-
If you need help identifying a pepper, disease, or plant issue, please post in Identification.
seeds Why organic seed?
- Thread starter AJ Drew
- Start date
Bicycle808 said:
Just as there is logic and emotion, there is pure science, and there is philosophy.
Pure logic would tell us that the answer to all of the world's illnesses, is to euthanize/cull the sick, and breed genetic perfection, through selective means. Emotion would tell us to save absolutely everyone, born, unborn, terminal, hopeless, etc. (or it could go the opposite, and plead an authoritative case, to hell with anything else) REASON lies somewhere in the middle of the two.
Pure science tells us the hows and whys of the natural world. Philosophy is a belief system that attempts to explain our origin and purpose, in the same way that science attempts to explain the method of our origin and workings. Scientific ethics, often based on philosophy, tells us how, why, and when to apply them. It is not absolute. It grants exceptions. (It is the equivalent of REASON) It allows pure science to function, and have its place, while allowing our humanity to remain in place. Perhaps ethics is a social construct, but pure science is pure logic. And I will argue with anyone all day long that pure science is not the answer to all of the world's problems. Only the scientific ones!
But yes, there is that other stuff that talks about science, but isn't at all.
solid7 said:
your world view on this is such horse shit.
you cant lovingly caress the nut sack of nature whilst living in a dense urban city center, and your apeal to "natural selection" is utterly hilarious. do you apply this other facets of your world view?
not getting vaccinated is profoundly retarded for a number of reasons. i sincerely hope that you did not go to school entirely unvaccinated... or that your kids and family do not.
people with your viewpoint are the reason kids go deaf from contracting measles. so fucking stupid.
queequeg152 said:
No, I don't necessarily, because I'm not an extremist, who must hold the same view, for every given situation.
I didn't live in a dense urban center when I went to school. So if you do, by choice, then by all means, uphold your moral obligation to get vaccinated.
My natural selection comment was meant to be satirical, but OK. I don't really advocate just letting people die, anymore than I favor popping a pill for every little thing that ails us.
Myxlplyk said:
lol, do your self a favor...delete the RSS feed from natural news. you sound pathetic.
ill never understand why people with so little information, are so willing to shoot off their mouths.
GMO cultivars are tested above and beyond the standards of generic hybrid cultivars. are they tested for like 30 years like anti GMO morons want? no, because that would be retarded.
half the GMO traits are just f**king... suppressing the expression of this or that protein. half the time they are not ADDING ANYTHING. see artic apple.
yes many gmos insert genes from bacteria etc, for the expression of this or that trait or protien, but so f**king what? this happens in nature every day via viruses etc.
sexual reproduction via pollensation exchanges thousands of genes between the two parents. why are you not hysterical about that?
the genes and traits that people are putting into these plants are some of the best studied genes on the planet. the BT traits in corn and cotton were known, studied, and augments for around for like... 30 years prior to them being inserted into plants. f**king organic farmers spray the stuff by the truck load.
am i supposed to be less worried about the hundreds of pounds of BT endospore that famers spray, or the milligrams of bt protein in the tissue of a corn cultivar?
and roundup is one of the most benign herbicides ever introduced. the fact that it can be detected in blood plasma has more to do with advances in technolagy than anything else.
ready any of these studies that natural news zombies vomit out... they are all showing parts per TRILLION. do you understand how magnificantly small that is?
microgram/ liter = parts per BILLION.
nanogram/ liter = parts per trillion.
the sodium in your blood is supposed to be like 3mg/l. 3miligrams per liter
thats 1 MILLION TIMES MORE than 3 nanograms per liter.
solid7 said:
its not a moral decision. thats what you folks never get.
its a purely logical decision.
if you want to live in a world with 6 billion people, brush elbows with people in airports, and fly all over the country, you need to depart from the wholsome naturalistic fairly land world view you have.
you not getting vaccinated means absolutly nothing. its you + 5% of the population that your ilk proselytizes that means we loose heard immunity. and for what? what do you gain? absolutly f**king nothing.
queequeg152 said:
Do I proselytize? Please, elaborate...
On the flip side of proselytizing, you love to use words like "If you want to live", and "you need", etc. A bit megalomaniacal. Your arguments have left absolutely no room for anything outside of your own point of view. That there are people who are made sick by the vaccines?
