same brush, and poisoning the well by attacking their motives, I’ve decided to support GMO labeling.

And just to prove the point that there can be more than one reason for supporting labels, I’ll tell you my reason:

I have a deep moral opposition to the patenting of lifeforms. I view it as entirely unethical to prohibit people from sowing the seeds of plants they raised. It is a fundamental part of my philosophy that farmers have a basic right to grow new crops from the fruits of their harvests, and to allow their animals to breed. Any effort to outlaw these things is, from my perspective, abominable.

As a firm supporter of farmers’ rights, I do not want to support any crop which has ever been patented. Therefore I am adamant that GMO foods must be labeled, not only stating that they have artificially-engineered ingredients, but also specifically indicating whether any of those ingredients are, or use gene sequences that once were, the subject of a patent or other monopoly-forming anti-reproduction scheme.
wee free kings

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KrytenKoro » Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:25 am UTC

Qaanol wrote:Honestly, before this conversation, I didn’t really have an opinion on GMO labeling. But you know what? Now that I’ve seen how blithely the anti-labelers go about disparaging their opponents, painting them all with the same brush, and poisoning the well by attacking their motives, I’ve decided to support GMO labeling.

That's a terrible reason.

I have a deep moral opposition to the patenting of lifeforms. I view it as entirely unethical to prohibit people from sowing the seeds of plants they raised.

And what about the potential for GMOs, if not sterilized and regulated, to spread uncontrolled and crowd out surrounding plantlife? Is it more or less unethical than the "farmer's rights" you're positing?

Therefore I am adamant that GMO foods must be labeled, not only stating that they have artificially-engineered ingredients, but also specifically indicating whether any of those ingredients are, or use gene sequences that once were, the subject of a patent or other monopoly-forming anti-reproduction scheme.

The patent thing, that might be worth mentioning, but as far as "artificially-engineered", how would you justify differentiation from cultivars or crossbreeds?
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Qaanol » Fri Jul 17, 2015 2:15 am UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
Qaanol wrote:Honestly, before this conversation, I didn’t really have an opinion on GMO labeling. But you know what? Now that I’ve seen how blithely the anti-labelers go about disparaging their opponents, painting them all with the same brush, and poisoning the well by attacking their motives, I’ve decided to support GMO labeling.

That's a terrible reason.

Quite exactly my point. I wrote that to emulate the ad hom style dismissal of all opposition that was being put forth on the pro-GMO side. It is indeed a terrible reason to choose a position.

Moreover, if the strongest argument that anti-labelers can proffer is “Our opponents have dishonorable motives”, then they don’t have an argument at all. It just takes one opponent with an honorable motive, such as a desire not to support the patenting of lifeforms.

But this is getting way off-topic here, especially considering the original claim was that Bernie opposes GMO foods, when all the evidence I’ve found suggests he simply supports allowing states to make labeling requirements.
wee free kings

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Jul 17, 2015 2:32 am UTC

Qaanol wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:
Qaanol wrote:Honestly, before this conversation, I didn’t really have an opinion on GMO labeling. But you know what? Now that I’ve seen how blithely the anti-labelers go about disparaging their opponents, painting them all with the same brush, and poisoning the well by attacking their motives, I’ve decided to support GMO labeling.

That's a terrible reason.

Quite exactly my point. I wrote that to emulate the ad hom style dismissal of all opposition that was being put forth on the pro-GMO side. It is indeed a terrible reason to choose a position.

Moreover, if the strongest argument that anti-labelers can proffer is “Our opponents have dishonorable motives”, then they don’t have an argument at all. It just takes one opponent with an honorable motive, such as a desire not to support the patenting of lifeforms.


No, the reason we oppose GMO labelling is because

1) Flooding people with information they don't need just makes it all more confusing
2) When thiomersal was removed from vaccines as an appeasement to the anti-vaxxers, even though there was no evidence whatsoever of any harm, it didn't quiet them down, it only emboldened them; these are the same people pushing the anti-GMO crap, and you can't give them an inch
3) The point of mandatory labeling has been and always will be to enable people to discriminate, and more importantly it's to prevent the bigger companies from even stocking GMO products at all in the same way Walmart refused to carry any CD with a Tipper sticker. Yes yes I read your link, and I don't agree with the author
4) Companies are allowed to label their products as GMO-free. I see products with this label all the time, which sucks because I liked those kettle cooked chips. Also, I like tofu but I can't find any that isn't organic, which pisses me off because soybeans are subsidized by the US yet tofu costs more than meat. Dafuq?

