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

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Amazonsucks 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?

Except you are wrong, you are the one trying to claim a definition of GMO that is not consistent with science.   I have posted links that explain what the generally accepted term for GMO is and that includes carrots and tomatoes from the 18th century.

 

Quote

Most scientists would say that almost all the food we eat has been “genetically modified” by man and that genetic modification includes not only conventional breeding, but simple selections man has made over millennia.

Sorry that is too hard for you to understand.

 

EDIT: and to be honest, half of what you post is just irrational banter that really only tells us you don't know what you are talking about. 
 

[Brooksie359]

2 hours 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. 
 

 

Evidence is objective but conclusions aren't. Let's say for example vaccines causing autism. You can say their is no evidence to support this claim but there is also no way to prove 100% that it doesn't. You see how based on your perspective the conclusion could be different. The simple fact is that it's nearly impossible to prove most of the ideas you referred to as problematic. You can show that we don't have any evidence that supports it. That doesn't make it wrong though as maybe we just haven't discovered it yet. Like in a criminal trial although the idea is to be objective and make a decisions using facts the conclusion is often times different for different people and is very open to the possibility of being wrong. 

[mr moose]

Just now, Brooksie359 said:

Evidence is objective but conclusions aren't. Let's say for example vaccines causing autism. You can say their is no evidence to support this claim but there is also no way to prove 100% that it doesn't.

 

Um, yes it has been proven they don't.  Emphatically in numerous ways.

 

Just now, Brooksie359 said:

You see how based on your perspective the conclusion could be different. The simple fact is that it's nearly impossible to prove most of the ideas you referred to as problematic.

No.  ignoring evidence does not change it what it proves.

Just now, Brooksie359 said:

You can show that we don't have any evidence that supports it. That doesn't make it wrong though as maybe we just haven't discovered it yet. Like in a criminal trial although the idea is to be objective and make a decisions using facts the conclusion is often times different for different people and is very open to the possibility of being wrong. 

I don't know why people keep clinging to this, no one is suggesting that things without evidence are wrong, we are saying what does have evidence proving it to be wrong is wrong.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Amazonsucks said:

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.

The term GMO came after GE and the science community has always used the term Genetic Engineering when talking about this subject. Media introduced the term Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) and popularized it's use and that is how it's become the common term. People using the term GE are scientifically correct though as it seems current usage both are used to mean the same thing, that I wasn't aware of.

 

I personally prefer GE and GMO as being separate things, with GE being under the wider term of GMO. To not recognize a very long history of human achievement and science in the field of agriculture and horticulture through the scientific method of genetic modification not by the means of genetic engineering is to me a bit sad, many people worked their whole lives on such things for the expressed purposes of modifying the genetic makeup of plants and animals to improve many different aspects and characteristics. We also have a history of doing very bad things when it comes to genetic modification, many pure breed dogs suffer debilitating health issues because of our unnatural meddling and we still parade them around and give them awards. That should be a source of shame not pride but I'm no pure breed dog aficionado.

 

Though I have no idea how this conversation came about, only came here originally because I saw @mr moose was the last commenter and I was interested in what was being said. Just surprised me to see GMO being used like it was, I've always held GE as the term to be using.

[Amazonsucks]

28 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Except you are wrong, you are the one trying to claim a definition of GMO that is not consistent with science.   I have posted links that explain what the generally accepted term for GMO is and that includes carrots and tomatoes from the 18th century.

 

Sorry that is too hard for you to understand.

 

EDIT: and to be honest, half of what you post is just irrational banter that really only tells us you don't know what you are talking about. 
 

Ill ignore the dismissive, condescension and ad hominem like you ignore a simple question, because everyone can read your backtracking and evasion. So...

 

Why link to an article about 40 year old genetically ENGINEERED bacteria to support YOUR claim that "we've been eating GMO food for 40 years"?

 

 

[Amazonsucks]

22 minutes ago, leadeater said:

The term GMO came after GE and the science community has always used the term Genetic Engineering when talking about this subject. Media introduced the term Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) and popularized it's use and that is how it's become the common term. People using the term GE are scientifically correct though as it seems current usage both are used to mean the same thing, that I wasn't aware of.

