Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Major Nikon

(36,911 posts)
154. False equivalence doesn't mean what you think it means
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 02:40 PM
Jun 2016

How about you present some of those examples, or would you like me to go first?

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Here we go..... Coventina Jun 2016 #1
This article has about 100 links to different peer-reviewed research papers at the end. Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2016 #2
Your article is about whether GMOs are safe. I'm not saying they are safe or unsafe. I'm saying that Vote2016 Jun 2016 #8
GMOs don't promote any of that. Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2016 #18
Soy beans and wheat are raised from last years crop hankthecrank Jun 2016 #20
No farmer I know (and I know dozens) uses last year's soy or wheat for seed NickB79 Jun 2016 #71
It is not that easy to save soybean and wheat for field size production. yellowcanine Jun 2016 #92
Farmers who farmed for living did plant from last year crop hankthecrank Jun 2016 #120
The Need to Save Seeds is a Bad Sign HuckleB Jun 2016 #122
Also in your words (self fertile ) hankthecrank Jun 2016 #126
You just responded to your own post. HuckleB Jun 2016 #127
Well soybeans wheat and oats are self fertile. That is a fact. yellowcanine Jun 2016 #129
So how was Monsanto able to win court hankthecrank Jun 2016 #132
You are mixing up a couple of issues. yellowcanine Jun 2016 #148
bribes larkrake Jun 2016 #178
Now you're (mistakenly) talking about Terminator seed technology NickB79 Jun 2016 #180
Key word being "did." Not so much anymore. yellowcanine Jun 2016 #130
I still talk to the guys I worked for hankthecrank Jun 2016 #133
If all a farmer cares about in his seedstock is germination, he's a piss-poor farmer NickB79 Jun 2016 #177
the skeptical raptor - you have to be KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! womanofthehills Jun 2016 #186
I notice you left off the link to where you pulled this bullshit from. Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2016 #202
RED ALERT: Calling all corporate apologists Scientific Jun 2016 #3
RED ALERT: Calling all conspiracy theorists GaYellowDawg Jun 2016 #5
Would you be more comfortable with the label "Monsanto apologist"? It's a little more precise. Vote2016 Jun 2016 #9
Would you be comfortable with the term "circumstantial ad hominem"? GaYellowDawg Jun 2016 #11
Would you be more comfortable with "charlatan". It's a little more precise. Major Nikon Jun 2016 #21
GMO haters Corporate666 Jun 2016 #236
A switch to ecological farming will benefit health and environment – report JohnyCanuck Jun 2016 #4
Bingo. If we can't do this, all our bitching about GM/non-GM are for nothing NickB79 Jun 2016 #74
Agreed. The GMO problem is about Monsanto and others monopolizing agribusiness at the expense of Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #6
It seems suspicious that there is so much "pro-GMO" astroturf Vote2016 Jun 2016 #17
Even more suspicious is the missing element of reality in the anti-GMO astroturf Major Nikon Jun 2016 #22
What does that even mean? Monsanto has a financial interest in creating an agribusiness monopoly and Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #28
Good question Major Nikon Jun 2016 #36
The strawman argument. basselope Jun 2016 #83
Strawman doesn't mean what you think it means Major Nikon Jun 2016 #150
Actually, it does. basselope Jun 2016 #159
You stole my line! Major Nikon Jun 2016 #163
Thank you for proving my point. basselope Jun 2016 #165
"Because some people who believe in A, also believe in B, A has no validity." Major Nikon Jun 2016 #167
LOL. basselope Jun 2016 #169
I see where you fucked up Major Nikon Jun 2016 #172
Are you dizzy with the spin? basselope Jun 2016 #173
How is anything so full of shit able to withstand without bursting? GMO is a legal calamity visited Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #86
You might understand the law, but you don't understand the first thing about the scientific process. HuckleB Jun 2016 #128
HuckleB's "scientific process" links always written by MONSANTO SHILLS womanofthehills Jun 2016 #135
And more fictions from the fantasy gallery. HuckleB Jun 2016 #139
He's your guy - Keith Kloor - He DEFINITELY IS NOT KOOL womanofthehills Jun 2016 #187
I'm not even convinced of that much Major Nikon Jun 2016 #153
Indeed. HuckleB Jun 2016 #155
Wannabe Monsanto shill sounds like a possible career choice womanofthehills Jun 2016 #191
Which organic industry front pays you? HuckleB Jun 2016 #203
You realize Monsanto won that case, yes? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #151
One name - Clarence Thomas womanofthehills Jun 2016 #192
Five names - Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer, Stevens Major Nikon Jun 2016 #197
The anti-GMO community winning the public relations war womanofthehills Jun 2016 #190
