UK Parliamentary Committee Recommends Levy on Social Media to Defend Against Fake News

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

Except it is not that simple,  we don't just here about the crazy people more, the Internet has given the crazy people an equal platform to reach the masses as it does legitimate science and health professionals.

I see nothing wrong with everybody having an even playing field for expressing their thoughts and ideas.

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

No one is talking about censoring ideas or speech, just shutting up those who are factually and abbsolutely wrong
 and those whose promotions are demonstrably causing damage.

"I am not for censorship. I just don't want certain people expressing their ideas or beliefs I don't agree with".

Sorry, but it is censorship.

The Chinese government is also "shutting up those who are factually wrong and those who promotions and causing damage". It's just that their opinion of who is wrong and causing damage is different from yours.

It's always easy to rationalize and agree with your own beliefs, but you have to remember that the people in power might not have their views align with yours.

 

For example the pedophile ring I linked to earlier. Politicians kept the investigation hidden because they thought exposing it could lead to people having a negative view of immigrants. Would you be OK with this law being used to cover up for pedophiles? I don't think you would, but it is entirely possible that the people in power would. As shown by that case, they have no problem abusing their powers in order to push their own narrative. They could probably argue that letting some child molesters be free is less damaging than spreading the news that might lead to prejudging of immigrants. Neither you nor I will agree with that, but that is our opinions, and they have theirs.

Quote

The failure to address the abuse was attributed to a combination of factors revolving around race, class and gender—contemptuous and sexist attitudes toward the mostly working-class victims; fear that the perpetrators' ethnicity would trigger allegations of racism and damage community relations; the Labour council's reluctance to challenge a Labour-voting ethnic minority; lack of a child-centred focus; a desire to protect the town's reputation; and lack of training and resources.[32][33][16]

 

And that's my problem with the idea that ideas and thoughts should be censored, even if it's just "the dangerous ones".

Your idea of what is dangerous differs from mine, and our ideas will be different from the next person. Having a law which states that it is illegal to say certain things, based on what someone else thinks of it, is crazy and will 100% be abused.

 

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

you don;t need hindsight to know radiation is dangerous. 

Yes you do. Back then the dangers weren't known, and enough time hadn't really passed for the dangers of radium to be known.

It is easy to point back to the past and go "they sure were stupid", but at the time the verdict was still up in the air. People just didn't know. I mean seriously, do you think people would have brushed their teeth with radium, or literally been shoving it up their asses if they knew it was dangerous?

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

We are talking about shutting down what is absolute wrong and what is proven to be dangerous. 

That is what YOU are talking about, but it is not what this proposed law is talking about.

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

So your fine with allowing the promotion of dangerous practices on the grounds that one day we might discover we where wrong?

No, but I am fine with allowing the promotion of dangerous practices on the grounds that I believe we should not censor ideas and beliefs someone deems to be problematic. Instead we should focus on educating people so that they understand how wrong those ideas are.

Censorship will not help here. If anything, censorship might create even more issues because all of a sudden "the evil government is trying to silence the truth!".

And if your argument is that "they won't listen to science so we can't educate them!", what makes you believe they would listen if they weren't allowed to question the evidence presented to them?

 

I know that you're for GMO food, and so am I. However, there are (valid) arguments being made that not enough time has passed, and not enough studies has been made about the long term effects of such food, that we can be 100% sure that they are not harmful.

Do you think your opinion about GMO food would change if let's say the EU decided to ban and censor anyone who said GMO food was harmless? Do you think you would go "Oh, I guess it isn't harmless after all. I have changed my stance on this issue!" or do you think you would go "the EU are a bunch of idiots and I am obviously right. I will keep believing what I believe, and try to spread this knowledge when I get the chance!"? I think you would go with the latter. I know I would at least.

 

Your argument is that this will be good for people who shove bleach up their kids' asses. That it will protect them from themselves. However, in order for the law to actually work, you have to look at it not from your POV, but from the POV of those who shove bleach up their kids' asses. They are the people you claim to want to protect right? 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I see nothing wrong with everybody having an even playing field for expressing their thoughts and ideas.

you see nothing wrong with people presenting dangerous practices as a substantiated beneficial health practice?  Do you also have no problem with people who make up fictitious investment programs and con people into investing their money?  There is no difference,  buying special bleach or investing in a Caledonia hotel that doesn't exist is the same thing.  The person has been defrauded, at least the hotel investor only loses their money. 

 

Quote

"I am not for censorship. I just don't want certain people expressing their ideas or beliefs I don't agree with".

Sorry, but it is censorship.

What's the quote here? I never said that, and I don't particularly care though because this is about stopping what is demonstrably fake, not about stopping ideas.  There is a huge difference between the two.

 

Quote

The Chinese government is also "shutting up those who are factually wrong and those who promotions and causing damage". It's just that their opinion of who is wrong and causing damage is different from yours.

It's always easy to rationalize and agree with your own beliefs, but you have to remember that the people in power might not have their views align with yours.

You are talking about opinions again.   Opinions (especially political ones) are fine to be expressed. We don't live in China and this is not a communist dictatorship.

Quote

For example the pedophile ring I linked to earlier. Politicians kept the investigation hidden because they thought exposing it could lead to people having a negative view of immigrants. Would you be OK with this law being used to cover up for pedophiles? I don't think you would, but it is entirely possible that the people in power would. As shown by that case, they have no problem abusing their powers in order to push their own narrative. They could probably argue that letting some child molesters be free is less damaging than spreading the news that might lead to prejudging of immigrants. Neither you nor I will agree with that, but that is our opinions, and they have theirs.

 

What law?

Quote

And that's my problem with the idea that ideas and thoughts should be censored, even if it's just "the dangerous ones".