 

I personally prefer GE and GMO as being separate things, with GE being under the wider term of GMO. To not recognize a very long history of human achievement and science in the field of agriculture and horticulture through the scientific method of genetic modification not by the means of genetic engineering is to me a bit sad, many people worked their whole lives on such things for the expressed purposes of modifying the genetic makeup of plants and animals to improve many different aspects and characteristics. We also have a history of doing very bad things when it comes to genetic modification, many pure breed dogs suffer debilitating health issues because of our unnatural meddling and we still parade them around and give them awards. That should be a source of shame not pride but I'm no pure breed dog aficionado.

 

Though I have no idea how this conversation came about, only came here originally because I saw @mr moose was the last commenter and I was interested in what was being said. Just surprised me to see GMO being used like it was, I've always held GE as the term to be using.

I agree that GE is more technically accurate.

 

I replied to @mr moose claiming that we have been eating GMO food for 40 years. He backed up that claim by linking to articles about 40 year old GE bacterial insulin. THAT kind of "GMO"(GE) food was first released in 1994, and 24 is not 40.

 

For the purpose of this discussion HE defined the terms, and HE defined GE=GMO by supporting the claim that we've been eating GMO food for 40 years.

 

He then proceded to backtrack, move the goal posts, and use ad hominem insulting tactics instead of retracting his demonstrably false statement. Noice scientific discussion. Real facebook echo chamber level of discourse.

[Brooksie359]

28 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Um, yes it has been proven they don't.  Emphatically in numerous ways.

 

No.  ignoring evidence does not change it what it proves.

I don't know why people keep clinging to this, no one is suggesting that things without evidence are wrong, we are saying what does have evidence proving it to be wrong is wrong.

Most scientific laws and theories have little to no evidence to support them in their infancy and some took decades to find the evidence to prove them. I am just saying to prove something to be 100% and infallible is nearly impossible. Obviously I don't believe something unless their is evidence to support it but I am also not going to say that everything that doesn't have evidence to support it is wrong. To believe that our current understanding of the world is infallible is just arrogance. I say let everyone post what they want and people can make the decisions themselves on what they believe. 

[Amazonsucks]

27 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Most scientific laws and theories have little to no evidence to support them in their infancy and some took decades to find the evidence to prove them. I am just saying to prove something to be 100% and infallible is nearly impossible. Obviously I don't believe something unless their is evidence to support it but I am also not going to say that everything that doesn't have evidence to support it is wrong. To believe that our current understanding of the world is infallible is just arrogance. I say let everyone post what they want and people can make the decisions themselves on what they believe. 

A lot of pseudoscientific people who claim to be scientific treat science as a religion.  So much of what scientists have thought throughout the ages is constantly revised and proved wrong.

 

Right now there is actually a crisis in the scientific community called the "replicability crisis". New studies have shown that a lot of accepted as true peer reviewed research isnt able to be reproduced.

 

The people youre arguing with would do well to educate themselves about it. Its not hard to find info on it either.

 

 

The second video is not about the replicability crisis, but about complexity theory and cellular automata. It is very interesting and related to how research is done.

[leadeater]

30 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

 

 

Damn, that part on the cancer studies. 6 of 53.

 

It's good they pointed out the requirement to publish as well, that's part of employment agreements and required to keep professorship titles so that along with requiring to be new an unique leads to all sorts of pointless research. Minor changes to an existing one counts so there is also a lot of repeat research that isn't confirmation checking because it's not really the same study.

 

Examples:

"Chinstrap penguins can squirt poo up to 40cm, winner, Fluid Dynamics, 2005"

"Dog fleas can jump higher than cat fleas, winner, Biology, 2008"

"Rats can’t always tell the difference between Japanese spoken backwards and Dutch spoken backwards, winner, Linguistics, 2007"

 

There's huge pressure to conduct and publish studies as it effects funding and international academic standings.