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KrytenKoro » Fri Jul 17, 2015 2:55 am UTC

Qaanol wrote:Moreover, if the strongest argument that anti-labelers can proffer is “Our opponents have dishonorable motives”, then they don’t have an argument at all. It just takes one opponent with an honorable motive, such as a desire not to support the patenting of lifeforms.

The argument is that "that position has a dishonorable motive". That's not an ad hom -- it's the difference between saying "I refuse to support the 1800s cotton industry because of that fucker Bob who does" and "I refuse to support the 1800s cotton industry because it relies on subjugating humans and increasing their suffering."

But this is getting way off-topic here, especially considering the original claim was that Bernie opposes GMO foods, when all the evidence I’ve found suggests he simply supports allowing states to make labeling requirements.

The labeling is the thing that is objectionable to those complaining about. You are missing the whole point that your opponents are trying to make.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Qaanol » Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:58 am UTC

@CorruptUser
Spoiler:
CorruptUser wrote:No, the reason we oppose GMO labelling is because

1) Flooding people with information they don't need just makes it all more confusing

I need that information so I can choose to buy products which are made without infringing on farmers’ rights to plant the seeds of their own crops.

CorruptUser wrote:2) When thiomersal was removed from vaccines as an appeasement to the anti-vaxxers, even though there was no evidence whatsoever of any harm, it didn't quiet them down, it only emboldened them; these are the same people pushing the anti-GMO crap, and you can't give them an inch

I am not those people.

CorruptUser wrote:3) The point of mandatory labeling has been and always will be to enable people to discriminate, and more importantly it's to prevent the bigger companies from even stocking GMO products at all in the same way Walmart refused to carry any CD with a Tipper sticker. Yes yes I read your link, and I don't agree with the author

I, as a consumer, desire to be discriminating in my choices of what companies to support. In this case, I want to support companies that do not prevent farmers from planting their own seeds.

CorruptUser wrote:4) Companies are allowed to label their products as GMO-free. I see products with this label all the time, which sucks because I liked those kettle cooked chips.

I cannot reasonably assume that every product which lacks such a label contains GMOs, so the status quo is insufficient for my decision-making.

CorruptUser wrote:soybeans are subsidized by the US yet tofu costs more than meat. Dafuq?

Yeah, I feel the same way about corn. Over $3 per pound for a simple bag of chips, but I can get chicken drumsticks and thighs for under $2 a pound? Someone is making a boatload of money, and I’m pretty sure it’s not the people who actually work the fields.

Anyway, I think I’ve made my point. Now back to your regularly-scheduled election wrangling.
wee free kings

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KrytenKoro » Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:43 pm UTC

Qaanol wrote:I need that information so I can choose to buy products which are made without infringing on farmers’ rights to plant the seeds of their own crops.

http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/safety/e ... genes.html

Seriously, please respond to this. You're ignoring one of the main reasons GMO companies elected to go this route, and it's not a nothing reason.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:54 pm UTC


I understand that an election topic will touch on many other topics. Just try to keep a bit of focus on relevant topics for the election.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jul 17, 2015 2:42 pm UTC

Qaanol wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:This is not a straw argument, it's an analogy. It's pretty apparent that those pushing for labeling are doing so in order to attempt to quash GMO.

Looking at people who want labels describing the physical contents of their food, and comparing them to nonexistent people who want racism-based labels is definitely both a straw-man argument and an ad hominem attack.


An analogy does not have to actually exist to be a valid analogy. It's fairly common

What next, remove all nation-of-origin labels from products because some people might make purchasing decisions based on racism or nationalism?

Or cease distinguishing between cabbage, broccoli, collard greens, brussels sprouts, kale, cauliflower, and kohlrabi on labels, because they are all the same species?

“Yes I’d like a large pizza with mushrooms and brassica oleracea. I don’t care which cultivar, so neither should anyone else.”


Just because something isn't mandated doesn't mean it has to be banned, come on now. And there is an actual, physical difference you can point to between cabbage and broccoli. That labeling serves a purpose.