Your idea of what is dangerous differs from mine, and our ideas will be different from the next person. Having a law which states that it is illegal to say certain things, based on what someone else thinks of it, is crazy and will 100% be abused.

My idea of what is dangerous pertains only to that which can be proven with evidence, Not sure why you keep ignoring that very important part of my stance.

 

Quote

 

Yes you do. Back then the dangers weren't known, and enough time hadn't really passed for the dangers of radium to be known.

It is easy to point back to the past and go "they sure were stupid", but at the time the verdict was still up in the air. People just didn't know. I mean seriously, do you think people would have brushed their teeth with radium, or literally been shoving it up their asses if they knew it was dangerous?

This still makes no sense.  Just because we didn't have evidence on the dangers of radiation in the 19th century doesn't mean we don't have it now.  The difference is nowadays we have evidence.  Again do you think it is ok for someone to promote shoving bleach up an autistic kids arse because at some point in the future you think the evidence will change?

 

Quote

That is what YOU are talking about, but it is not what this proposed law is talking about.

 

Again what law? This is a preliminary report that has "suggestions" based on their research.

Quote

No, but I am fine with allowing the promotion of dangerous practices on the grounds that I believe we should not censor ideas and beliefs someone deems to be problematic. Instead we should focus on educating people so that they understand how wrong those ideas are.

You do know that education only goes so far right?  There are plenty of highly intelligent, highly qualified people who believe in reiki, essential oils and wheat intolerance as being the cause of behavioral issues.   Education will only go so far,  I don't know how much experience you have with raising autistic children or dealing with cancer, but these people are very vulnerable and fear will overrule nearly all rational thought if it gives them hope of a cure.   Some things are banned for good reason.  Just like it is illegal to advertise anything as being a cure for Cancer in the UK.  Too many charlatans were preying on cancer victims with herbal remedies and hokus pokus.

 

Quote

Censorship will not help here. If anything, censorship might create even more issues because all of a sudden "the evil government is trying to silence the truth!".

They claim that already, but if they can't sell their wares on facebook it will still mitigate a large portion of the damage.

Quote

And if your argument is that "they won't listen to science so we can't educate them!", what makes you believe they would listen if they weren't allowed to question the evidence presented to them?

 

See what I said earlier about preying on the vulnerable and those who have illness that  science based medicine can't cure.  They will try anything out of desperation. The last thing a cancer patient needs is to be bleed of all their remaining money on a false hope.

 

Quote

I know that you're for GMO food, and so am I. However, there are (valid) arguments being made that not enough time has passed, and not enough studies has been made about the long term effects of such food, that we can be 100% sure that they are not harmful.

We've been eating GMO food for 40 years,  I believe that combined with current advances and understanding in biology is enough to know. But to entertain the idea I might be wrong, how long should we wait for a definitive answer? We know the human population is going to cap out at a bout 11B and there isn't enough space on the planet to feed everyone as well as prevent climate change due to the effects of farming large areas.  So I turn the question around, how long should we wait before we decide it is ok (necessary even)? After it is too late to reverse climate change and cattle damage?

 

Quote

Do you think your opinion about GMO food would change if let's say the EU decided to ban and censor anyone who said GMO food was harmless? Do you think you would go "Oh, I guess it isn't harmless after all. I have changed my stance on this issue!" or do you think you would go "the EU are a bunch of idiots and I am obviously right. I will keep believing what I believe, and try to spread this knowledge when I get the chance!"? I think you would go with the latter. I know I would at least.

 

I try to base all my opinions on the most relevant scientific data.  Governments tend to implement what is popular as much as they do what is legitimate science based policy.   This is why I hate political/idealist lobby groups.

Quote

Your argument is that this will be good for people who shove bleach up their kids' asses. That it will protect them from themselves. However, in order for the law to actually work, you have to look at it not from your POV, but from the POV of those who shove bleach up their kids' asses. They are the people you claim to want to protect right? 

 

I feel I am very much looking at it from their point of view.  You forget I have two autistic children, have worked as an integration aide assisting children with disabilities get through school and working as a volunteer carer for people with ABI.  I have worked very closely with families and government departments and seen/heard many stories first hand.  My opinions are very much formed from what I see at the coal face of this issue.  My opinions regarding the best solution come also from that experience.

 

EDIT: I also lost my first wife to cancer, The number of people who told me about "special cures" they found on facebook (even then in it's infacy) would leave you numb. 

[suicidalfranco]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

you see nothing wrong with people presenting dangerous practices as a substantiated beneficial health practice?  Do you also have no problem with people who make up fictitious investment programs and con people into investing their money?  There is no difference,  buying special bleach or investing in a Caledonia hotel that doesn't exist is the same thing.  The person has been defrauded, at least the hotel investor only loses their money. 

I say let Darwin do its thing. Still better than any form of censorship

[Amazonsucks]

@mr moose

 

We havent been eating GMO food for nearly 40 years. First one was approved in 1994.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavr_Savr

 

And before anyone in this thread conflates GMO with selective breeding as they always seem to when discussing them, and whips out the "we've been making GMOs for thousands of years" please learn middle school level biology.

 

GMOs are often cross kingdom gene insertion from bacteria to plants in the case of RoundUp Ready crops. They cant be made by selective breeding because those species arent interfertile.

[Brooksie359]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

you see nothing wrong with people presenting dangerous practices as a substantiated beneficial health practice?  Do you also have no problem with people who make up fictitious investment programs and con people into investing their money?  There is no difference,  buying special bleach or investing in a Caledonia hotel that doesn't exist is the same thing.  The person has been defrauded, at least the hotel investor only loses their money. 

 

What's the quote here? I never said that, and I don't particularly care though because this is about stopping what is demonstrably fake, not about stopping ideas.  There is a huge difference between the two.