Scientists promoting science. Who woulda thunkit? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #198
Monsanto and Dow are funding all the bullshit misinformation womanofthehills Jun 2016 #231
Great job of reading the question that was actually asked Major Nikon Jun 2016 #239
You mean from "skeptics" who have never seen a corporate press release worth "questioning?" villager Jun 2016 #226
What exactly has Monsanto monopolized? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #39
farming, chemical weapons- I assume what has it monopolized historically larkrake Jun 2016 #179
Monsanto doesn't farm anything, so zero market share hardly makes a monopoly Major Nikon Jun 2016 #182
They made and patented dioxin, actually and their GMO product has harmed many many farmers larkrake Jun 2016 #183
Try harder to post something relevant Major Nikon Jun 2016 #184
Easy to say from a comfy western nation... TipTok Jun 2016 #7
"The whole starvation thing" gets a whole lot worse truebluegreen Jun 2016 #10
Who suggested they were doing it for humanity? TipTok Jun 2016 #12
We have the capacity now. truebluegreen Jun 2016 #13
this ^ Vote2016 Jun 2016 #16
So much for growing it locally, according to you. HuckleB Jun 2016 #45
Did you miss my comments about the downside truebluegreen Jun 2016 #50
No, I'm not. HuckleB Jun 2016 #51
speaking of Africa - $900 to eat a GMO Bill Gates banana womanofthehills Jun 2016 #188
Woo Major Nikon Jun 2016 #23
Bt-COTTON. Tasty! Woo yourself. truebluegreen Jun 2016 #25
Not much need with all the woo freely available here Major Nikon Jun 2016 #26
Has Monsanto patented the term "woo"? lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #54
As have a lot of grandmas cultivating new rose variatles Major Nikon Jun 2016 #68
Grandma can't patent a DNA sequence unless she has a PCR machine in the basement. lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #70
Plant patent laws existed before anyone knew what DNA was Major Nikon Jun 2016 #72
Plant patent is not a DNA patent per se, for the reason you yourself admit. lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #73
Sure, we should just go back to using methods far less precice and more ambiguous Major Nikon Jun 2016 #77
If Monsanto didn't think DNA is powerful, they wouldn't spend billions on shuffling it. lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #78
You stole my line! Major Nikon Jun 2016 #80
OMG you don't think I'm that gullible right? lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #81
No, I'm sure of it Major Nikon Jun 2016 #82
Off to the ignore-bin. It's cruel to fight with an unarmed opponent and I won't do it any more. lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #87
You lost, again. HuckleB Jun 2016 #91
Oh that really hurts! Major Nikon Jun 2016 #152
I do, and you just proved it. HuckleB Jun 2016 #85
You are pushing a fiction and you know it. HuckleB Jun 2016 #46
You could make the same argument about any private monopoly. Often people need the product which a Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #14
GMOs and monopolies are separate issues... TipTok Jun 2016 #15
GMO crop systems do not increase output GreatGazoo Jun 2016 #19
Yeah, "rapidly" over 40 years Major Nikon Jun 2016 #24
Less than that. Monsanto introduced Round-up Ready seeds in '97. truebluegreen Jun 2016 #27
What's with all the pro-GMO stuff? You'd think this was CorporateMonopolist Underground. Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #29
Or WooUnderground Major Nikon Jun 2016 #32
It's a mystery to me. truebluegreen Jun 2016 #33
It's unbelievable - it's the troll DU Monsanto lovers - womanofthehills Jun 2016 #43
I'm sorry, why do you think science is bad? HuckleB Jun 2016 #47
Science is good but the tobacco companies misled with a false veneer of science just as you mislead Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #88
Newsflash: It's the anti-GMOers who are practicing tobacco science. HuckleB Jun 2016 #89
You are wrong and you know you are wrong. My anti-GMO views are based on the ill effect it has on Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #93
LOL! Not even close. HuckleB Jun 2016 #94
You keep posting arguments that GMOs are "safe." I'm not saying GMOs are unsafe. GMOs illegally Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #97
You keep ignoring the reality that GMOs do no such thing. HuckleB Jun 2016 #98
Compare the markets that ban GMOs with the markets that ban non-GMO patented seeds. Oh, wait, there Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #99
You're digging your hole deeper and deeper. HuckleB Jun 2016 #106
So you compare tobacco to GMO, then freely admit the issues are completely different Major Nikon Jun 2016 #156
HuckleB above link by Marc Brazeau - pro GMO shill womanofthehills Jun 2016 #232
Marc Brazeau is a life-long progressive and labor activist who cares about science. HuckleB Jun 2016 #241
All the "science" you quote is from shills womanofthehills Jun 2016 #136