Contrary to the notion of herd immunity... Maybe you'd like to offer you unerring and infallible wisdom on the subject of people who get vaccinated, and still don't achieve immunity? Flu victims who got the flu shot. Or even further, the doctors who then threat them with antibiotics, which then give birth to resistant strains? Because that doesn't happen, does it? Me + 5% stacks up exactly how, in numbers, to those who are abusing pharmaceuticals? (whose makers are only too happy to oblige)
Where do all of these horrible outbreaks come from? I'm sure that you've surmised that the root cause is non-vaccinated people. You gave the example of people losing hearing to measles. Great. Keep going...
queequeg152 said:
Ok, so I should shut my mouth because you and I disagree. Yeah, doesn't work that way. Just because you drink roundup by the quart, you didn't read the same shit I did. How do you know yours isn't propaganda? I said it's IN US. You agreed. I don't care how little, it's in us. And I don't think it's only getting there by the shit we eat from Krogers. It's in our aquifers, streams, rivers, lakes, etc. Again, less than what the government deems bad, but it's still there. And I don't even buy their numbers, but that's not what we're discussing.
http://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/glyphosate02.html
What is the largest aquifer in the US going to be like in 50 years? A toxic dump. I'm not an ecogeek by any means. I'm a realist who knows we need fresh friggen drinking water.
And as far as GMOs go, what did they test them on? Or better yet, whom? The main reason I disagree with GMOs is because our government had/has no problem putting its people, or others, on the fast track to be guinea pigs. Whether it's safe or not is not the issue. We were/are being force fed the shit. And before you call bullshit, I have one word for you... labeling.
Myxlplyk said:
yea i can honestly say. hand on heart... that i believe you should absolutely STFU untill you do a little cursory research.
believe it or not. many of our national policies are steered by public opinion.
i know that does not jive with ones illuminati world view... but its demonstrably true. there might be leading and lagging involved, but its demonstrable none the less.
why do you think vermont is spearheading this GMO labeling nonsense? because everyone there has done objective research into the issue? lol.
when they test GMO plants that are destined for use as food or animal feed, they literally just feed rats the a shit load of it for a few generations and thats it.
then they move onto a different trial with larger animals and maby monkeys. no they do not carry these tests out over decades. there is no reason to.
the point is... that generic sexually produced hybrid cultivars do not require these feed trials. why is that ok, when sexual reproduction involves swapping ultold numbers of genes... and a GMO cultivar only a few, or even just one?
is it because you dont understand it? dont understand biology in general?
do you think mankind makes its best decisions based on fear and ignorance? do you know what the red scare was?
Michaelwburke77 said:
I've heard this argument before, and it certainly has some validity. But, is that all it is? One might argue that it's a response to consumer demand. I am not sure anyone can deny that. The value of the reasons for that demand can be discussed in depth, but there are consumers who want cert'd organic goods, and they do have their reasons. Driving costs up could be one of the reasons that suppliers are producing organic goods, but i doubt if it's a popular reason for consumers to demand organic goods.
queequeg152 said:
yea i can honestly say. hand on heart... that i believe you should absolutely STFU untill you do a little cursory research.
And I think you should kiss my ass. Are you the second cumming of Solid7?
believe it or not. many of our national policies are steered by public opinion.
They have to quell the peasants, don't they? Just as long as they don't look behind the curtain.
i know that does not jive with ones illuminati world view... but its demonstrably true. there might be leading and lagging involved, but its demonstrable none the less.
Jibberjabber.
why do you think vermont is spearheading this GMO labeling nonsense? because everyone there has done objective research into the issue? lol.
I know... because what the government wants trumps our right to know every time.
when they test GMO plants that are destined for use as food or animal feed, they literally just feed rats the a shit load of it for a few generations and thats it.
then they move onto a different trial with larger animals and maby monkeys. no they do not carry these tests out over decades. there is no reason to.
the point is... that generic sexually produced hybrid cultivars do not require these feed trials. why is that ok, when sexual reproduction involves swapping ultold numbers of genes... and a GMO cultivar only a few, or even just one?
Where were the human trials spanning generations?
is it because you dont understand it? dont understand biology in general?
Nope. I's just a dumb truck driver who likes growing peppers, and telling GMO wonks to kiss my ass.
do you think mankind makes its best decisions based on fear and ignorance? do you know what the red scare was?