 

You are talking about opinions again.   Opinions (especially political ones) are fine to be expressed. We don't live in China and this is not a communist dictatorship.

 

What law?

My idea of what is dangerous pertains only to that which can be proven with evidence, Not sure why you keep ignoring that very important part of my stance.

 

This still makes no sense.  Just because we didn't have evidence on the dangers of radiation in the 19th century doesn't mean we don't have it now.  The difference is nowadays we have evidence.  Again do you think it is ok for someone to promote shoving bleach up an autistic kids arse because at some point in the future you think the evidence will change?

 

 

Again what law? This is a preliminary report that has "suggestions" based on their research.

You do know that education only goes so far right?  There are plenty of highly intelligent, highly qualified people who believe in reiki, essential oils and wheat intolerance as being the cause of behavioral issues.   Education will only go so far,  I don't know how much experience you have with raising autistic children or dealing with cancer, but these people are very vulnerable and fear will overrule nearly all rational thought if it gives them hope of a cure.   Some things are banned for good reason.  Just like it is illegal to advertise anything as being a cure for Cancer in the UK.  Too many charlatans were preying on cancer victims with herbal remedies and hokus pokus.

 

They claim that already, but if they can't sell their wares on facebook it will still mitigate a large portion of the damage.

 

See what I said earlier about preying on the vulnerable and those who have illness that  science based medicine can't cure.  They will try anything out of desperation. The last thing a cancer patient needs is to be bleed of all their remaining money on a false hope.

 

We've been eating GMO food for 40 years,  I believe that combined with current advances and understanding in biology is enough to know. But to entertain the idea I might be wrong, how long should we wait for a definitive answer? We know the human population is going to cap out at a bout 11B and there isn't enough space on the planet to feed everyone as well as prevent climate change due to the effects of farming large areas.  So I turn the question around, how long should we wait before we decide it is ok (necessary even)? After it is too late to reverse climate change and cattle damage?

 

 

I try to base all my opinions on the most relevant scientific data.  Governments tend to implement what is popular as much as they do what is legitimate science based policy.   This is why I hate political/idealist lobby groups.

 

I feel I am very much looking at it from their point of view.  You forget I have two autistic children, have worked as an integration aide assisting children with disabilities get through school and working as a volunteer carer for people with ABI.  I have worked very closely with families and government departments and seen/heard many stories first hand.  My opinions are very much formed from what I see at the coal face of this issue.  My opinions regarding the best solution come also from that experience.

 

EDIT: I also lost my first wife to cancer, The number of people who told me about "special cures" they found on facebook (even then in it's infacy) would leave you numb. 

I think the bleach treatment issue is not even about the issue of fake new but rather promoting a form of treatment that is child abuse. It should be banned based on that rather than it being fake news. The major issue with people trying to censor fake new is that to determine if new is fake or not is very hard and where to draw the line is hard as well. I think the best thing to do is to have good education and information that disproves the new that happens to be fake. That way everyone can be heard and the ones that have the better argument convince people. You can't parent the entire population so it would be best to not try. 

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

I say let Darwin do its thing. Still better than any form of censorship

Problem here is (as I have said before), it's not about intelligence as intelligent people can be mislead too.  What would you rather, a government with the usual amount of corruption or a government voted in by mislead people with the usual amount of corruption also?   You see this whole issue isn't just about individuals getting taken for a ride, it costs the rest of society as well.

 

8 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

@mr moose

 

We havent been eating GMO food for nearly 40 years. First one was approved in 1994.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavr_Savr

 

And before anyone in this thread conflates GMO with selective breeding as they always seem to when discussing them, and whips out the "we've been making GMOs for thousands of years" please learn middle school level biology.

 

GMOs are often cross kingdom gene insertion from bacteria to plants in the case of RoundUp Ready crops. They cant be made by selective breeding because those species arent interfertile.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/

https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/08/29/40-years-ago-gmo-insulin-was-controversial-also-11757

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/08/31/gmo-controversies-40-years-ago-todays-science-success-stories/

 

I think diabetics who are alive today because of it beg to differ.

 

4 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I think the bleach treatment issue is not even about the issue of fake new but rather promoting a form of treatment that is child abuse. It should be banned based on that rather than it being fake news. The major issue with people trying to censor fake new is that to determine if new is fake or not is very hard and where to draw the line is hard as well. I think the best thing to do is to have good education and information that disproves the new that happens to be fake. That way everyone can be heard and the ones that have the better argument convince people. You can't parent the entire population so it would be best to not try. 

 

I don't think it is that hard to prove some news is fake,  for that which we can't prove its fake should be left alone.  I think the issue people have with this concept is that they see it as a blanket tool that will be used to ban all dissenting speech.  That is not the case at all.    Most democratic governments (believe it or not) are only corrupt to a point, they are definitely corrupt, they definitely screw somethings over,  but they haven't changed and it's not to the detriment of society.  The government institutions of the last 200 years have built societies to what they are today, we are not all dictatorship slaves and we are not going to be.   Laws come and go as society changes, some are not very good and some are awesome, some laws get overturned when they are obsolete and others get used out of context for purposes well beyond their intention (although thankfully not that often).  This is just he way it works when you have a system of governance that has to serve everyone, and you know what they say, you can't please all the people all the time.     Given we are a society (and fast becoming a world society rather than a group of individual countries) we are just going to have to accept that there are something we don;t like that will happen for the greater good of everyone.

[Amazonsucks]

38 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Problem here is (as I have said before), it's not about intelligence as intelligent people can be mislead too.  What would you rather, a government with the usual amount of corruption or a government voted in by mislead people with the usual amount of corruption also?   You see this whole issue isn't just about individuals getting taken for a ride, it costs the rest of society as well.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/

https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/08/29/40-years-ago-gmo-insulin-was-controversial-also-11757

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/08/31/gmo-controversies-40-years-ago-todays-science-success-stories/

 

I think diabetics who are alive today because of it beg to differ.

