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

[mr moose]

8 hours 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. 

I think the issue here is that we are discussing more the way in which this could be bad as opposed the way in which this can be worked out.  Yes if something is black banned then no one would know why.  But I am assuming if I write an article and it gets taken down, I can ask why, I can tell the public I wrote an article that the government wants to ban and facebook won't publish for fear of a fine.  I can take that information into the public domain, just like you can with any grievance in the free world.  I am not sure what politics is like in your part of the world, but here in Australia as soon as a politician is accused of censorship or black listing and he can't show solid public approval reasoning,  then his party goes into damage control.   I won't make this thread political so PM me if you want a list of examples of parties loosing elections on bad PR like this.

 

5 hours 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.

yes, it didn't work.   Google even removed naturalnews from their search engine at one point.  I see it is now back on.

5 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

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. 

I have no problem with flagging instead of banning/blocking if it has an effect.  I do see problems with it, but I can't seem to find a way to articulate that right now. 

[Amazonsucks]

16 hours ago, mr moose said:

Time line for clarity:

Here is my original post on GMO's:

 

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.

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.

A quote from that article for you:

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:

 

which I called out instead:

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:

 

 

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.

Why bother bringing up GE bacteria used to make insulin then?

 

Insulin producing bacteria are not food and they do nothing to reinforce your semantic argument that the term GMO includes selective breeding. 

 

If youre going to say "GMO includes selective breeding" and differentiate between genetic engineering and selective breeding thats one thing.

 

But humans have been eating selectively bred food for centuries, not 40 years. So if youre going to say GMO includes selective breeding, then why say 40 when its actually hundreds?

 

Thats the same intellectually dishonest, unscientific propaganda that GMO lobbyists and agribusiness apologists use to attempt to deceive people who lack knowledge of genetics and biology. Its an attempt to make selective breeding aplear similar to transgenic orgsnisms.

 

The kind of genetic manipulation done to create transgenic, GE GMOs is very different from selectively bred "GMOs". Only someone who has no clue how either process works could conflate them or think theyre similar.

 

If people want to retroactively include selective breeding in what constitutes a GMO, thats still irrelevant to the fact that the first transgenic food was released in 1994. 40 year old insulin producing E. coli is irrelevant as well, since it wasnt selectively bred.

 

 

 

 

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

Why bother bringing up GE bacteria used to make insulin then?

Because YOU brought up GE food claiming it was until 1996 that GE products were first registeered.

 

 

2 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

 

Insulin producing bacteria are not food and they do nothing to reinforce your semantic argument that the term GMO includes selective breeding. 

 

If youre going to say "GMO includes selective breeding" and differentiate between genetic engineering and selective breeding thats one thing.

 

But humans have been eating selectively bred food for centuries, not 40 years. So if youre going to say GMO includes selective breeding, then why say 40 when its actually hundreds?

 

Thats the same intellectually dishonest, unscientific propaganda that GMO lobbyists and agribusiness apologists use to attempt to deceive people who lack knowledge of genetics and biology. Its an attempt to make selective breeding aplear similar to transgenic orgsnisms.

 

The kind of genetic manipulation done to create transgenic, GE GMOs is very different from selectively bred "GMOs". Only someone who has no clue how either process works could conflate them or think theyre similar.

 

If people want to retroactively include selective breeding in what constitutes a GMO, thats still irrelevant to the fact that the first transgenic food was released in 1994. 40 year old insulin producing E. coli is irrelevant as well, since it wasnt selectively bred.

 

 

 

 

My god this is complete face palm material, you are literally repeating yourself when I have extensively addressed it already and shown you your mistakes with evidence. 

[Amazonsucks]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

Because YOU brought up GE food claiming it was until 1996 that GE products were first registeered.

 

 

My god this is complete face palm material, you are literally repeating yourself when I have extensively addressed it already and shown you your mistakes with evidence. 

And what does GE bacteria have to do with the first GE food being approved in 1994? The discussion was about food, not hormones.

 

Its not me who is using flexible definitions for terms here. Be as condescending as you like with facepalm this and all the other ad hominem and appeals to the false consensus logical fallacy you like.