[Peter S]

I think this is a great step done by UK Parliament Committee. Thanks for extending their concerns to fight against misinformation and disinformation in democratic system. I just hope that all social media firms will also incorporate strict guidelines and monitoring about this issue to avoid disinformation and fake news.

[Brooksie359]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

Um, yes it has been proven they don't.  Emphatically in numerous ways.

 

No.  ignoring evidence does not change it what it proves.

I don't know why people keep clinging to this, no one is suggesting that things without evidence are wrong, we are saying what does have evidence proving it to be wrong is wrong.

How was it proven that it doesn't? Like I said before there are people who have been convicted of murder because all evidence points to that. Then new evidence comes out that contradicts it and proves they are innocent. To say that one person doesn't get to be heard because you like their argument isn't as good is just asinine. If you think there is evidence enough to be 100% certain that something is true and something else is wrong then we shouldn't need to censor anything and let the evidence speak for itself. Let people decide what they believe more and educate them to help them understand. As a society a law like this would promote not questioning things and asking the important questions. If you take everything at face value of being true then you lose the opportunity to question things and get a deeper understanding of how things work. This law would be way more detrimental than helpful. 

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, Nicholatian said:

I think a good example of a solution in this situation would be licensing. We have had special legal bases for professional lines of work, which has usually included the practises of lawyers, doctors, engineers, and other fields besides. In the field of journalism, freedom of the press reigns in the US and other places, but not without constitutional restrictions: they're not allowed to defame or libel other people or entities, for instance, otherwise they very well may be sued for such acts. In the US, the first amendment does not protect you from making threats, which includes the often-cited scenario of somebody yelling "fire!" when there isn't one, to show it applies in both ways.

 

When it comes to this new situation with technology, social media, et cetera, the idiotic thing that's pervading here is that many people are completely ungrounded from the reality of the situation, opting for a pie-in-the-sky non-answer to the problem even though it's practically impossible. I saw the very same thing in a video a few days ago by Hank Green, titled "I Think I'm Living in a Corporate Autocracy".

 

It's from this incredibly far-off perspective that misunderstands the place of corporations in both today and in history, probably because it never occurs to them that we've been here a dozen times before, at least in America. Corporations ran the trans-continental railroads and everybody dealt with that over time, thanks to regulation for how rails are run. The same thing happened with the oil industry, and all of these corporations could make or break the very existence of people's communities - it was very unfair. But it goes to show this issue of 'corporate autocracy' is not even remotely new, and we can take a page from history to deal with it. Citing nonexistent hypothetical worst-case scenarios is not dealing with it - putting regulation forth and dealing with further consequences, is.

You don't limit people's freedom to stop autocracy. Especially because nothing autocratic in nature is happening. Everyone is entitled to think the way they want and trying to enforce your thinking on others is wrong even if your way of thinking is factually right. 

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

Ill ignore the dismissive, condescension and ad hominem like you ignore a simple question, because everyone can read your backtracking and evasion. So...

 

Why link to an article about 40 year old genetically ENGINEERED bacteria to support YOUR claim that "we've been eating GMO food for 40 years"?

 

 

Because it furthers my point, I also linked to other articles.  I have made no ad hominem nor condescending attacks, you told me I was wrong and I posted evidence I wasn't, if you still need to argue in the face of that evidence then you are truly everything I have described. 

9 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

I agree that GE is more technically accurate.

 

I replied to @mr moose claiming that we have been eating GMO food for 40 years. He backed up that claim by linking to articles about 40 year old GE bacterial insulin. THAT kind of "GMO"(GE) food was first released in 1994, and 24 is not 40.

 

For the purpose of this discussion HE defined the terms, and HE defined GE=GMO by supporting the claim that we've been eating GMO food for 40 years.

 

He then proceded to backtrack, move the goal posts, and use ad hominem insulting tactics instead of retracting his demonstrably false statement. Noice scientific discussion. Real facebook echo chamber level of discourse.