 

 

I don't think it is that hard to prove some news is fake,  for that which we can't prove its fake should be left alone.  I think the issue people have with this concept is that they see it as a blanket tool that will be used to ban all dissenting speech.  That is not the case at all.    Most democratic governments (believe it or not) are only corrupt to a point, they are definitely corrupt, they definitely screw somethings over,  but they haven't changed and it's not to the detriment of society.  The government institutions of the last 200 years have built societies to what they are today, we are not all dictatorship slaves and we are not going to be.   Laws come and go as society changes, some are not very good and some are awesome, some laws get overturned when they are obsolete and others get used out of context for purposes well beyond their intention (although thankfully not that often).  This is just he way it works when you have a system of governance that has to serve everyone, and you know what they say, you can't please all the people all the time.     Given we are a society (and fast becoming a world society rather than a group of individual countries) we are just going to have to accept that there are something we don;t like that will happen for the greater good of everyone.

Beg to differ with what? Last time i checked insulin wasnt considered "food". We havent been EATING GMO food for 40 years.

[mark_cameron]

On 01/08/2018 at 11:10 AM, cj09beira said:

he was sentenced without the right to his own lawyer by the same judge that was presiding the case he was talking about, he was also not the only press member there and all he said was public knowledge so i dont see the problem here unless people shouldn't have freedom of speech, in a matter of hours he was going to prison with a sentence that is way out or proportion to the crime committed looking at similar cases where the offense was done multiple times in a row the sentence was still smaller than what he got , how is that fair, and you should look into why he was accused of fraud and assault, because its a much more trivial matter than it seems

It's going to retrial. That's not acquittal.

 

He's going to face justice.

 

The press also have a code not to report in a way that predjuices the trial whilst it is active. Or they will face contempt of court.

 

Contempt of court is a very serious offence in the UK.

 

That's all I have to say.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Beg to differ with what? Last time i checked insulin wasnt considered "food". We havent been EATING GMO food for 40 years.

Argue and dismiss whatever you want, the facts speak for themselves

 

[Amazonsucks]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Argue and dismiss whatever you want, the facts speak for themselves

 

I didnt dismiss anything. The simple fact is, the first GMO foods were released in the 1990s, and GMO insulin isnt a food. Its an isolated hormone which is taken from modifed bacteria and injected. Its not a food. 

 

Being that its a single isolated chemical taken from a GM bacterium, its actually much less "controversial" than ingesting the tissue of organisms that have been modified, with all the concomitant chemicals like the endogenously produced pesticides by GM crops or the glyphosate that gets sprayed directly on food crops right up until harvest.

 

I love how the article mentions that farmers CAN use less pesticides, but in reality farmers actually use the now labeled as a carcinogen glyphosate to dry crops in a cheap and easy(and toxic) way.

 

Agribusiness and the grocery lobbyists have conflicting interests with science and a revolving door to the corrupt politicians who run the FDA.

 

 

[Thaldor]

On 8/1/2018 at 6:29 PM, Nicholatian said:

-snip-

You and @mr moose are still running around the easy targets. Yes, even intelligent people can be stupid. Maybe we should protect them. But this is not the way.

 

Actually browsing through the paper, I think it's even worse than what I thought from the news article. They are not mainly talking about how to protect people from "injecting bleach into kids asses", they are talking about how to protect people from political propaganda and other countries affecting the outcome of elections. The second part sounds very good thing to talk about, but the first part is just "nope nope nope nope nope"-stuff.

 

I wouldn't trust for even my sweet dead grandmother the power to single handedly decide what is considered political propaganda. Let alone someone living and especially someone who is even closely related to politics (even if they would swear their hand on some fairytale book and so on to be politically objective and not part of any political organization). Because THAT power will be misused faster than they can assemble the organization which will decide what is political propaganda and far more surely than there is other life in the universe. The whole Trump thing in the US was a big F-up and serves as a good example, but is it really that bad thing to happen (when at least every sane country doesn't have clear monarchs with infinite power) so that one single organizations should be given the power what information (may it be real or fake) is given to the masses?

(When thinking about this also remember that the oraganization would also have their opinion who should win and they have complete power to reject any "bad" information from being published about their favorite even if it was true and proofable; And no one would know that except the party publishing that information and if this memo was to go to the end as it is, that party would be silenced by the organization almost completely and at least until the information is useless through sanctions for social network platforms and direct sanctions for the party if they were bold enough to make their own website)

 

Again I underline the sentence: Who's truth is the truth and who is allowed to talk true.

 

Spoiler

Also surrounding this topic a nut to crack:

Everyone who has had troubles stopping smoking probably knows Varenicline (Champix/Chantix) pills. "Prooffed" to be unharming and safe to use by Pfizer (<s> who definedly not have any monetizing interest over the product they have created </s>) but by couple independent (not funded or any way connected to Pfizer) studies have found to be dangerous (just some major depression, suicidal thoughts and so on, "minor side-effects"). Pfizer has used millions probably even billions to lobby and get the black box warnings removed from the varenicline and in some countries (like Finland) has even gotten the product to be the first recommended medical help to stop smoking. "Suprisingly" the one study that got the black box warning to be removed by the FDA in US is actually even openly made by a person who has received payments from the Pfizer and other tobacco control organizations (mainly, at least in Finland, funded by drug companies and "public funds that allow donations") and even has been retained by a law firm working for Pfizer.

 

So, would a wiseman trust the studies made by the company that sells the medicine or the doctor who citates the same studies or the couple of studies that has nothing to do with the company that sells the medicine?