Your fantasies are rather sad. HuckleB Jun 2016 #140
This is who you always quote - your beloved Keith Kloor womanofthehills Jun 2016 #143
Aww. That's cute. HuckleB Jun 2016 #147
Keith Kloor admits he is a shill - what can I say - you love the guy! womanofthehills Jun 2016 #228
Monsanto shill science womanofthehills Jun 2016 #138
One fantasy troll post wasn't enough? HuckleB Jun 2016 #141
Sometimes, there’s a fine line between the rats and the scientists. womanofthehills Jun 2016 #142
Your fictions are many. HuckleB Jun 2016 #146
Yea - I smell a lot of rats in your "science" womanofthehills Jun 2016 #189
Sure, you just promote crank magnets like Michel Chossudovsky and Mae-Wan Ho Major Nikon Jun 2016 #199
More than that Major Nikon Jun 2016 #31
I was talking about Round-up Ready crops, truebluegreen Jun 2016 #34
The post I replied to was talking about Roundup Major Nikon Jun 2016 #37
My post you replied to was talking about Round-up Ready and '97 truebluegreen Jun 2016 #40
You are correct, that post was a non sequitur Major Nikon Jun 2016 #41
bockbocbockbockBock truebluegreen Jun 2016 #42
Most of your arguments can be applied to non-GMO, hybrid seeds as well NickB79 Jun 2016 #30
^^This^^ truebluegreen Jun 2016 #35
The talking point goes something like this Major Nikon Jun 2016 #38
Ignore the evidence base, because people who go with scientific consensus are "curious." HuckleB Jun 2016 #44
The Precautionary Principle and GM crops JohnyCanuck Jun 2016 #48
Seralini Rule Major Nikon Jun 2016 #49
Actually the courts have overthrown the BS attacks on Seralini. He was right. Scientific Jun 2016 #101
Are you referring to an Italian court? HuckleB Jun 2016 #107
Bullshit Major Nikon Jun 2016 #108
Skeptico blogs - give me a break - no one even signs the articles womanofthehills Jun 2016 #229
I get that someone who believes in homeoquackery doesn't have much use for things like facts Major Nikon Jun 2016 #238
Umm. Sheesh. HuckleB Jun 2016 #52
Good luck here! lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #53
What's up with that? Vote2016 Jun 2016 #55
No one cares about Monsanto. HuckleB Jun 2016 #56
I'm not debating the science. It is an intellectual property scam, and the labelling issue is a Vote2016 Jun 2016 #64
All types of seeds are patented, not just GMOs. HuckleB Jun 2016 #65
HuckleB posting Skeptical Raptor - Internet shill - links again womanofthehills Jun 2016 #227
You love Monsanto - all your posts are from Monsanto shills womanofthehills Jun 2016 #230
All I can tell you is my experience has been stunningly negative. lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #57
The passive-aggressive shill gambit! HuckleB Jun 2016 #58
It almost seems that way, but why would anyone not being paid respond so swiftly defending Monsanto Vote2016 Jun 2016 #59
Yes, surely that must be it - a bright, shiny future. lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #60
No one is defending Monsanto. HuckleB Jun 2016 #61
Not ok with who? Your boss? Vote2016 Jun 2016 #62
Not ok with anyone who cares about honesty and ethics. HuckleB Jun 2016 #63
Cool website. It's on the internet. It does not excuse the genetic piracy from pollen drift or Vote2016 Jun 2016 #66
You don't appear to know much about pollen drift. HuckleB Jun 2016 #67
Author of your above link on organic farming - Pamela Ronald - "SCIENTIFIC" research questioned womanofthehills Jun 2016 #194
Kinda funny how they question Ronald's reputation Major Nikon Jun 2016 #200
Pamela Ronald is an honorable scientist. HuckleB Jun 2016 #242
it's the same shiny vision from Wired or the nuclear industry MisterP Jun 2016 #245
Bzzt. Wrong answer. HuckleB Jun 2016 #246
queue the anti-science pro-gmo people. basselope Jun 2016 #69
Sure, because they are the ones channeling Mike Adams, Mercola, Food Babe, ... Major Nikon Jun 2016 #75
Thanks for proving the point so well. basselope Jun 2016 #76
Sure, because pointing out other's use of pseudoscience is so anti-science Major Nikon Jun 2016 #79
Its called a false equivalence. basselope Jun 2016 #84
False equivalence doesn't mean what you think it means Major Nikon Jun 2016 #154
Don't really care what you do. basselope Jun 2016 #160
Your refusal to provide any relevant examples of your assertion is telling all on it's own Major Nikon Jun 2016 #162
I did several times. basselope Jun 2016 #164
Where? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #166
In this very thread. basselope Jun 2016 #168
Where? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #170
In this very thread. basselope Jun 2016 #171
Do I really need to be that specific, or are you just being obtuse? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #174
Thought you were "done". basselope Jun 2016 #175
I was with that leg of the thread Major Nikon Jun 2016 #176
Use your eyes. basselope Jun 2016 #181
The problem is that the focus of the anti-gmo people is very broad... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #90
Not really. basselope Jun 2016 #96