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

And what does GE bacteria have to do with the first GE food being approved in 1994? The discussion was about food, not hormones.

 

Already told you why I posted that.

8 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

Its not me who is using flexible definitions for terms here. Be as condescending as you like with facepalm this and all the other ad hominem and appeals to the false consensus logical fallacy you like.

That's a black faced lie.  The first time anyone tried to define a GMO was you in your first post where you where wrong.  You thought that all GMO's had to be GE. And that a GMO was not selective breeding.  you were proven to be wrong and now you are trying to maintain that lie by accusing me of your crimes.

[Amazonsucks]

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

Already told you why I posted that.

That's a black faced lie.  The first time anyone tried to define a GMO was you in your first post where you where wrong.  You thought that all GMO's had to be GE. And that a GMO was not selective breeding.  you were proven to be wrong and now you are trying to maintain that lie by accusing me of your crimes.

No, it was just obvious that the context "GMO" was being used in was not the same context that would include genetic manipulation through selective breeding. It was being discussed in the context of genetically engineered organisms. And in that context, GE GMO is a very different method of genetic alteration than selective breeding. Conflating the two, or retroactively expanding the definition of the term to include things based on technicalities only serves the purpose of making them seem like similar processes when they couldnt be more different.

 

It was obvious enough that i pointed out it wasnt 40 years, but rather since the mid 1990s that GMO(read GE in this case) foods have been consumed.

 

You proceeded to tell me how scientifically illiterate i am for not including "selective breeding" in the propagandist broad definition of the term "GMO". Most people probably dont think of selective breeding when they use the term GMO, which is almost always used to reference GE GMOs.

 

Literally the only time they are intentionally conflated is to suit an agenda of muddying the waters for people who dont already know the difference between gene insertion in a lab and selective breeding of interfertile species.

 

I refuse to play bullshit semantic games like that. They are, as you would say, facepalm material.

 

Also wtf is a black faced lie? That a Freudian slip typo on your part?

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

No, it was just obvious that the context "GMO" was being used in was not the same context that would include genetic manipulation through selective breeding. It was being discussed in the context of genetically engineered organisms. And in that context, GE GMO is a very different method of genetic alteration than selective breeding. Conflating the two, or retroactively expanding the definition of the term to include things based on technicalities only serves the purpose of making them seem like similar processes when they couldnt be more different.

 

It was obvious enough that i pointed out it wasnt 40 years, but rather since the mid 1990s that GMO(read GE in this case) foods have been consumed.

 

You proceeded to tell me how scientifically illiterate i am for not including "selective breeding" in the propagandist broad definition of the term "GMO". Most people probably dont think of selective breeding when they use the term GMO, which is almost always used to reference GE GMOs.

 

Literally the only time they are intentionally conflated is to suit an agenda of muddying the waters for people who dont already know the difference between gene insertion in a lab and selective breeding of interfertile species.

 

I refuse to play bullshit semantic games like that. They are, as you would say, facepalm material.

 

Also wtf is a black faced lie? That a Freudian slip typo on your part?

You can't make up your own definition of GMO then accuse someone of being wrong.  I was the one who started the discussion on GMO, I only ever used the term GMO you were the one who tried to claim it had a meaning that it didn't. I am not the only person who corrected you.  And your still persisting in defending your ignorance. 

 

A black faced lie is a lie that you make knowing full well it is a lie.   That is what you are doing here. Because the thread is here in writing, everyone can back and read over it including yourself to see what was said in order. I even posted all the relevant quotes.

[Amazonsucks]

15 hours ago, mr moose said:

You can't make up your own definition of GMO then accuse someone of being wrong.  I was the one who started the discussion on GMO, I only ever used the term GMO you were the one who tried to claim it had a meaning that it didn't. I am not the only person who corrected you.  And your still persisting in defending your ignorance. 

 

A black faced lie is a lie that you make knowing full well it is a lie.   That is what you are doing here. Because the thread is here in writing, everyone can back and read over it including yourself to see what was said in order. I even posted all the relevant quotes.