 

(My answer, trust the couple, I have been on varenicline and (sorry my French) nothing has ever fucked up my brain like that shit)

 

[Trik'Stari]

Oh I'm sure this won't just turn into the government using the internet for its own political propaganda purposes. Or just using it to collect money for themselves.

 

 

Obvious sarcasm.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Thaldor said:

You and @mr moose are still running around the easy targets. Yes, even intelligent people can be stupid. Maybe we should protect them. But this is not the way.

 

Actually browsing through the paper, I think it's even worse than what I thought from the news article. They are not mainly talking about how to protect people from "injecting bleach into kids asses", they are talking about how to protect people from political propaganda and other countries affecting the outcome of elections. The second part sounds very good thing to talk about, but the first part is just "nope nope nope nope nope"-stuff.

 

I wouldn't trust for even my sweet dead grandmother the power to single handedly decide what is considered political propaganda. Let alone someone living and especially someone who is even closely related to politics (even if they would swear their hand on some fairytale book and so on to be politically objective and not part of any political organization). Because THAT power will be misused faster than they can assemble the organization which will decide what is political propaganda and far more surely than there is other life in the universe. The whole Trump thing in the US was a big F-up and serves as a good example, but is it really that bad thing to happen (when at least every sane country doesn't have clear monarchs with infinite power) so that one single organizations should be given the power what information (may it be real or fake) is given to the masses?

(When thinking about this also remember that the oraganization would also have their opinion who should win and they have complete power to reject any "bad" information from being published about their favorite even if it was true and proofable; And no one would know that except the party publishing that information and if this memo was to go to the end as it is, that party would be silenced by the organization almost completely and at least until the information is useless through sanctions for social network platforms and direct sanctions for the party if they were bold enough to make their own website)

 

Again I underline the sentence: Who's truth is the truth and who is allowed to talk true.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Also surrounding this topic a nut to crack:

Everyone who has had troubles stopping smoking probably knows Varenicline (Champix/Chantix) pills. "Prooffed" to be unharming and safe to use by Pfizer (<s> who definedly not have any monetizing interest over the product they have created </s>) but by couple independent (not funded or any way connected to Pfizer) studies have found to be dangerous (just some major depression, suicidal thoughts and so on, "minor side-effects"). Pfizer has used millions probably even billions to lobby and get the black box warnings removed from the varenicline and in some countries (like Finland) has even gotten the product to be the first recommended medical help to stop smoking. "Suprisingly" the one study that got the black box warning to be removed by the FDA in US is actually even openly made by a person who has received payments from the Pfizer and other tobacco control organizations (mainly, at least in Finland, funded by drug companies and "public funds that allow donations") and even has been retained by a law firm working for Pfizer.

 

So, would a wiseman trust the studies made by the company that sells the medicine or the doctor who citates the same studies or the couple of studies that has nothing to do with the company that sells the medicine?

 

(My answer, trust the couple, I have been on varenicline and (sorry my French) nothing has ever fucked up my brain like that shit)

 

If you want to ignore the problems because you're afraid of government dictatorship then you should never introduce any laws about anything.  As I have said before, governments will always be corrupt, but the likelihood of them using such a system to censor political discussion is minimal.  Only in countries where you have no opposition political party or foundation of democracy does that sort of corruption reign supreme.

 

 

3 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

I didnt dismiss anything. The simple fact is, the first GMO foods were released in the 1990s, and GMO insulin isnt a food. Its an isolated hormone which is taken from modifed bacteria and injected. Its not a food. 

 

Being that its a single isolated chemical taken from a GM bacterium, its actually much less "controversial" than ingesting the tissue of organisms that have been modified, with all the concomitant chemicals like the endogenously produced pesticides by GM crops or the glyphosate that gets sprayed directly on food crops right up until harvest.

 

I love how the article mentions that farmers CAN use less pesticides, but in reality farmers actually use the now labeled as a carcinogen glyphosate to dry crops in a cheap and easy(and toxic) way.

 

Agribusiness and the grocery lobbyists have conflicting interests with science and a revolving door to the corrupt politicians who run the FDA.

 

 

Good thing science doesn't care what you think.

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Good thing science doesn't care what you think.

I see the GE crowd won out in the GMO vs GE debate and now everything is GE when talking about GMO. So what do we call selective breading and cross breading now? We have been altering genetic traits of plants and animals for so long it's probably not even possible to say when, just look at dogs. The "breeds" of dogs we have now are totally unnatural and are the result of genetic modification without the use of genetic engineering.

 

I never understood how this was confusing:

Quote

Genetic modification is a general term that refers to any type of human-driven modification, and is a close synonym to the word agriculture.  This is something we've been doing rigorously for thousands of years, and is the reason why corn is not a tiny seed head with more cellulose than sugar, why chickens are not little balls of feather and gristle, and why apples are not inedibly tart.  Genetic engineering is included as a form of genetic modification, in the same way that ballet is included as a form of dance.  Genetic engineering is a specialized form of genetic modification.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-genetic-engineering-and-genetic-modification

 

Though not everyone agrees with the above.

[mr moose]

57 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Though not everyone agrees with the above.

mostly only the scientific illiterate.

[Brooksie359]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

Problem here is (as I have said before), it's not about intelligence as intelligent people can be mislead too.  What would you rather, a government with the usual amount of corruption or a government voted in by mislead people with the usual amount of corruption also?   You see this whole issue isn't just about individuals getting taken for a ride, it costs the rest of society as well.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/

https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/08/29/40-years-ago-gmo-insulin-was-controversial-also-11757

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/08/31/gmo-controversies-40-years-ago-todays-science-success-stories/

 

I think diabetics who are alive today because of it beg to differ.