Yes, I do know what the red scare was. And in this thread it's a straw man.
Do all so-called intellectuals act like dude from Big Bang Theory? I remember when he found a woman touching him repulsive. Frankly, I can't stand people who act above their pay grade. Oh well... guess you see this peasant as sitting too far towards the front of the bus. I'll retreat, and let you and solid have your scientific evidence orgy. Guess no one can have an opinion around here, without channeling Einstein first.
solid7 said:
no antivaxers in general proselytize. hence "ilk".
i mean you might proselytize, ive just never noticed it.
vaccinations of flue are always ineffective. always have been. perhaps they always will be.
the flue virus... and alot of viruses in genral mutate on a regular basis. we are very lucky that the flue virus isnt that deadly...
some seasons the flue vaccine is only good for like 30% of the flue strains. some other seasons its alot better.
this has absolutly nothing to do with imminuty. it has to do with how vaccines are made. it takes a long time to develope a vaccine and produce enough antigens. often times new flue strains evolve while the new flue vaccine is being turned out.
you dont give someone antibiotics for the flue... you should really be embarrassed by the fact that you dont know the difference between a viral infection and a bacterial infection. i think we learned that in elementary school.
lol they dont even oprate via a similar mechanism. a vaccine gives your body antigens that are safe, yet close enough to the real thing to allow your immune system to fight off a real virus.
an antibiotic is basically just a drug that is toxic to the offending bacteria, and less tocix ( hopefully alot less toxic)to your body. some of the extreme antibiotics are VERY VERY toxic... in the same ball park as alot of chemotherapy treatments. there are antibiotics that can kill super reistant shit... but it also attacks your colon or renal system etc.
and no... the trend towards resistance is NOT the same mechanism at all. getting a vaccine is like making a house more fire proof... assuming your immune system is functioning properly and you can make the proper antibody. taking a dose of antibiotics is like putting out a fire inside your house afere it starts.
the likelihood of hosing down a house and missing a little blob of fire, or a little blob of fire becoming water resistant( some how...) is naturally going to be far and away more likely.
now you can still have a whole city that is mostly fire proof, and have a new type of fire roll in and burn the whole palce down. but you are NOT hugly encouraging the development( selective pressure) of new and improved viruses by vaccinating simply because its your body that is doing to killing of small viral loads and not a simple chemical with a single mechanism of action being exposed to a population of trillions and trillions of microbes.
yes vaccine resistance has been observed... but its on the order of several decades, and its only for certain types of viruses that are prone to mutating.
your body recognizes viruses and shit by the proteins that are on the surface of these crazy looking virus machine things. some of these viruses have a genome that is prone to mutating in a way that changes around features on this protien coating that protects the virus RNA... this is helpful because it makes "evolution" or resistance more likely than a completely random roll of the dice... where the virus cannot reproduce etc.
these routine changes to viruses are usually easy to defeat though. yo can use similar tools that you used to defeat the virus in the first palce. you just have to show your body some inert antigens... this just takes a long time, like 1 year at the lowest.
for these types of viruses, they issue "booster" reccomendations. i think i had to get a booster for meningitis after like 9 years? its the same for other shit, and booster requirements vary in different countries with different viral loads etc.
anway, antibiotics abuse is a serious problem that was elucidated by science ironically... the same breed of folks telling you that vaccines are safe.
antiobiotic resistant strains of shit like staph come about due to simple selection. to make things worse, alot of the antibiotics we rely on are single modal... meaning that they only kill via one mechanism. once you defeat that mechanism you win essentially... this is why you treat resistant shit with coctails of antibiotics similar to how you treat aids patients with coctails of anti retroviral drugs.
with a drug cocktail, or mixed regime of antibiotics you can increase you chance of killing off microbes that are resistant to one or more antibiotic.
the subsequent likelyhood that a microbe becomes resistant to not one, but two, or three different antibiotic kill mechanisms plummets alot.
shit is emerging that is resistant to many of these antibiotics though... some people think this is due to some bacteria being able to exchange RNA or DNA via some vague mechanism that i dont really understand.
the implication of that gene exchange is... one resistant microbe can exchange its dna with another microbe that is resistant to another thing... and so on etc. its really quite a facinating, though macabe issue if you think about it
regardless of the above, it has literally 0 to do with vaccines. again you ought to be embarrassed by the fact that you dont know that.
i think its telling that you invest more time in your characterization of myself being some ahab meglomaniac, and spinning out totally irrelevant shit like opioid addition.... and ALOT less time in thoughtfull defense of your position.
perhaps your position is indefensible and dogmatic? dosent that make you an ideologue?