What a load of shit,  I said we have been eating GMOs for 40 years, you said that was wrong and linked to an article explaining how the first approved GE product was 1996 (a GE being more specific than GMO).  I linked to several articles showing you we have been eating/consuming GMOs for centuries though they have have only been in the spot light and studied for 40 years.  How do you think I am wrong when the articles I linked supports my claims?  How can you claim we have only been eating GMO's since 1996 when I have shown you evidence we have been eating them a lot longer?   Is it because you made an error and in order to hide it you continue to argue and make accusations of goal post moving.  Please show me which goal post I have move.

 

9 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Most scientific laws and theories have little to no evidence to support them in their infancy and some took decades to find the evidence to prove them. I am just saying to prove something to be 100% and infallible is nearly impossible. Obviously I don't believe something unless their is evidence to support it but I am also not going to say that everything that doesn't have evidence to support it is wrong. To believe that our current understanding of the world is infallible is just arrogance. I say let everyone post what they want and people can make the decisions themselves on what they believe. 

Again, why do you keep coming back to things like this.  No one believes that.   I am only talking about things that can be proven.  Things that are evidenced with a wealth of good research.  What fear do you have that you would rather see innocent people mislead into damaging themselves and their children rather than blocking articles that are proven factually incorrect?  Again, not ideas, not opinions but things that are wrong.

 

5 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

How was it proven that it doesn't?

 

The grand daddy of scientific studies:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814559

 

A meta analysis of two cohort studies with more than a 1 Million participants and 5 case control studies with more than 9 thousand participants.

 

I know that human research isn't absolute, and we shouldn't assume that one study or even preliminary studies are absolute (that's just a mistake) but somethings are so damn close to absolute only a fool or someone with a hidden agenda will ignore it.

 

5 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Like I said before there are people who have been convicted of murder because all evidence points to that. Then new evidence comes out that contradicts it and proves they are innocent.

So they shouldn't have made a judgment on lack of evidence, how is that different to what I am saying?  I have looked into a lot of those cases because I am staunchly against the death penalty, most of the time the evidence was not tabled (due to human error or agenda) or it wasn't collected,  The good thing about the suggestions in this thread is that they are challenged by the public and concerned parties and forced into debate in the wider community, that does not happen in a closed court.   Like I said right back at the beginning, things like this should be focused around defamation laws,  It's very hard to prove defamation unless it actually happened.  put the burden of proof back on the accuser and I see no reason why this has to be anything like a failure of justice.

 

5 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

To say that one person doesn't get to be heard because you like their argument isn't as good is just asinine.

I'm not saying that. Are you even reading my posts?

5 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

If you think there is evidence enough to be 100% certain that something is true and something else is wrong then we shouldn't need to censor anything

and let the evidence speak for itself.

We are already doing this and it is not working, that is why people are looking into new ways to deal with the problem.

 

5 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Let people decide what they believe more and educate them to help them understand.

I have already explained why that isn't working.   Shit it isn't working to the point the Australian government had to introduce a policy where parents didn't get any tax benefits if they did not vaccinate their kids.   Education only goes so far.

5 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

As a society a law like this would promote not questioning things and asking the important questions.

Says who? your allowed to ask questions, you can't be held accountable for asking questions. That's like saying laws that prevent you from speeding will prevent you from asking about it.  No it won't.

 

5 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

If you take everything at face value of being true then you lose the opportunity to question things and get a deeper understanding of how things work. This law would be way more detrimental than helpful. 

I disagree. And it's not a law, its a list of suggestions for consideration from a committee tasked with investigating the effect of fake news.
 

 

 

[Brooksie359]

48 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Because it furthers my point, I also linked to other articles.  I have made no ad hominem nor condescending attacks, you told me I was wrong and I posted evidence I wasn't, if you still need to argue in the face of that evidence then you are truly everything I have described. 