 

 

I don't think it is that hard to prove some news is fake,  for that which we can't prove its fake should be left alone.  I think the issue people have with this concept is that they see it as a blanket tool that will be used to ban all dissenting speech.  That is not the case at all.    Most democratic governments (believe it or not) are only corrupt to a point, they are definitely corrupt, they definitely screw somethings over,  but they haven't changed and it's not to the detriment of society.  The government institutions of the last 200 years have built societies to what they are today, we are not all dictatorship slaves and we are not going to be.   Laws come and go as society changes, some are not very good and some are awesome, some laws get overturned when they are obsolete and others get used out of context for purposes well beyond their intention (although thankfully not that often).  This is just he way it works when you have a system of governance that has to serve everyone, and you know what they say, you can't please all the people all the time.     Given we are a society (and fast becoming a world society rather than a group of individual countries) we are just going to have to accept that there are something we don;t like that will happen for the greater good of everyone.

The problem is that saying you have proof that something is fake is very subjective. You see this in the justice system where people are convicted because they were proven guilty when in reality they were innocent. To say that this sort of system wouldn't censor real information because it was believed to be false is just niave. The idea that censoring the internet is the answer is saddening. Also you talked about very intelligent people believing in something that is fake. Did you ever consider the possibility that you were wrong? Proof and evidence a long with education is the answer not censorship. 

[Amazonsucks]

41 minutes ago, mr moose said:

mostly only the scientific illiterate.

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

I see the GE crowd won out in the GMO vs GE debate and now everything is GE when talking about GMO. So what do we call selective breading and cross breading now? We have been altering genetic traits of plants and animals for so long it's probably not even possible to say when, just look at dogs. The "breeds" of dogs we have now are totally unnatural and are the result of genetic modification without the use of genetic engineering.

 

I never understood how this was confusing:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-genetic-engineering-and-genetic-modification

 

Though not everyone agrees with the above.

It always amuses me when people are condescending while simultaneously talking out their butt. Perhaps you should brush up on your own literacy regarding GMOs. I dont get whats confusing.

 

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/eu.php

 

European Union (EU) legislation defines a genetically modified organism (GMO) as “an organism, with the exception of human beings, in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination.”

 

 

To conflate GMOs with selectively bred organisms is laughable and nothing but a vain attempt to muddy the waters. Thats why those definitions have to be explicitly and carefully worded.

 

"Selective breading" sounds like an interesting cooking technique. Personally i like breaded foods to be thoroughly coated in panko bread crumbs.

 

FYI we call selective breeding *gasp* selective breeding today. Its not generally referred to as "GMO", as most scientifically literate people tend to value precise unambiguous terminology.

 

[leadeater]

24 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

 

It always amuses me when people are condescending while simultaneously talking out their butt. Perhaps you should brush up on your own literacy regarding GMOs. I dont get whats confusing.

 

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/eu.php

 

European Union (EU) legislation defines a genetically modified organism (GMO) as “an organism, with the exception of human beings, in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination.”

 

 

To conflate GMOs with selectively bred organisms is laughable and nothing but a vain attempt to muddy the waters. Thats why those definitions have to be explicitly and carefully worded.

 

"Selective breading" sounds like an interesting cooking technique. Personally i like breaded foods to be thoroughly coated in panko bread crumbs.

 

FYI we call selective breeding *gasp* selective breeding today. Its not generally referred to as "GMO", as most scientifically literate people tend to value precise unambiguous terminology.

 

Hate to break it to you but I've lived with someone with 2 Masters with 1st class Honors in the field of horticulture for a really long time and there is without question a difference between genetic modification and genetic engineering.

 

And the definition you quoted still covers breeds of dogs because no current breed of dog would have come about through natural breeding, the only real dog breed left is Mutt/Mongrel.

 

And no that comment was not specifically about you it covers all like the EU who create legislation like that. There historically has been a difference and were treated differently but I don't generally bother to keep up with what people like to call things but last I check around the early 2000s GMO and GE were treated as different.

[Stefan Payne]

On 31.7.2018 at 1:34 AM, Arika S said:

so who gets to define whether or not something is "fake news"? 

Everything that is against the Establishment is Fake news.

 

Just look at the Politicians. There was one who grilled a Youtube Guy (really, a Guy that represents Youtube) because she had to see Tommy R. as a Recommendation. HOW DARE THEY!!!11

 

And that is the Problem, that they crack down on the speech, go totalitarian because they are just too far from the population.

And with the Rise of alternative Media the "new aristocracy" looses power and it shifts more to the Youtube Stars.

 

And the UK gouvernment seemst o make an Anti-Carl B. Law, so that he can not get an office...

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

The problem is that saying you have proof that something is fake is very subjective.

Actually no, proof is not subjective,  opinions are subjective.  Proof is evidence that establishes a fact.  you cannot have differing pinons on proof, it is either evidenced or it isn't.

Quote

 

You see this in the justice system where people are convicted because they were proven guilty when in reality they were innocent. To say that this sort of system wouldn't censor real information because it was believed to be false is just niave. The idea that censoring the internet is the answer is saddening.

Good thing that is just your opinion then.

Quote

Also you talked about very intelligent people believing in something that is fake. Did you ever consider the possibility that you were wrong? Proof and evidence a long with education is the answer not censorship. 

I always consider I might be wrong,  but when 97% of scientists say the earth is going through man made climate change you'd be pretty naive to assume they were wrong and the 3% of intelligent highly educated scientists who disagree are the correct.  Especially when you have substantial evidence (proof) that it is happening.   So just to bring it back to reality for a minute, yes, intelligent people can be conned and mislead. Somethings are evidenced and demonstrably wrong and I see no reason why those things should not be banned. 

 

5 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

 

It always amuses me when people are condescending while simultaneously talking out their butt. Perhaps you should brush up on your own literacy regarding GMOs. I dont get whats confusing.

 

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/eu.php

 

European Union (EU) legislation defines a genetically modified organism (GMO) as “an organism, with the exception of human beings, in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination.”

