or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trump is #2 in GOP Field - Page 329

post #4921 of 8748
pssst, the proper, clincal term that grown-ups use is labia
post #4922 of 8748
Before it was called GMO scientists were already changing food in unnatural ways. Don't remember how far back it was, maybe the 80s. They took part of the pig and mixed it with tomatoes. Don't know if successful. The purpose was so that machines would do the picking instead of people. Today this stuff is way more advanced, and I'd really like to know what I'm eating and have choices. Scientists can be immoral.
post #4923 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post

Nobody even knows what the term GMO means. The boundaries are so arbitrary the term is meaningless. Everything is genetically modified. What the label would presumably mean is which genetic modifying techniques would be considered GMO and which won't. There's no study (because it's ludicrous) that any or all kinds of genetic modifying techniques are immediately harmful

How can you label something when the definition itself is arbitrary? everything you eat today has been genetically modified from its ancestors. How much genetic modification is ok and how much isn't? It's a ludicrous question from people who don't even understand basic biology

I am amused by people who come here to "win" by concocting absurd disingenuous argument. If you don't understand or pretend not to understand the difference between hybrids or selectionism and genetic cross species modification than you either a liar or a fool. In both cases you should not post shit that is disingenuous or simply stupid, not from genetic biology perspective, but from perspective of intellectual honesty.
post #4924 of 8748
Every morning I give myself 50cc's of Bovine Growth Hormone. Left arm, just beneath the bicep. Better than a triple espresso.

In other words, I find this entire thread you scienticians are having to be very offensive as I myself *am* a GMO and as such politely request that you cease persecuting my people.

#GMOLM
post #4925 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

i think we could go by this definition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food

yes, it;s ludicrous that people like you don't even understand the term and how it's diffrent from selective breeding etc talk about 'basic biology', it so happens that I had this topic covered in more detail than some shit articules from internets during my studies in a course called Food Quality Control, and that was most covered topic of that couse for some reason, maybe because it was even bigger then than now. I'm not even disagreeing with your main point(that it is safe), im just pointing out that I see NOTHING wrong with customers having this information, hiding this information serves no purpose other than to fill corporate pockets. It's labeled in EU an no harm came out of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Medwed View Post

I am amused by people who come here to "win" by concocting absurd disingenuous argument. If you don't understand or pretend not to understand the difference between hybrids or selectionism and genetic cross species modification than you either a liar or a fool. In both cases you should not post shit that is disingenuous or simply stupid, not from genetic biology perspective, but from perspective of intellectual honesty.

I'm not trying to "win" an argument any more than I would try to win an argument that a triangle by definition has three sides or argue that my eyes are brown and not blue. The boundaries of GMO labels are arbitrary by definition. Somebody sat down and said this is considered GMO and this isn't just like somebody sat down saying this pesticide is organic, this pesticide isn't.

The way you write your jargon doesn't give me confidence that you actually understand what the difference is. I feel like you've read some (or many) articles with the same jargon and once you found whatever justified your position you stuck to it.

So let me ELY12. The wikipedia says GMO is any organism made with genetic engineering. But really what is genetic engineering?
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
All living things/organisms have DNA which contains information on how that organism is made. This information is passed on either to the next generation of cells or to the next generation of organism. But sometimes in that passing on of information there're mistakes made all along the process. Most of these mistakes dont do anything. Some mistakes help the cell or the organism survive in its current environment better and stays in the next generation. Some mistakes make survival worse and therefore doesnt get passed on. Some mistakes don't do anything at first, but in certain environments help and get passed on at a better rate. And so on. The rate at which these mistakes is made is called the rate of mutagenesis ("change" "forming") or mutation rate.

The thing is this rate of mutagenesis isn't constant. It's constantly changing depending on internal and external pressure. If the organism eats something weird or is in sunlight too long or comes in contact with certain type of "chemicals" "found in nature" the mutation rate can go up or down. Some organisms make lots of mistakes. Some less.

Several millennia ago humans figured out you can use mutagenesis to get organisms with certain desirable traits. You grow 10000 pea plants. Out of those 10000 one might naturally turn out to have peas with round smooth skin instead of wrinkled skin and you just keep breeding those pea plants. You're exploiting a basic level of mutation rate over a long period of time. Basically instead of organisms and the environment outside of you influencing new generations of organisms, you become a bigger part of the environment.

Starting in the 30s humans figured out how to increase the rate at which mistakes are made especially with plants. They figured out what part of the radiation from the sun made mutations and figured out if you give more of that radiation then you would get more plants with more mutations. They figured out certain chemicals that could be found in nature or made artificially did the same. Instead of 1 out of every 10,000 organisms randomly displaying the one trait you wanted, you could get 10 out of 10000.

"How do we know this new method isn't harmful? Don't we need decades of evidence to prove that it's ok to eat?" 1) we do have decades of evidence 2) really what is the new method? the new method and the old method and the natural method are the same thing but instead of rate of mistakes of 1 out of every 10000 you have a rate of mistakes of 1 out of 1000. At what rate is it safe? At what rate are the two methods different? Is 1 out of 10000 ok but 1 out of 9000 not? What about 1 out of 8000? Organisms can naturally experience high rates of mistakes or experience high evolutionary pressure. If the environment changes naturally to make the organism make more mistakes does that all of a sudden make organisms that are more harmful than before?