What a load of shit,  I said we have been eating GMOs for 40 years, you said that was wrong and linked to an article explaining how the first approved GE product was 1996 (a GE being more specific than GMO).  I linked to several articles showing you we have been eating/consuming GMOs for centuries though they have have only been in the spot light and studied for 40 years.  How do you think I am wrong when the articles I linked supports my claims?  How can you claim we have only been eating GMO's since 1996 when I have shown you evidence we have been eating them a lot longer?   Is it because you made an error and in order to hide it you continue to argue and make accusations of goal post moving.  Please show me which goal post I have move.

 

Again, why do you keep coming back to things like this.  No one believes that.   I am only talking about things that can be proven.  Things that are evidenced with a wealth of good research.  What fear do you have that you would rather see innocent people mislead into damaging themselves and their children rather than blocking articles that are proven factually incorrect?  Again, not ideas, not opinions but things that are wrong.

 

The grand daddy of scientific studies:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814559

 

A meta analysis of two cohort studies with more than a 1 Million participants and 5 case control studies with more than 9 thousand participants.

 

I know that human research isn't absolute, and we shouldn't assume that one study or even preliminary studies are absolute (that's just a mistake) but somethings are so damn close to absolute only a fool or someone with a hidden agenda will ignore it.

 

So they shouldn't have made a judgment on lack of evidence, how is that different to what I am saying?  I have looked into a lot of those cases because I am staunchly against the death penalty, most of the time the evidence was not tabled (due to human error or agenda) or it wasn't collected,  The good thing about the suggestions in this thread is that they are challenged by the public and concerned parties and forced into debate in the wider community, that does not happen in a closed court.   Like I said right back at the beginning, things like this should be focused around defamation laws,  It's very hard to prove defamation unless it actually happened.  put the burden of proof back on the accuser and I see no reason why this has to be anything like a failure of justice.

 

I'm not saying that. Are you even reading my posts?

We are already doing this and it is not working, that is why people are looking into new ways to deal with the problem.

 

I have already explained why that isn't working.   Shit it isn't working to the point the Australian government had to introduce a policy where parents didn't get any tax benefits if they did not vaccinate their kids.   Education only goes so far.

Says who? your allowed to ask questions, you can't be held accountable for asking questions. That's like saying laws that prevent you from speeding will prevent you from asking about it.  No it won't.

 

I disagree. And it's not a law, its a list of suggestions for consideration from a committee tasked with investigating the effect of fake news.
 

 

 

You can't question if something is true or not if the information is blocked. The fact that you don't realize this just proves you don't realize the full effect of censorship. 

[Brooksie359]

30 minutes ago, Nicholatian said:

If you read and understood the entirety of my post, you would know that says nothing towards what I said. Don't misrepresent people's arguments.

Regulations are limitations no matter how you think about it. You speak of regulations in industries that create autocracy as a solution to such corruption. You then say that is the way to go about such things. Now maybe I don't understand what you are trying to convey but I can only go off of what you said. If you don't want people to misrepresent your argument then make a clear argument in the first place. We are talking about the internet here so I am unsure how to take your way of thinking any other way. The only other suggestion you speak of is professional licenses which has no place in the internet. I am afraid I have no other way to interpret what you said until you clarify. 

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

You can't question if something is true or not if the information is blocked. The fact that you don't realize this just proves you don't realize the full effect of censorship. 

??  The information can only be blocked/banned/removed if it isn't true.  There is nothing stopping anyone from explaining which information has been removed and why.  

[Amazonsucks]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

Because it furthers my point, I also linked to other articles.  I have made no ad hominem nor condescending attacks, you told me I was wrong and I posted evidence I wasn't, if you still need to argue in the face of that evidence then you are truly everything I have described. 

What a load of shit,  I said we have been eating GMOs for 40 years, you said that was wrong and linked to an article explaining how the first approved GE product was 1996 (a GE being more specific than GMO).  I linked to several articles showing you we have been eating/consuming GMOs for centuries though they have have only been in the spot light and studied for 40 years.  How do you think I am wrong when the articles I linked supports my claims?  How can you claim we have only been eating GMO's since 1996 when I have shown you evidence we have been eating them a lot longer?   Is it because you made an error and in order to hide it you continue to argue and make accusations of goal post moving.  Please show me which goal post I have move.