What studies? n/t Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #102
Oh, I don't know.. pick any one of the thousands. basselope Jun 2016 #109
Can you link to any one of those studies? In addition, the WHO may end up reversing its decision... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #111
Yes basselope Jun 2016 #113
The first link didn't attempt to separate out whether it was glyphosate... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #114
As I suspected. basselope Jun 2016 #115
What are you babbling on about? Now you are just making shit up. Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #117
LOL. Read your post. basselope Jun 2016 #121
I said none of those things, you are just making things up, for what reason I don't know... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #123
LOL. Wow. That's some crazy spin you got going on. basselope Jun 2016 #144
What spin? I literally pointed out a shortcoming of the first paper that was pointed out... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #157
And then you make stuff up? basselope Jun 2016 #161
Let's not forget - glyphosate is only 40 per cent of Roundup womanofthehills Jun 2016 #233
You might want to clarify the difference between the IARC and the full WHO. HuckleB Jun 2016 #112
Good point, but it appears this poster isn't interested in honest discussion. Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #118
I know. HuckleB Jun 2016 #119
OK. Show us some science to back up what ever you're implying. progressoid Jun 2016 #100
Posted lists too many times... basselope Jun 2016 #110
You do understand the difference between individual, cherry picked studies, and consensus, right? HuckleB Jun 2016 #116
Now you are posting articles by David Gorsky who blogged as a woman womanofthehills Jun 2016 #234
All you can do is attack people, but you can't support your claims. HuckleB Jun 2016 #243
OK. progressoid Jun 2016 #124
I love science too. basselope Jun 2016 #145
Sure, wiggle words. progressoid Jun 2016 #149
So by all means, let's keep adding them. basselope Jun 2016 #158
Show us the data where cancer rates are higher due to GMOs. progressoid Jun 2016 #193
WHO Publishes Full Probable Human Carcinogen Report on Glyphosate womanofthehills Jun 2016 #195
that basselope Jun 2016 #196
That, progressoid Jun 2016 #207
Dietary exposure to glyphosate unlikely to cause cancer, U.N. report says progressoid Jun 2016 #206
Non definitive. basselope Jun 2016 #208
It is definitive. As defined through the EPA's rating system. progressoid Jun 2016 #209
Not definitive. basselope Jun 2016 #210
Yeah, still waiting for you to do that too. progressoid Jun 2016 #211
Already did. basselope Jun 2016 #213
My mistake. progressoid Jun 2016 #218
Your apology is accepted. basselope Jun 2016 #225
I didn't apologize. progressoid Jun 2016 #237
Yes you did. And I accepted it. basselope Jun 2016 #244
Sweet Jebus, is this really the best reply you could come up with? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #212
Facts are good like that. basselope Jun 2016 #214
No, sometimes mentioning them are simply moronic Major Nikon Jun 2016 #215
Yes. Many are safe. basselope Jun 2016 #216
I asked you to name just one substance that fufills your requirement Major Nikon Jun 2016 #217
And I answered. basselope Jun 2016 #219
This shit again? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #220
Your apology is accepted. basselope Jun 2016 #222
Strange, namecalling is so unlike you Major Nikon Jun 2016 #224
Where are all these lists? HuckleB Jun 2016 #125
It's a fool's errand asking that one to prove any claim he's made. Major Nikon Jun 2016 #221
So okay then, what do we do about the other thousand or so conglomerates that run the planet? Rex Jun 2016 #95
Your view is "we've been abused by Goldman Sachs and Haliburton so why complain about Monsanto?" Vote2016 Jun 2016 #131
No my view is why does it take this long? Why no out cry decades ago? Rex Jun 2016 #134
But they make some rich people richer and that's the most important thing in the world. valerief Jun 2016 #103
It's fun to be passionate. But you need to actually be right. Bonx Jun 2016 #104
Or have at least a basic plan and ambition to change everything. Rex Jun 2016 #137
No surprise that the last link doesn't even mention how GMO's saved the papya crops in Hawaii progressoid Jun 2016 #105
GMOs suck the life out of life! Dont call me Shirley Jun 2016 #185
Did anyone notice the articles cited in OP are not science related? pediatricmedic Jun 2016 #201
This was really just a drive-by thread from another thread anyway Major Nikon Jun 2016 #204
Sociology is a 'science', but..... CanSocDem Jun 2016 #205
Sociology isn't a hard science Major Nikon Jun 2016 #223
Did anyone notice the links cited by the pro-gmo Monsanto people womanofthehills Jun 2016 #235
Crazy is the OP's linkapalooza Bonx Jun 2016 #240
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»GMOs are bad for biodiver...»Reply #154