Bicycle808 said:
it is 100% a response to consumer demand, nobody can argue with that.
i dont think anyone has a problem with "certified USDA organic" or any VOLUNTARY labels similar to that. its when these organic activists spread lies and disinformation to willing and ignorant people, its then that people get pissed off.
people are LITERALLY trying to use the force of GOVERNMENT local or otherwise, to enforce a 100% unscientific, IDEOLOGICALLY driven agenda.
its basically the same as religious people trying to use government to foist their own life choises on other folks.... no booze on sunday and what ever other bullshit these f**king awful teatoteling protestants come up with.
lol wealthy doners and philanthropic groups give these protest groups and special interest groups tons and TONS of money. often alot of these groups recieve money from endowments and donars that are big big players in the organic industry.
yet folks are happy to run around with their bullshit talking points in hand... never reflecting on the fact that they are protesting corporatism and science based agriculture with propaganda handed down from organizations funded by corporations.
how totally f**king ironic.
Myxlplyk said:
dude you shouldnt have even gotten on the bus in the first place.
queequeg152 said:
I know damn good and well that you don't treat viral infections with antibiotics. And I also know damn good and well that there are doctors who prescribe antibiotics to patients without a second thought. There are doctors who prescribe antibiotics as a first course of action. As intelligent as you're trying to be with your explanations, I'm surprised that you couldn't pick up on such a small detail, as when I mentioned that pharmaceuticals are being abused. There have even been exposes on the subject over the years. Oh, and even the medical establishment has recognized its own complacence:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/consumer-health/in-depth/antibiotics/art-20045720
I think it's telling that you can't deny my characterizations, whilst spinning this topic even more and more out of control. Awesome, in fact, that if people didn't like me for my position, they like you even less, IN SPITE OF yours. Maybe that's part of the reason that your answer-to-end-all answers isn't well received?queequeg152 said:
Despite all else, I won't disagree with that.queequeg152 said:
solid7 said:
its not that im not denying your adhoming bullshit, its just that i dont care or want to steer the conversation into me defending my self against what ever flailing bullshit you come up with to save face.
the fact remains that your view on vaccination is 100% absurd.
and i think its telling that you continue to attempt to shift the conversation rather than adress or refute any of the points i bring up.
regarding doctors handing out antibiotics for the flue? who the f**k does that? some 70 year old doctor? do you think doctors dont know how to diagnose the flue or the cold? or a sore throat? such a stupid f**king point. do you think doctors still do this now that we know all about antibiotic resistant organisms?
what does that have to do with vaccines anyway? what exactly is your point?
and again with the opioid abuse?
But you've put yourself in that position, by entering the conversation, and bringing your attitude. You just had to impose your position well over the top of mine. Was I supposed to just quietly acquiesce to you? Ha!queequeg152 said:
In your mind it is. But I still get to have it.queequeg152 said:
This whole thread is now one big shift. And I don't refute your points, because I don't even read half of them. You aren't a good convincer. Between the rambling on like a lunatic, and the general tone of the posts - which reads something like a disgruntled sod farmer - I usually just skim, and discard. Your hubris and petulance make for quite a depressing read...queequeg152 said:
What do you want, their names and addresses? Clearly it is a thing - that link I posted was a page from the Mayo clinic, not MAD magazine. I've seen it done with my own eyes.queequeg152 said:
At this point, my only point is to annoy the everlasting shit out of you, which appears to be working quite well..queequeg152 said:
What about opioid abuse? (???)queequeg152 said:
Unless you have something that you want to come clean about, you've lost me on that one!
queequeg152 said:
I don't think a thorough conversation about the Organic debate is possible without focusing on other factors, beyond "science" and ideology, that come into play. Social, political, and economic concerns are very important to many proponents of Organics or, perhaps a more accurate way to describe them would be the opponents of Big Agriculture. Concerns about the environment, monopolated food production, unfair litigation brought against independent farmers, and a lack of transparency at the consumer level are all a very big deal in this discussion. The "Science" thing is, in my view, a weaker point for BOTH sides b/c the scientific community has proven to be quite inconsistent and mercenary with its findings.