 

Again, why do you keep coming back to things like this.  No one believes that.   I am only talking about things that can be proven.  Things that are evidenced with a wealth of good research.  What fear do you have that you would rather see innocent people mislead into damaging themselves and their children rather than blocking articles that are proven factually incorrect?  Again, not ideas, not opinions but things that are wrong.

 

The grand daddy of scientific studies:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814559

 

A meta analysis of two cohort studies with more than a 1 Million participants and 5 case control studies with more than 9 thousand participants.

 

I know that human research isn't absolute, and we shouldn't assume that one study or even preliminary studies are absolute (that's just a mistake) but somethings are so damn close to absolute only a fool or someone with a hidden agenda will ignore it.

 

So they shouldn't have made a judgment on lack of evidence, how is that different to what I am saying?  I have looked into a lot of those cases because I am staunchly against the death penalty, most of the time the evidence was not tabled (due to human error or agenda) or it wasn't collected,  The good thing about the suggestions in this thread is that they are challenged by the public and concerned parties and forced into debate in the wider community, that does not happen in a closed court.   Like I said right back at the beginning, things like this should be focused around defamation laws,  It's very hard to prove defamation unless it actually happened.  put the burden of proof back on the accuser and I see no reason why this has to be anything like a failure of justice.

 

I'm not saying that. Are you even reading my posts?

We are already doing this and it is not working, that is why people are looking into new ways to deal with the problem.

 

I have already explained why that isn't working.   Shit it isn't working to the point the Australian government had to introduce a policy where parents didn't get any tax benefits if they did not vaccinate their kids.   Education only goes so far.

Says who? your allowed to ask questions, you can't be held accountable for asking questions. That's like saying laws that prevent you from speeding will prevent you from asking about it.  No it won't.

 

I disagree. And it's not a law, its a list of suggestions for consideration from a committee tasked with investigating the effect of fake news.
 

 

 

You moved the goalpost of what definition of GMO you were using. 

 

If you had said "weve been eating selectively bred plants and animals for centuries" thats fine. You didnt say that. You used GMO in the GE/transgenic context as evidenced by your supporting evidence being 40 year old insulin producing bacteria... not exactly hard to see which context you meant GMO in by using that as an example of it instead of, oh i dont know, wheat.

 

But you didnt use any other domesticated plant or animal, which in your backpedaling and unscientific expansion of the term "genetically moified", would have been an appropriate example.

 

The first transgenic GE GMO food was approved in 1994, which is 24 years ago not 40. Posting links to GE bacterial insulin indicates several things.

 

You were inncorrect about the decade in which transgenic food was introduced to the food supply.

 

Injected insulin from genetically engineered bacteria is not a food so it does not support the claim that weve been eating transgenic food for 40 years.

 

Secondly, you had to change the context of the terminology you yourself defined by example to "seem right".

 

So either you care more about giving the appearance of being right than actually being right, or you actually believe that there is any similarity between selective breeding and gene insertion from a species of one kingdom to another, which is extreme scientific illiteracy. Take your pick.

 

[mr moose]

28 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

You moved the goalpost of what definition of GMO you were using. 

No I didn't.  I have always said GMO.  You were the one posting wiki pages on GE products claiming my use of the term GMO was wrong.

 

28 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

 

If you had said "weve been eating selectively bred plants and animals for centuries" thats fine. You didnt say that. You used GMO in the GE/transgenic context as evidenced by your supporting evidence being 40 year old insulin producing bacteria... not exactly hard to see which context you meant GMO in by using that as an example of it instead of, oh i dont know, wheat.

GMO includes selective breading, or did you miss that bit in the several links you were provided?

 

28 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

 

But you didnt use any other domesticated plant or animal, which in your backpedaling and unscientific expansion of the term "genetically moified", would have been an appropriate example.

I did, carrots, corn and tomato were all mentioned in the links I provided.   You think its backpedaling because you are fumbling to excuse your ignorance.