 

 

To conflate GMOs with selectively bred organisms is laughable and nothing but a vain attempt to muddy the waters. Thats why those definitions have to be explicitly and carefully worded.

 

"Selective breading" sounds like an interesting cooking technique. Personally i like breaded foods to be thoroughly coated in panko bread crumbs.

 

FYI we call selective breeding *gasp* selective breeding today. Its not generally referred to as "GMO", as most scientifically literate people tend to value precise unambiguous terminology.

 

 

Yikes, maybe you should educate yourself about this before expressing your opinions.

 

EDIT: thought I better at least ad a link to supporting evidence form a professor of crop and soil sciences.

https://agbiotech.ces.ncsu.edu/q1-what-is-the-difference-between-genetically-modified-organisms-and-genetically-engineered-organisms-we-seem-to-use-the-terms-interchangeably/

 

 

 

Quote

Genetically modified food would include almost all the food we eat...

Carrots were not orange until the 1700’s and tomatoes used to be the size of marbles.

 

That puts GMO foods according to scientists back as early as the 1700's. 
 

 

[Amazonsucks]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Actually no, proof is not subjective,  opinions are subjective.  Proof is evidence that establishes a fact.  you cannot have differing pinons on proof, it is either evidenced or it isn't.

Good thing that is just your opinion then.

I always consider I might be wrong,  but when 97% of scientists say the earth is going through man made climate change you'd be pretty naive to assume they were wrong and the 3% of intelligent highly educated scientists who disagree are the correct.  Especially when you have substantial evidence (proof) that it is happening.   So just to bring it back to reality for a minute, yes, intelligent people can be conned and mislead. Somethings are evidenced and demonstrably wrong and I see no reason why those things should not be banned. 

 

 

Yikes, maybe you should educate yourself about this before expressing your opinions.

 

EDIT: thought I better at least ad a link to supporting evidence form a professor of crop and soil sciences.

https://agbiotech.ces.ncsu.edu/q1-what-is-the-difference-between-genetically-modified-organisms-and-genetically-engineered-organisms-we-seem-to-use-the-terms-interchangeably/

 

 

 

That puts GMO foods according to scientists back as early as the 1700's. 
 

 

Yikes, did you even read your own link? It leads right back to the genetic literacy projects page, which hilariously expresses how apparently difficult it is for some people to use their words.

Its pretty obvious that in the context of this discussion you already agree with the definition of "GMO" as meaning transgenic, artificially genetically engineered in a lab. You know, the way the GMO bacteria that make insulin you used as an example were made about 40 years ago?

I dont think people were "genetically modifying" things that way centuries ago and you even said 40 years ago, so when you discussed GMO you must have meant to say biotechnology produced, transgenic or LMO?

The term GMO is now being retroactively redefined to muddy the waters. I realize that most people dont know anything about biology beyond a high school level, but there is a massive difference between selectively breeding plants and animals and taking genes from one kingdom and splicing them into another. Amy attempt to linguistically conflate the two is absurdly ignorant beyond belief.

If youd like to change your assertion from stating that we've been eating GMO food for 40 years to we've been eatibg grnetically engineered food for 40 years, go ahead.

 

Youll still be incorrect as the first genetically engineered food went to market in 1994. People have been injecting GMO/GE/LMO/transgenic bacterial insulin for 40 years though.

I suppose being that youre an expert in all things genetic, youre familiar with the principle of substantial equivalence? This stuff youre saying sounds like the people who came up with the legislation around that BS.

For those who dont know what it is, its basically a corruptly drafted idea that says two completely contradictory things:

Transgenic food crops are similar enough to naturally produced food crops that they dont need to be labeled as GMO/LMO/transgenic/biotechnology produced.

Then in the same breath, theyre SO different that they can be patented, copyrighted and you can be sued for replanting seeds from your own GMO crops.

 

Essentially its a way for biotech companies to slip genetically engineered crops into food without anyone being able to find out if its genetically engineered, and also for them to have a patent and copyright on it so they can sue the shit out of anyone who infringes on the reproduction of said organism.

That makes about as much sense as conflating GMO/GE/BP/transgenic with old school selective breeding. It should be obvious that the term GMO is being used to describe one and not the other. Ive literally never heard anyone conflate the terms as you are unless theyre trying to make the argument that genetically engineered organisns are no different than selectively bred ones, which anyone with middle school biology level education should know the difference between.

You obviously know what youre doing otherwise you wouldnt have said 40 years, you would have said for hundreds of years.

 

But anyway, no we have not been eating transgenic/GE/LMO food for 40 years. Its been 24 since the first one was introduced in 1994.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Amazonsucks said:

Yikes, did you even read your own link? It leads right back to the genetic literacy projects page, which hilariously expresses how apparently difficult it is for some people to use their words.

Its pretty obvious that in the context of this discussion you already agree with the definition of "GMO" as meaning transgrnic, artificially genetically engineered in a lab. You know, the way the GMO bacteria that make insulin were made about 40 years ago?

I dont think people were "genetically modifying" things that way centuries ago and you even said 40 years ago, so when you discussed GMO you must have meant to say biotechnology produced, transgenic or LMO?

The term GMO is now bei g retroactively redefined to muddy the waters. I realize that most people dont know anything about biology beyond a high school level, but there is a massive difference between selectively breeding plants and animals and taking genes from one kingdom and splicing them into another.

If youd like to change your assertion from stating that we'vebeen eating GMO food for 40 years to we've been eatibg grnetically engineered food for 40 years, go ahead. Youll still be incorrect as the first genetically engineered food went to market in 1994. People have been injecting GMO/GE/LMO/transgenic bacterial insulin for 40 years though.