I didnt define the terms of the discussion though. You replied @LAwLz in this discussion on page 3 of this thread:

 

"

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."

 

 

Based upon their wording and yours, its virtually impossible to misconstrue GMO for selectively bred in that conversation. Its obvious that both of you were discussing GE GMOs since you were discussing the EUs stance on them and safety. Last time i checked the EU regulation was only in reference to GE GMOs and not selectively bred cultivars. 

 

I think its funny that you go on to say that stuff about only trusting the data, but ignore the data dredging done by corrupt corporate funded "science" with internal safety studies designed to give the desired result, and no actual peer review. Im sure a company with billions to gain or lose has no conflict of interest regulating itself. Right?

 

I thought the term was "bald faced". Never heard that colloquialism before...

 

Btw, do you know what tight junctions, zonulin and gliadin are, or their role in autoimmune and microbiota related illnesses? I noticed you were dismissive of another current area of actual medical research regarding that.

[peredv]

This whole mr. moose vs. Amazonsucks side-thread sure has been an interesting read.

 

I mean it all started with

 

A: "I think we have enough data to say genetically engineered food is objectively safe and anything else is fake news" - *who's to say what is enough?* -

 

B: "I don't, we only have 24 years of data" - *as if that's a small amount*

 

And then, doing his best to show anyone willing to read through the posts that bias and pride comes before all; mr. Moose has gone on a 2 page long semantics tirade about how "no, I actually was technically right about my wording" instead of admitting we've "only" been eating Genetically engineered food since 94' and continuing the discussion of whether it should be considered fake news tying into the article above.

 

Either take the position that 24 years is enough research and that that's an example of OBJECTIVE FACT that you tout in your arguing for this ruling, or change your opinion on whether GMO foods* (read: genetically engineered edibles produced by gene splicing or other techniques not previously available until the 20th century) should be considered fake-news.

 

Personally I have now read enough petty ad-hominems and condescension directed at Amazonsucks to say that *I have*(read: probably shouldn't base any state-decisions on this one) been convinced that a person, committee or otherwise controlling instance of the state should never be in control of judging what is and is not fake-news. It's simply not possible to do so without bias.

 

 

Oh by the way, here's the FDAs stance on it:

*https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GEPlants/ucm461805.htm

Quote

While genetic engineering is sometimes referred to as “genetic modification” producing “genetically modified organisms (GMOs),” FDA considers “genetic engineering” to be the more precise term.

I know I'm cutting it short and they pretty much go on to say that you should always use Genetic engineering to refer to what we are talking about here, but it's also an admittance that GMO is sometimes used in its place.

 

 

Anyway, those are my two cents. I agreed with you for a lot of your posts mr. moose, but too much of these:

 

"Sorry that is too hard for you to understand." - insulting opponents intelligence.

"half of what you post is just irrational banter" - another one, this time using insult to dismiss post instead of breaking down opponents argument.

"Argue and dismiss whatever you want, the facts speak for themselves" - Appealing to universal facts without presenting said facts in the same post.

"Good thing science doesn't care what you think." - Appealing to glorious science.

 

They break down your own arguments by making you seem like some "mightier-than-thou" jerk.

 

Try to restrict yourself next time and you might win over more readers to your side. Argumentation, after all, is really for the 3. party sake, not the two sides arguing.

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

I didnt define the terms of the discussion though. You replied @LAwLz in this discussion on page 3 of this thread:

 

"

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."

 

 

Based upon their wording and yours, its virtually impossible to misconstrue GMO for selectively bred in that conversation. Its obvious that both of you were discussing GE GMOs since you were discussing the EUs stance on them and safety. Last time i checked the EU regulation was only in reference to GE GMOs and not selectively bred cultivars. 

 

I think its funny that you go on to say that stuff about only trusting the data, but ignore the data dredging done by corrupt corporate funded "science" with internal safety studies designed to give the desired result, and no actual peer review. Im sure a company with billions to gain or lose has no conflict of interest regulating itself. Right?

 

I thought the term was "bald faced". Never heard that colloquialism before...

 

Btw, do you know what tight junctions, zonulin and gliadin are, or their role in autoimmune and microbiota related illnesses? I noticed you were dismissive of another current area of actual medical research regarding that.