This new method is already the way most of the vegetables you eat today were made. oranges, grapefruits, peanuts, all the kinds of corn, tomatoes. Even the ones that say organic and non GMO are GMO. They were GMO before we even thought of the name GMO. So really what is GMO and what isn't? Somebody sat down and said this method of changing the rate of mistakes is GMO and this isn't. Really what's the difference?

Another way organisms mutate is if DNA from one organism somehow gets into the DNA of another organism. This is what you would commonly think of as GMO. We can shock cells so they're more likely to intake foreign DNA. We can use viruses to rewrite the DNA so that a tomato has a little bit of the DNA of a firefly or a completely made up DNA.

This distinction is also arbitrary. Foreign DNA gets into the genome of organisms all the time. Simply grafting a plant onto another can change their DNA. Viruses make a living by entering their DNA into another organisms. Bacteria can change the DNA of organisms. The reason you have mitochondrion in your cell is because somehow the DNA of the mitochondrion got inserted in your ancestral cell's DNA. If a random virus changes another organism's DNA it's safe to use but if we choose the virus then it's not? What's the difference between a virus writing in ACCGAA into position 21 of the 3rd chromosome and a virus writing in ACCCGG? One is artificial and the other one is natural. Which is which? Trick question. It doesn't matter. If you can't trust the safety of the new methods you can't trust the safety of the natural method because the new method is the natural method sped up or carefully selected. What does GMO really mean then?

Requiring GMO labels on produce is like saying if you cut wood to make a chair it has to be labelled chair but if you found it on the ground you don't have to. only most people think the word chair is a bad thing because they don't know what chair means or how chairs are made and chairs look different from the stumps of trees they used to sit on. Sure why not label? But then again why require people to label?
post #4926 of 8748
Trump managed to go about 48 hours without saying something stupid, then decided to give the media another neatly wrapped present by making a remark that, regardless of what he meant, could easily be construed as a threat.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/trump-accused-advocating-violence-against-clinton-with-2nd-amendment-remark.html
post #4927 of 8748
It will certainly be spun that way and media would whip up histeria about it, but regardless , I think GOP is in full Oh Shit mode.
I don't think they can recover as a party after Trump. I think GOP will lose both houses after he is done loosing presidency for them.
I just don't understand something: he is clearly destroying GOP, as well as his chances to win, his supporters who voted or going to be voting for him and not least he is destroying his reputation in business world and value of his Trump brand.
The whole thing became completely detrimental for him, he would not even receive a job offer from FOX after this circus is over.
post #4928 of 8748

Everyone knows I'm no Trump supporter, but I would not have interpreted what he said as a call to violence.  It is identity politics, except this time it is not skin color.

post #4929 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Everyone knows I'm no Trump supporter, but I would not have interpreted what he said as a call to violence.  It is identity politics, except this time it is not skin color.

What else could it mean? He was talking about a situation in which she'd already won, so it wasn't about mobilizing to vote against her. And once she's elected, what other options do the "2nd amendment people" have to prevent her from choosing justices?
post #4930 of 8748
Umm bombard their congressmen to oppose any judicial nominations by Pres clinton? I took the statement to be purposefully vague. I don't think he seriously meant to do her harm but I think he knew some would interpret it that way and create a media "storm". It gets him the media coverage but I don't see how it helps him in the long run.
post #4931 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by origenesprit View Post

What else could it mean? He was talking about a situation in which she'd already won, so it wasn't about mobilizing to vote against her. And once she's elected, what other options do the "2nd amendment people" have to prevent her from choosing justices?

Call your congressmen?
post #4932 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post
 

Everyone knows I'm no Trump supporter, but I would not have interpreted what he said as a call to violence.  It is identity politics, except this time it is not skin color.


He's not saying "hey, go shoot her."  He's saying hey, maybe, you know, haha, wink, wink, maybe somebody (second amendment people) will *do something*, haha folks, haha.

 

I'm not terribly offended or upset, probably because the bar is now so low.  I just think it's clear he pathologically cannot control himself.

 

EDIT:  Oh sure, he means you should call your congressmen (Senator).  That's it.  Sure, that's it.

post #4933 of 8748
post #4934 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by origenesprit View Post


What else could it mean? He was talking about a situation in which she'd already won, so it wasn't about mobilizing to vote against her. And once she's elected, what other options do the "2nd amendment people" have to prevent her from choosing justices?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post
 


He's not saying "hey, go shoot her."  He's saying hey, maybe, you know, haha, wink, wink, maybe somebody (second amendment people) will *do something*, haha folks, haha.

 

I'm not terribly offended or upset, probably because the bar is now so low.  I just think it's clear he pathologically cannot control himself.

 

EDIT:  Oh sure, he means you should call your congressmen (Senator).  That's it.  Sure, that's it.

 

Yes, bombarding (see what I did there) the legislature to oppose justices that are anti-2nd amendment.  The NRA and other gun groups have such a large audience and they can easily whip out outrage among their members.  Those offices will get flooded with calls and letters.  They would only need to get a handful of Ds to vote against a nominee, and none of them want to face reelection with such a monolithic voting block coming out against them.  There are a lot of Democratic Senators from pro-gun states.  Maybe NY or NJ Senators can not worry about it, but do you think Bennet from Colorado or Donnelly from Indiana or Nelson from Florida want to face that?  Maybe half would have a harder time being reelected.
 

post #4935 of 8748
Meh.
He should have just done his usual 'I've heard from several people' or 'some are saying' and he'd have been fine.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field