I suppose beibg that youre an expert in all things genetic, youre familiar with the principle of substantial equivalence? This stuff youre saying sounds lije the people who came up with the legislation around that BS.

For those who dont know what it is, its basically a corruptly drafted idea that says two completely conflicting things:

Transgenic food crops are similar enough to naturally produced food crops that they dont need to be labeled as GMO/LMO/transgrnic/biotechnology produced.

Then in the same breath, theyre SO different that they can be patented, copyrighted and you can be sued for replanting seeds from your own GMO crops.

That makes about as much sense as conflating GMO/GE/BP/transgenic with old school selective breeding. It should be obvious that the term GMO is being used to describe one and not the other. Ive literally never heard anyone conflate the terms as you are unless theyre trying to make the argument that genetically engineered organisns are no different than selectively bred ones, which anyone with middle school biology level education should know the difference between.

You obviously know what youre doing otherwise you wouldnt have said 40 years, you would have said for hundreds of years.

You really need to stop pretending you know what you are talking about. We have been eating them for 40 years (significantly longer even), but the crucial information you missed in your efforts to be right was the fact that people have been studying the effects of said GMOs since then and come up with nothing.  If you understood what those links were telling you you wouldn't keep posting.  It was even in the link you posted earlier:

 

Quote

The report found that the EU authorization procedure is generally considered to achieve the objectives of the protection of human and animal health through the use of science-based risk assessment, and that there were no cases of animal or human health problems resulting from GMOs to date.

But hey, if you knew it said that why are you arguing that they need laws banning it?  Why are you arguing a governments definition of GMO (set up solely to justify a ban) when we have actually legitimate scientists telling us what it is.

[Amazonsucks]

19 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You really need to stop pretending you know what you are talking about. We have been eating them for 40 years (significantly longer even), but the crucial information you missed in your efforts to be right was the fact that people have been studying the effects of said GMOs since then and come up with nothing.  If you understood what those links were telling you you wouldn't keep posting.  It was even in the link you posted earlier:

 

But hey, if you knew it said that why are you arguing that they need laws banning it?  Why are you arguing a governments definition of GMO (set up solely to justify a ban) when we have actually legitimate scientists telling us what it is.

So we have been eating what for significantly longer tham 40 years? Genetically engineered/transgenic/LMO crops created in labs or selectively bred? 

 

I find it a bit amazing that you seem to be saying two completely contradictory things here. Either we have been eating foods created by genetic engineering since before 1994, when the first GM/GE/LMO/transgenic food crop was approved or we havent.

 

You used the terms GMO and been eating for 40 years, not me. Its understood from your statement that you were defining GMO as transgenic, because if you had meant "selectively bred" humans have been doing that for centuries not 4 decades...

 

Also, where did i state that genetically engineered food needs to be banned? Do you have me confused with someone else?

 

If you are going to call that governments position and definition illigetimate, then you should probs trash the idea that the scientists on the payroll of Bayer Monsanto, Syngenta etc are legitimate.

 

Shall i start posting lists of the "regulators" who have come from the FDA to biotech firms or gone from high level positions at biotech firms to then go "regulate"(give them a free pass) them at the FDA? Its an extremely corrupt revolving door that undermines any scientific credibility involved.

 

Perhaps since youre scientifically literate you also know what data dredging is? 

 

I really like the little condescending insults you include with no repercussions like "You really need to stop pretending you know what you are talking about."

 

It would seem that you really need to decide how you are linguistically using GMO. You said eating GMO FOOD for 40 years, then proceeded to link articles about insulin producing genetically ENGINEERED bacteria.

 

So obviously GMO=GE in the context YOU used it in. The first such food crop was released in 1994 though...

 

 

 

[mr moose]

Just now, Amazonsucks said:

So we have been eating what for significantly longer tham 40 years? Genetically engineered/transgenic/LMO crops created in labs or selectively bred? 

 

I find it a bit amazing that you seem to be saying two completely contradictory things here. Either we have been eating foods created by genetic engineering since before 1994, when the first GM/GE/LMO/transgenic food crop was approved or we havent.

 

You used the terms GMO and been eating for 40 years, not me. Its understood from your statement that you were defining GMO as transgenic, because if you had meant "selectively bred" humans have been doing that for centuries not 4 decades...

 

Also, where did i state that genetically engineered food needs to be banned? Do you have me confused with someone else?

 

If you are going to call that governments position and definition illigetimate, then you should probs trash the idea that the scientists on the payroll of Bayer Monsanto, Syngenta etc are legitimate.

 

Shall i start posting lists of the "regulators" who have come from the FDA to biotech firms or gone from high level positions at biotech firms to then go "regulate"(give them a free pass) them at the FDA? Its an extremely corrupt revolving door that undermines any scientific credibility involved.

 

Perhaps since youre scientifically literate you also know what data dredging is? 

 

 

 

I'll give you a gold star for determination,  because you tagged me and said I was wrong about GMO and kept going even after I have posted several links supporting what I said. 

[Amazonsucks]

Just now, mr moose said:

 

I'll give you a gold star for determination,  because you tagged me and said I was wrong about GMO and kept going even after I have posted several links supporting what I said. 

Except that you said "eating GMO FOOD for 40 years".

 

When i corrected you and stated that the first GMO food was released in 1994 you proceeded to link me to articles about genetically ENGINEERED bacteria that produce insulin.

 

So obviously you were using the term GMO interchangably with GE/LMO/BP/transgenic.

 

Now youre backpedaling and saying that GMO is different from genetically engineered.

 

If so, why did you say 40 years then link to genetically engineered insulin producing bacteria that were made 40 years ago?

 

Why not just say weve been eating GMO food for centuries? Could it be that you too used the term GMO to mean genetically engineered?

 

If not, why link to the 40 year old insulin bacteria to support your claim that weve been eating GMO food for 40 years?