 

4 hours ago, peredv said:

This whole mr. moose vs. Amazonsucks side-thread sure has been an interesting read.

 

I mean it all started with

 

A: "I think we have enough data to say genetically engineered food is objectively safe and anything else is fake news" - *who's to say what is enough?* -

 

B: "I don't, we only have 24 years of data" - *as if that's a small amount*

 

And then, doing his best to show anyone willing to read through the posts that bias and pride comes before all; mr. Moose has gone on a 2 page long semantics tirade about how "no, I actually was technically right about my wording" instead of admitting we've "only" been eating Genetically engineered food since 94' and continuing the discussion of whether it should be considered fake news tying into the article above.

 

Either take the position that 24 years is enough research and that that's an example of OBJECTIVE FACT that you tout in your arguing for this ruling, or change your opinion on whether GMO foods* (read: genetically engineered edibles produced by gene splicing or other techniques not previously available until the 20th century) should be considered fake-news.

 

Personally I have now read enough petty ad-hominems and condescension directed at Amazonsucks to say that *I have*(read: probably shouldn't base any state-decisions on this one) been convinced that a person, committee or otherwise controlling instance of the state should never be in control of judging what is and is not fake-news. It's simply not possible to do so without bias.

 

 

Oh by the way, here's the FDAs stance on it:

*https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GEPlants/ucm461805.htm

I know I'm cutting it short and they pretty much go on to say that you should always use Genetic engineering to refer to what we are talking about here, but it's also an admittance that GMO is sometimes used in its place.

 

 

Anyway, those are my two cents. I agreed with you for a lot of your posts mr. moose, but too much of these:

 

"Sorry that is too hard for you to understand." - insulting opponents intelligence.

"half of what you post is just irrational banter" - another one, this time using insult to dismiss post instead of breaking down opponents argument.

"Argue and dismiss whatever you want, the facts speak for themselves" - Appealing to universal facts without presenting said facts in the same post.

"Good thing science doesn't care what you think." - Appealing to glorious science.

 

They break down your own arguments by making you seem like some "mightier-than-thou" jerk.

 

Try to restrict yourself next time and you might win over more readers to your side. Argumentation, after all, is really for the 3. party sake, not the two sides arguing.

 

Yikes another person who can;'t read.  What's the point in providing evidence if no one is going to read it?

 

Here you are from the link I posted at the very beginning, the very first link that every seems to want to ignore :

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

 

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.”

 

Remember my first comment was that we have been eating GMO (not GE specifically but GMO) for 40 years.   Only amazonsucks is trying to argue I meant something I didn't and use made up definitions for GMO's.

 

If you can't work out how that supports what I said, then you are trolling.

 

SO before anyone answers again, please show me how this plant molecular biologist from university of California has no idea what he is talking about and why I should believe that amazonsucks definition of a GMO has to be a GE (even though others have point to links and definitions that say it isn't).

 

EDIT: @peredv  I try not to sound condescending but my initial comments were only ever GMO, I never mentioned GE. Given I have sourcds plenty of scientists who use the term GMO for the same meaning as I did I don't see why I should let someone try to twist my words and try to conflate whole other issues.  When someone refuses to accept that there is a difference between GMO as it is used in common vernacular and GE as it is used scientifically,  in an effort to push some other agenda then yes I am going to categorize that person as scientific illiterate.  I will not mince my words or sugar coat for people who are holier than thou with a "look at me I'm so good" good approach to discussion. 

[peredv]

47 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Here you are from the link I posted at the very beginning, the very first link that every seems to want to ignore :

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

Actually that article states that the first GM crops that came to market did so in the 90´s, confirming what amazonsucks have been saying. Here´s the quote, now go find one that states the opposite:

Quote

The public has been worried about the safety of GM foods since scientists at the University of Washington developed the first genetically modified tobacco plants in the 1970s. In the mid-1990s, when the first GM crops reached the market, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Ralph Nader, Prince Charles and a number of celebrity chefs took highly visible stands against them.