If i decided, for ideological reasons or for theories rooted in bad science, that i wanted to avoid eating chile peppers, any number of ppl on the internet could heckle me for that decision all they liked.... but, I could STILL successfully avoid the ingestion of chile peppers b/c the presence of peppers would be noted on the ingredients label of any prepared food I bought. A lot of folks would like to see the same happen with GMOs, for a variety of reasons. Some folks might, indeed, represent the common strawman argument that anti-GMO ppl think they'll turn into Frankenstein if they eat GMOs. Others among us might simply wish to avoid purchasing GMOs b/c we wish to boycott a particular practice. This could be for any number of reasons, but I think the consumer has the right to support what they like and avoid what they don't, and I think the consumer has the right to know what's in whatever food s/he's spending his/her hard-earned money on. For many, the "cert'd organic" label is their only way of knowing they've avoided GMOs in their purchase, and with current legislation on the table, Cert'd Organic might allow for GMO content. So, for social, economic, and political reasons, a lot of activists are opposing that legislation.
In my experience, few of these hot-button topics are as simple and one-sided as they tend to be portrayed in discussions like these. There's often a lot of factors that folks on both sides will ignore b/c they're inconvenient to the discussion. Personally, I like to educate myself on both sides of the issue and then weigh my own personal priorities while forming an opinion.
Bicycle808 said:
problem with your very carefully worded, painfully moderated-middle of the road statement here... is even this is contaminated by bullshit spewed by organic advocates and anti gmo folks.
the bullshit rhetoric has soaked so deep... its like atrizine at this point, slowly making its way down to the brine aquifers despite being out of use for like 20years.
in other words, what you state as your non scientific reasons for avoiding GMOs are bullshit. bullshit that i assert has its roots in anti gmo retards and their bullshit rhetoric.
monopolated food production does not exist.
monopolies on seeds do not exist. there may or may not be a monopoly on a particular TRAIT at some point in time... but these traits just make growing shit cheaper/easier. having a better product is NOT MONOPOLISTIC.
GMO seed companies do not and have never sued "independant" farmers. the only people monsanto has sued were farmers who WILLFULLY cultivated plants with the patented traits.
This is like a band accidentally dropping a thumb drive on your lawn... and you make millions of copies of the albums on the thumb drive and sell them for profit.
regarding transparancy... why in the hell would ANYONE label shit as being GMO? it has 0 health implications, 0 potential for alergic ractions, 0 implications with respect to calories or what ever you need labels for... moreover, the well has been so badly poisned by anti GMO folks at this point... labeling something as GMO is basically equivelant to putting a radiation sticker on your product.
there is such massive DISINSENTIVE to putting that label on food now... that force of government would be required to get anyone to comply with the labeling.
so let me circle back to an earlier point.
do you think its ok for the government to legislate labels for purely ideological reasons? or reasons that have 0 to do with science or reason or logic?
and again... NOBODY is arguing against folks right to buy organic food. its their money.
people are arguing against these ideologues trying to leverage the force of the federal government to basically murder an industry.
and dont expect me to not call them on their bullshit they they try to couch their reasoning in science or logic.
solid7 said:But you've put yourself in that position, by entering the conversation, and bringing your attitude. You just had to impose your position well over the top of mine. Was I supposed to just quietly acquiesce to you? Ha!
In your mind it is. But I still get to have it.
This whole thread is now one big shift. And I don't refute your points, because I don't even read half of them. You aren't a good convincer. Between the rambling on like a lunatic, and the general tone of the posts - which reads something like a disgruntled sod farmer - I usually just skim, and discard. Your hubris and petulance make for quite a depressing read...
What do you want, their names and addresses? Clearly it is a thing - that link I posted was a page from the Mayo clinic, not MAD magazine. I've seen it done with my own eyes.
At this point, my only point is to annoy the everlasting shit out of you, which appears to be working quite well..
What about opioid abuse? (???)
Unless you have something that you want to come clean about, you've lost me on that one!
im sorry you are so but hurt by my tone. but your position on vaccination merited what ever abuse you think i generated.
regarding my "petulance". do you even read your own posts?