28 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

 

The first transgenic GE GMO food was approved in 1994, which is 24 years ago not 40. Posting links to GE bacterial insulin indicates several things.

GE yes, but I said GMO, I did not say GE.  GE is a GMO but a GMO is not specifically a GE.  it was all in the links I provided and in the links leadeater provided.  

28 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

You were inncorrect about the decade in which transgenic food was introduced to the food supply.

No you were making assumptions about GMO.

28 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Injected insulin from genetically engineered bacteria is not a food so it does not support the claim that weve been eating transgenic food for 40 years.

No but it is a registered GE product used on humans from before 1996, I posted that in response to your claims that GE has only been a thing since then.

28 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Secondly, you had to change the context of the terminology you yourself defined by example to "seem right".

I haven't changed anything, it is still the same.  You tried to tell me I was wrong by using a specific that wasn't relevant to what I said. you clearly don't understand the difference between GMO and GE even after several explanations were posted for you.

28 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

So either you care more about giving the appearance of being right than actually being right, or you actually believe that there is any similarity between selective breeding and gene insertion from a species of one kingdom to another, which is extreme scientific illiteracy. Take your pick.

 

No, I just find it amusing you can't admit you are wrong.  

 

 

[mr moose]

Time line for clarity:

Here is my original post on GMO's:

On 8/2/2018 at 6:52 PM, mr moose said:

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?

 

 

Your response is to say we haven't been eating GMO's for 40 years and post a link to a GE tomato from 1996 and claim it was the first GMO. Can you see where the problem is here already?  you are trying to argue GMO hasn't been around that long by pointing to a GE product. This is the first clue you don't know what you are talking about.

On 8/2/2018 at 10:42 PM, 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.

I then responded by showing you that humans have used GE products since before then and also a link to a professor talking aboiut the consumpotion of GMO crops for 40 years.

On 8/3/2018 at 7:27 AM, 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.

A quote from that article for you:

Quote

He is expressing despair at the relentless need to confront what he sees as bogus fears over the health risks of genetically modified (GM) crops. Particularly frustrating to him, he says, is that this debate should have ended decades ago, when researchers produced a stream of exonerating evidence: “Today we're facing the same objections we faced 40 years ago".

You see, I have supported my original claim of eating GMO for 40 years and rebutted your assertion that the first GE product used by humans was in 1996.

 

so this is the response you give, you ignore the evidence that makes you wrong and latch onto insulin not being a food in hope that it would divert from your mistake:

On 8/3/2018 at 8:08 AM, Amazonsucks said:

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

 

which I called out instead:

On 8/3/2018 at 8:11 AM, mr moose said:

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

 

you then claim this, which is really amusing because I have already posted one article that says GMO foods have been around for 40 years, but obviously you think you know better than a Professor:

On 8/3/2018 at 8:18 AM, 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.

 

 

 

 

I also linked to a very in depth article explaining what GMO is and why it is an acceptable term for selective breading. But you are ignoring that.  Instead you wish to focus on your personal vendetta against anyone who might call out your ignorance on the topic.  Luck for us science doesn't care about your pride.

 

 

So before you post a tirade calling me ignorant and claiming I am back pedaling where clearly I am not (as evidenced above), how about you find evidence that these professor I linked are wrong and why you think your insistence on talking about GE somehow invalidates what I said.

[suicidalfranco]

ok guys time to bring the thread back on track:

UK sucks.

 

[Brooksie359]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

??  The information can only be blocked/banned/removed if it isn't true.  There is nothing stopping anyone from explaining which information has been removed and why.  

Yes but you can't make a decision for yourself if you believe it and why you do or don't. They aren't going to explain what has been removed and why. They will simply remove it otherwise they might as well have just left it as is. This doesn't allow for any discussion but rather I'm right your wrong and get rid of the information that is "proven false". Any way you look at it you are depriving the opportunity to think for themselves. We don't need the government to parent the population. 