That said, you are right in that he should be reading the source material provided to him. Interesting read by the way, I´ll finish it later.

 

DOUBLE EDIT; in light of mr moose´s answer nothing here really counts, but it´s an interesting article quote so I´ll leave it here.

Spoiler

 

EDIT:

I´m sorry about the edit, but I´m still reading your linked article here, which I believe was used to state that anti-GMO should be classified fake news? thus dealt with somehow.. Whatever, let´s just read this little - it´s rather long actually - snippet from the article about halfway in here:

 

Quote

Not all objections to genetically modified foods are so easily dismissed, however. Long-term health effects can be subtle and nearly impossible to link to specific changes in the environment. Scientists have long believed that Alzheimer's disease and many cancers have environmental components, but few would argue we have identified all of them.

And opponents say that it is not true that the GM process is less likely to cause problems simply because fewer, more clearly identified genes are replaced. David Schubert, an Alzheimer's researcher who heads the Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., asserts that a single, well-characterized gene can still settle in the target plant's genome in many different ways. “It can go in forward, backward, at different locations, in multiple copies, and they all do different things,” he says. And as U.C.L.A.'s Williams notes, a genome often continues to change in the successive generations after the insertion, leaving it with a different arrangement than the one intended and initially tested. There is also the phenomenon of “insertional mutagenesis,” Williams adds, in which the insertion of a gene ends up quieting the activity of nearby genes.

 

True, the number of genes affected in a GM plant most likely will be far, far smaller than in conventional breeding techniques. Yet opponents maintain that because the wholesale swapping or alteration of entire packages of genes is a natural process that has been happening in plants for half a billion years, it tends to produce few scary surprises today. Changing a single gene, on the other hand, might turn out to be a more subversive action, with unexpected ripple effects, including the production of new proteins that might be toxins or allergens.

 

Opponents also point out that the kinds of alterations caused by the insertion of genes from other species might be more impactful, more complex or more subtle than those caused by the intraspecies gene swapping of conventional breeding. And just because there is no evidence to date that genetic material from an altered crop can make it into the genome of people who eat it does not mean such a transfer will never happen—or that it has not already happened and we have yet to spot it. These changes might be difficult to catch; their impact on the production of proteins might not even turn up in testing. “You'd certainly find out if the result is that the plant doesn't grow very well,” Williams says. “But will you find the change if it results in the production of proteins with long-term effects on the health of the people eating it?”

 

It is also true that many pro-GM scientists in the field are unduly harsh—even unscientific—in their treatment of critics. GM proponents sometimes lump every scientist who raises safety questions together with activists and discredited researchers.

 

 

 

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, peredv said:

Actually that article states that the first GM crops that came to market did so in the 90´s, confirming what amazonsucks have been saying. Here´s the quote, now go find one that states the opposite:

That said, you are right in that he should be reading the source material provided to him. Interesting read by the way, I´ll finish it later.

Yer, I also posted this link on that same page of tirades:

 

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

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. Carrots were not orange until the 1700’s and tomatoes used to be the size of marbles. Corn used to have very small ears and kernels with hard seed coats and low digestibility.

 

As you can see, my argument is not wrong as amazonsucks is trying to argue, I am merely pointing out that GMO's (according to scientists as well) are any crop that has been selectively breed to change it to something more suitable for human use. It has been consumed for 40 years, I didn't bother arguing centuries or even thousands of years because the scientific community has only been observing the effects (or lack thereof) of consumption for 40 years.   It is indeed an interesting read, the whole industry and it's position in human development is an interesting conundrum (imo).   If I was talking specifically about GE then he'd be right, but I'm not and have done nothing but explain over and over that I was not talking about GE specifically.  Although I do agree with your summation that 26 years is a long time to see no major adverse reactions to GE tomatoes.

 

 

[peredv]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

As you can see, my argument is not wrong as amazonsucks is trying to argue, I am merely pointing out that GMO's (according to scientists as well) are any crop that has been selectively breed to change it to something more suitable for human use. It has been consumed for 40 years, I didn't bother arguing centuries or even thousands of years because the scientific community has only been observing the effects (or lack thereof) of consumption for 40 years.   It is indeed an interesting read, the whole industry and it's position in human development is an interesting conundrum (imo).   If I was talking specifically about GE then he'd be right, but I'm not and have done nothing but explain over and over that I was not talking about GE specifically.  Although I do agree with your summation that 26 years is a long time to see no major adverse reactions to GE tomatoes.