However, GMO isn't anything like so clear cut. Essentially everything we eat is GMO at this point. Effectively 0% of food available in the supermarket is found naturally in the woods or something. It's all been cultivated and bred for many years, and has changed fairly significantly over that time.

Tyndmyr wrote:I like labeling where it is a matter of accuracy. Listing ingredients correctly to avoid allergic reactions and stuff, rock on. But it should have actual meaning. Requiring GMO labeling is roughly on par with requiring homeopathic claims on every bottle of water. It's not conveying legitimate info, it exists only to provide false legitimacy to an unscientific viewpoint.

The fact of whether a given food contains GMO ingredients is just that: a scientifically verifiable fact. There is nothing “pseudo” about it.

Honestly, before this conversation, I didn’t really have an opinion on GMO labeling. But you know what? Now that I’ve seen how blithely the anti-labelers go about disparaging their opponents, painting them all with the same brush, and poisoning the well by attacking their motives, I’ve decided to support GMO labeling.


If you feel that no actual research or data is necessary to support it, you should fit in well.

In terms of it being a scientifically verifiable fact, please, explain what you mean. What, exactly, is "GMO"? How do you test for it?

And just to prove the point that there can be more than one reason for supporting labels, I’ll tell you my reason:

I have a deep moral opposition to the patenting of lifeforms. I view it as entirely unethical to prohibit people from sowing the seeds of plants they raised. It is a fundamental part of my philosophy that farmers have a basic right to grow new crops from the fruits of their harvests, and to allow their animals to breed. Any effort to outlaw these things is, from my perspective, abominable.

As a firm supporter of farmers’ rights, I do not want to support any crop which has ever been patented. Therefore I am adamant that GMO foods must be labeled, not only stating that they have artificially-engineered ingredients, but also specifically indicating whether any of those ingredients are, or use gene sequences that once were, the subject of a patent or other monopoly-forming anti-reproduction scheme.


Patenting is not exactly the same as GMO. Patenting happens routinely for old fashioned GMO methods as well as new, and not every species is patented.

If you purchase seeds that are subject to no-replant rules, these rules are conveyed to you in the form of a contract. It's pretty hard to be unaware, considering you have to explicitly agree to it. And...this is a somewhat different issue than that originally brought up, I think we're drifting from the topic here.

Patent rights are kind of interesting, but I haven't seen a great deal about them in the election thus far, and thus I'm not sure that it's a very strong discriminator between candidates.

I kind of want to list all the candidates and break down positions, but there's so very many right now, it's kind of daunting. Ugh. Well, Bernie is right out for me for a number of reasons, many of which I don't expect everyone here to agree with. Hillary is...less bad, but still not exactly great, yknow? Rand has some attractive positions, but also a couple which I have concerns about. I hope Trump's campaign crashes and burns with some speed. He's pulling coverage away from people that I'm actually kind of interested in knowing about, because he's an attention whore. Bush is...well, not the worst of the republican candidates, even if I'm wildly unenthused about another Bush vs Clinton matchup. Ugh.

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Puppyclaws » Fri Jul 17, 2015 3:26 pm UTC

duckshirt wrote:Rand Paul has never opposed the Civil Rights Act. His dad may have, but probably in the sense that Barry Goldwater (who founded an NAACP chapter) did - wanted a slightly different versions that he didn't view as unconstitutional. But Rand is not his dad, he is a bit closer to the mainstream and probably more electable.


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... out-begins

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/02/politics/ ... ights-act/

He's distanced himself from the position somewhat, but he has several times indicated that he effectively opposes it.

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:48 pm UTC

Puppyclaws wrote:
duckshirt wrote:Rand Paul has never opposed the Civil Rights Act. His dad may have, but probably in the sense that Barry Goldwater (who founded an NAACP chapter) did - wanted a slightly different versions that he didn't view as unconstitutional. But Rand is not his dad, he is a bit closer to the mainstream and probably more electable.


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... out-begins

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/02/politics/ ... ights-act/

He's distanced himself from the position somewhat, but he has several times indicated that he effectively opposes it.