[leadeater]

47 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Yes but you can't make a decision for yourself if you believe it and why you do or don't. They aren't going to explain what has been removed and why. They will simply remove it otherwise they might as well have just left it as is. This doesn't allow for any discussion but rather I'm right your wrong and get rid of the information that is "proven false". Any way you look at it you are depriving the opportunity to think for themselves. We don't need the government to parent the population. 

Whether we called it parenting by the government or something else we already have laws that would fall under that type of thing. Hate speech for example would and you can go to jail for that, medical and medicinal treatments is another. These all come under the idea of public safety and endangerment and what's being basically tabled here is that the spreading of false information comes under that and there is a point where leaving it be crosses over to requiring intervention. The framework for how, why and when is extremely difficult and I have no doubt if done will have many cases of getting it wrong just like everything else. Does this mean it shouldn't be attempted at all? I think there is some room for combating the spread of false information in some way, I don't know how and it won't be perfect but I also don't think something should not be attempted because it won't be perfect.

 

As you say no one is going to spend the time explaining why something has been removed or even give a notification that it has, that's extremely burdensome thing to do unless we are talking about something that will be done on extremely rare occasions but I doubt that will be the case. Like here with forum moderation I don't always notify members when posts are hidden or exactly how many and which ones, obviously there are warnings and PM's where required but that's done on our best judgement. The big difference here on the LTT forum is that everything is human touch and I very much doubt at a government level that it will be anything like that, it'll be very automated and computerized, has a Minority Report vibe to it.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Whether we called it parenting by the government or something else we already have laws that would fall under that type of thing. Hate speech for example would and you can go to jail for that, medical and medicinal treatments is another. These all come under the idea of public safety and endangerment and what's being basically tabled here is that the spreading of false information comes under that and there is a point where leaving it be crosses over to requiring intervention. The framework for how, why and when is extremely difficult and I have no doubt if done will have many cases of getting it wrong just like everything else. Does this mean it shouldn't be attempted at all? I think there is some room for combating the spread of false information in some way, I don't know how and it won't be perfect but I also don't think something should not be attempted because it won't be perfect.

 

As you say no one is going to spend the time explaining why something has been removed or even give a notification that it has, that's extremely burdensome thing to do unless we are talking about something that will be done on extremely rare occasions but I doubt that will be the case. Like here with forum moderation I don't always notify members when posts are hidden or exactly how many and which ones, obviously there are warnings and PM's where required but that's done on our best judgement. The big difference here on the LTT forum is that everything is human touch and I very much doubt at a government level that it will be anything like that, it'll be very automated and computerized, has a Minority Report vibe to it.

I never said nothing should be done. I did say we should combat false information with good information and education. I mean even putting a flag that the information is likely false and giving a link to an explanation to why would be better than outright censoring. This would give the opportunity to make a judgement themselves and wouldn't block information. Outright banning something seems alot worse than simply giving people the information and tools to have an informed opinion on the matter. People think not censoring something is doing nothing but that is narrow sighted and doesn't look into the many other angles that false information can be combated. 

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I never said nothing should be done. I did say we should combat false information with good information and education. I mean even putting a flag that the information is likely false and giving a link to an explanation to why would be better than outright censoring. This would give the opportunity to make a judgement themselves and wouldn't block information. Outright banning something seems alot worse than simply giving people the information and tools to have an informed opinion on the matter. People think not censoring something is doing nothing but that is narrow sighted and doesn't look into the many other angles that false information can be combated. 

Didn't facebook implement something recently to flag potential fake news? Wonder how that's working, I don't really use facebook so never actually seen an example of something getting flagged on there. Flagging is better than removing, agree with that.

[Brooksie359]

46 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Didn't facebook implement something recently to flag potential fake news? Wonder how that's working, I don't really use facebook so never actually seen an example of something getting flagged on there. Flagging is better than removing, agree with that.

I just think there aren't as many ways for flagging to become oppressive and problematic. If the flag is wrong then people still can see the information and choose to ignore it. If people didn't know any better they can realize that the information is false and stop them from blindly assuming the information is true.