Ok, fair enough.

You have said nothing about fake-news throughout the discussion and was merely arguing that humans have been modifying plants for a long time and there´s nothing wrong with that.

I agree;

 

I think Scientific American says it best:

Quote

[The middle ground argues] continuing the distribution of GM foods while maintaining or even stepping up safety testing on new GM crops. They advocate keeping a close eye on the health and environmental impact of existing ones. But they do not single out GM crops for special scrutiny, all crops could use more testing.

 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, peredv said:

Ok, fair enough.

You have said nothing about fake-news throughout the discussion and was merely arguing that humans have been modifying plants for a long time and there´s nothing wrong with that.

I agree;

 

I think Scientific American says it best:

 

And I agree with that.  I don't like the idea of turning a blind eye to anything we humans do.  I just don't appreciate being called intellectually dishonest, playing semantic games and outright called wrong and talking out my but while said person is simultaneously trying to use the topic to derail the discussion into a debate about glyphosate and monasnto. 

[peredv]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

And I agree with that.  I don't like the idea of turning a blind eye to anything we humans do.  I just don't appreciate being called intellectually dishonest, playing semantic games and outright called wrong and talking out my but while said person is simultaneously trying to use the topic to derail the discussion into a debate about glyphosate and monasnto. 

I´ll be man enough to admit my newly acquired share in that, sorry.

 

To get back on topic..

Mulling it back and forth I´m still not sure about giving any part of a government the job of tagging content as fake-news, thus effectively censoring it. The wannabe american in me screams just at the thought, but when you look at it in a certain light it does seem like the obvious starting point.

 

Have rules to make sure no corruption is taking place such as transparency in what is tagged, how is the budget used etc. make sure no single person has power ... have clear guidelines on what constitutes "fake-news"; babybutt-bleach-enemas would be a good example of some. Unfounded, unresearched claims made by mr. rando-journalist about the top 10 ways eating GMOs will kill you would be another.. Maybe a science-backed critique of overuse of a certain new poorly tested pesticide is not fake-news.. Then again, there´s a lot of crap being published in journals these days, so "science-backed" should probably be tightened a little as well before we allow everyones facebook feed to be filled up with "Drain cleaner found use as antiseptic, study says. Should you use it to clean your genitalia? The answer may shock you!" because with all this work, news will have more authenticity. Bad example though, I´ll admit.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, peredv said:

I´ll be man enough to admit my newly acquired share in that, sorry.

 

Thank you, you are a gentleman and a scholar.

1 minute ago, peredv said:

To get back on topic..

Mulling it back and forth I´m still not sure about giving any part of a government the job of tagging content as fake-news, thus effectively censoring it. The wannabe american in me screams just at the thought, but when you look at it in a certain light it does seem like the obvious starting point.

I agree, I think any decision have to be rigorously debated and evidenced beyond doubt

1 minute ago, peredv said:

Have rules to make sure no corruption is taking place such as transparency in what is tagged, how is the budget used etc. make sure no single person has power ... have clear guidelines on what constitutes "fake-news"; babybutt-bleach-enemas would be a good example of some. Unfounded, unresearched claims made by mr. rando-journalist about the top 10 ways eating GMOs will kill you would be another.. Maybe a science-backed critique of overuse of a certain new poorly tested pesticide is not fake-news.. Then again, there´s a lot of crap being published in journals these days, so "science-backed" should probably be tightened a little as well before we allow everyones facebook feed to be filled up with "Drain cleaner found use as antiseptic, study says. Should you use it to clean your genitalia? The answer may shock you!" because with all this work, news will have more authenticity. Bad example though, I´ll admit.

 

Maybe just tightening the rules is enough.   Maybe even have a licensing system that journalists and media have to obtain before they are permitted to run articles about medicine/health.