I figured it was just one of those "gotcha" traps. That's absolutely ridiculous to conclude "Rand Paul opposes the Civil Rights Act" in any meaningful way from that.
lol everything matters
-Ed

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:14 pm UTC

So, he's pretty happy in it with general, but has minor legal quibbles with precedent for un race-related reasons...kay. That doesn't seem like a shocker.

He leans a little libertarian, and private property, etc is super important for that group, so there's little reason to think his reasoning isn't genuine. Could the CRA have been written better? Probably. Most laws probably could. But it was a net win, and he accepts that, so I've got no real quarrel with his reasoning here.

I'm more worried that he seems to be a little over the top on privacy and so forth. Again, a traditional libertarian position, and there's some merit there, but he seems a little reactionary sometimes, yknow?

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Puppyclaws » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:58 pm UTC

There's no "gotcha" or "a little bit" about it; he opposes, fundamentally, the restriction on businesses denying service to people based on race or other protected class. Which is a major defining part of the CRA.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jul 17, 2015 6:02 pm UTC

Puppyclaws wrote:There's no "gotcha" or "a little bit" about it; he opposes, fundamentally, the restriction on businesses denying service to people based on race or other protected class. Which is a major defining part of the CRA.


No, he seems to dislike that the precedent lead to other restrictions on private property. Which is NOT a defining part of the CRA, more of a side effect.

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Puppyclaws » Fri Jul 17, 2015 6:05 pm UTC

I'm not surprised you're incapable of understanding that those are actually the same thing but hopefully other people are capable of it.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jul 17, 2015 6:10 pm UTC

Puppyclaws wrote:I'm not surprised you're incapable of understanding that those are actually the same thing but hopefully other people are capable of it.


Not at all.

The purpose of the CRA was not "break down those gosh darned property rights". It was to promote equality, and mostly, this meant fixing a lot of institutionalized inequality ingrained in state and federal governments. Changes to property rights were, at most, a side effect of pursuing this goal, not the main idea of it.

Could a marginally different law have acheived the same things in a way with less side effects? Or acheived a bit more? Maybe. I dunno. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems unlikely that it was an absolutely perfect law in every way. This doesn't really have any significant pro or con on the way I view Rand, it's just someone making a big stretch to try to make everything about race.

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:15 pm UTC

Puppyclaws wrote:There's no "gotcha" or "a little bit" about it;

It's the definition of a gotcha question. I am not interested in blatantly ignoring context to mislead people into thinking somebody who openly supports the Civil Rights Act actually doesn't based on the smallest nitpick, something a prominent NAACP chapter co-founder at the time agreed on. Maybe if he were in office in 1964 he would have it reworded to suit his desire. Who cares.

https://xkcd.com/1475/
lol everything matters
-Ed

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sat Jul 18, 2015 5:42 am UTC

So Trump is gaining ground against Bush - two polls show him ahead. It's plausible that it could hold up if there is enough vote splitting, but I expect Republicans to narrow it down and vote tactically for whoever they think has the best shot at beating Hillary come January. Here's one of the polls, which also includes overall favorability ratings for each candidate. No surprise, Trump has 60% unfavorability (well, kind of surprised it's not 90%).

https://www.suffolk.edu/documents/SUPRC ... ginals.pdf
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Jul 18, 2015 5:49 am UTC

Thesh wrote:So Trump is gaining ground against Bush - two polls show him ahead. It's plausible that it could hold up if there is enough vote splitting, but I expect Republicans to narrow it down and vote tactically for whoever they think has the best shot at beating Hillary come January. Here's one of the polls, which also includes overall favorability ratings for each candidate. No surprise, Trump has 60% unfavorability (well, kind of surprised it's not 90%).

https://www.suffolk.edu/documents/SUPRC ... ginals.pdf

Tell me, do you actually believe Trump is gaining ground? Do you also believe Bernie Sanders has a large voting bloc behind him? Do you wish to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sat Jul 18, 2015 5:58 am UTC

I'm just looking at the polls. Yes, I do believe he is gaining ground. He has risen in popularity with assholes, which is a sizable portion of Republicans. Do I think it will hold? No, but all he has to do is stay in the news acting like a douchebag and he will be in the top five.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Djehutynakht » Sat Jul 18, 2015 6:34 am UTC

Can you imagine how embarrassing it must be to be a Republican primary candidate losing a coveted debate spot to Donald Trump?

I'd be livid.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests