Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

If money was no issue... organic.

1234568»

Replies

  • magnusthenerdmagnusthenerd Posts: 659Member Member Posts: 659Member Member
    qpmomma1 wrote: »
    qpmomma1 wrote: »
    My vegetables are locally sourced and organic. I have a vegetable garden. :)

    Nope. Not pay extra at the supermarket for "organic" which in this context is a completely unregulated term and who knows what it means.

    We also have a garden and ours isn't organic. We use conventional fertilizers and GMO plants and seeds. :smile:

    Just out of curiosity--because I have to admit to being somewhat pitch-kettled by the thought of using valuable garden space for, say, the tasty AG21X7 or some DKC50-08RIB ("MmmmmmOnsanto-Licious!") instead of, say, Cherokee Purples and Brandywines (or even a decent hybrid)--which transgenic (GMO) plants and seeds are you planting in your personal garden, and why?

    Corn is a GMO :smile:
    Reson: We like corn

    We also use a lot of hybrids and some people consider them to be GMO since they have been genetically modified.

    @qpmomma1 GMO refers specifically to varieties that are created using transgenic technologies, in which a gene unique to one organism is inserted into an alien organism. Hybrids are created using traditional breeding techniques, either can be human-directed or occurring under natural pressures (Darwinian selection rather than human selection). Basically every organism that exists is genetically modified as there are a variety of genetic pressures being put upon it, but GMO can only get its start in a lab, not through traditional breeding methods.

    I suspect you don't have a very in-depth understanding of this, but you may have read or heard an argument in which someone advocating for GMOs tried to make the case that "GMOs are okay because we've been eating GMOs for millenia". While there are many strong points to GMOs, any person or entity that attempts to make this case is either ignorant or deliberately being deceitful, and in either case is completely non-credible.

    What is the exact corn that you are planting in your garden? *Some* recently-developed corn is GMO, predominantly commodity field corn, but it would be pretty weird to plant it in one's garden. I plant many different varieties of corn, all heirloom, all genetically modified, none GMO.

    Actually, GMO is used for things beyond transgenics. Arctic Apples are labeled GMO but they are not transgenic, they are instead created using RNA silencing techniques. Transgenic in genetics actually has a specific meaning in that DNA (genes) are taken across species.
    It isn't dishonest to say all domesticated crops are GMO, it is just pushing back on how a term is being used dishonestly from the begin, pretending there is some natural genetics that are immutable in plants (or animals) that haven't been modified and thus are natural. Not to mention, plenty of plant species that are still organic and I think even some that could be labeled heirloom are created using mutagenics. That is why using the precise term such as transgenics, selective breeding, RNA silencing, mutagenics, etc are what a genuine and informed conversation should involve.

    And frankly, if one wants to get into it, all life is transgenic due to viral activity. You have DNA right now that comes from a non-human evolutionary paths. Though I'm find with the understanding that when someone is talking about transgenics in agriculture, they probably mean things lab done glyphosate resistance or Bt trait rather than referring to the fact that the sweet potato comes from a transgene ancestor.

    I didn't say it was dishonest, I said it was deceitful, aka, usually being employed as a strategem or rhetorical sleight-of-hand (when coming from a knowledgeable commentator). I was very careful in my choice of words. :p

    There is plenty of deception coming from organic proponents too, such as the claim one sometimes hears that they don't use any poisons, or what you are suggesting, that genetics are being presented as immutable (I have not seen this latter argument) and in both cases they deserve to be called out.

    Regarding viruses, that is why I specifically link GMO to its laboratory roots above, as would the vast majority of educated commentators who are not up to some sort of shenanigans. Probably someone, somewhere, has made the argument that GMO is 100% fine because all of life is transgenic, and they are regrettably likely not questioned about the horrific slaughter of organisms that stems from this viral interface over millenia. :D

    You are correct that there are heirloom organics available that are the result of mutagenic processes...and it raises a good question why people who are concerned about transgenic engineering aren't concerned about mutagenic engineering.

    ETA smiley
    I fail to see the meaningful distinction you draw between dishonest and deceitful. Your explanation of deceitful seems to be a subcategory of dishonest with a particular purpose. In neither case is drawing out the definition really actually defending that it is either.

    The immutability of genetics isn't a direct argument, but rather an implication in wanting to use the term Genetically Modified Organism - the contrast would - if we're talking organisms - be something that had genes that had not modified or changed. I think this pushes on people's natural faulty appeals to tradition - that there existed a golden age, and that it also applies even to genes, so that now, things moving away from those genes must be getting worse - that entropy is even winding down life. I think that even without necessarily being conscious of it, people wanting to use GMO to dissuade people are relying on that kind of feeling.

    I also fail to see the relevance of what is done in a lab versus what is not, or more precisely fail to see why anyone should feel it a bad thing. Frankly, it strikes me relying on an intuition that is, frankly, bass ackwards. Labs with the intent to make something safe for people are, in probability, far, far more likely to be safe than the average of life on this Earth, and even greater compared to the safety of natural conditions in the universe.
    The point in comparing transgenics is to show there's nothing inherently unnatural about transgenics because most people worried about something being done in lab are fallaciously applying an appeal to nature fallacy. I also fail to see the relevance in pointing out viruses are harmful, as if that is supposed to imply something about transgenic traits transferred by them that persist through generations showing they are neutral at worst, and almost certainly beneficial if they show strong fixation in the gene pool.

    I imagine I see the raised question of mutagenics differently than you do. I think it has an answer - most people that aren't concerned about mutagenics aren't because they just flat out don't know what they are, or if they have any knowledge, they don't understand the difference in how it is massive hammering with a cudgel where as transgenics is far more like the precision of a scalpel.

    The distinction between dishonest and deceptive is that one can be deceptive without being dishonest. For example, here is an example of a non-deceptive conversation:

    Uneducated person: I really want GMOs to be labeled; I don't want to eat this dangerous stuff.
    Educated person: First of all, I don't like the term GMO, I wish that the media used the term GEO, because even your Beefmaster tomatoes are technically GMOs. But that aside, labeling is unnecessary, because you can always buy USDA organic foods that are certified GMO-free. I personally don't think it is something to worry about as the USDA and FDA have provided assurances it is safe, and they are very rigorous in their vetting.

    And here is that same conversation using the kind of deceptiveness (but not dishonesty) that I have seen in dozens of such conversations:

    Uneducated person: I really want GMOs to be labeled; I don't want to eat this dangerous stuff.
    Educated person: It's silly to even worry about it. You are already eating GMOs and you are in fact growing GMOs in your garden. We've been growing and eating GMOs for centuries, just about everything you buy at the grocery is a GMO, and we know that they are completely safe--your Beefmaster genetics aren't going to kill you. So there is no need for labeling GMOs--they have been shown to be completely safe through history.

    What i find to be very interesting is that you are using the same deceptive-but-not-dishonest rhetorical techniques:

    "I also fail to see the relevance of what is done in a lab versus what is not, or more precisely fail to see why anyone should feel it a bad thing. Frankly, it strikes me relying on an intuition that is, frankly, bass ackwards. Labs with the intent to make something safe for people are, in probability, far, far more likely to be safe than the average of life on this Earth..."

    First, an ad hominem attack suggesting I mentioned labs, not as a neutral tool/facility in which genetic engineering is created, but because I have some kind of "intuition" that they are "bad", which is not what I said at all. All I said was, it's where genetic engineering happens (unless you know of farmers using recombinant DNA techniques out in the back 40). I would certainly hope it would be clear that my comments in this thread are based on deep and broad reading, research, formal training, and hands-on practice in agricultural and scientific matters, so I am perplexed by your rhetorical choice to employ a logical fallacy to reduce it to "muh feelz."

    In the next sentence, you replace the concept of "labs in general" with the careful phrase "labs with the intent to make something safe for people." Well, certainly no one can argue that labs designed for safety purposes have a better track record than raw Darwinian nature. But as you and I both know, there are all kinds of labs, from Hitler's assorted labs to labs that might be weaponizing military-grade smallpox to labs that are dedicated to a profit motive and held to certain standards to labs that are 100% dedicated to safety. Sometimes they can be a mixed bag of great good and horrifying evil, such as any lab where Fritz Haber set up shop. At any rate, for some reason, you are trying to twist my neutral reference to labs into a demonstration that I am "bass-ackwards" to "intuit" that they are "bad" when [insert selected labs here] are actually quite wonderful.

    Very cleverly constructed, but again, I don't understand the need for shenanigans and squirreliness, aka, deceptiveness.

    I am basically 100% agreeing with you on viruses (like labs a neutral tool in general; but ranging from destructive to beneficial in particular) and mutagenics (people r dumb).

    Sorry, not seeing how the way you're considering that it isn't dishonest, but if you see the distinction as having merit, you're fine with continuing it. It seems to me, even in the second conversation you're portraying the person as intentionally equivocating, which I don't see how it isn't dishonest.

    As far as ad hominem goes, are you using some kind of proprietary use of the term? An ad honimem, at least a fallacious one, is saying something about the interlocutor disproves their point, rather than actually engaging with the point. What you are accusing me of would be more properly called a strawman - that you feel I'm assigning arguments to you that you haven't made. You could take note though, I never assigned that opinion to you - I distinctly said "why anyone". If my digression came off as strawmanning you in particular because you have no problem with lab generated food, my apologies. Can I take it you don't feel there is some reason to label the various biotech developments that are done via a lab? As far as saying I should intuit your opinion as coming from deep knowledge, why? You've used GMO as interchangeable with transgenic and done in a lab, when all three have distinctions.

    I didn't replace any concept. I defined it. If you think there are labs out there that don't have an intent to keep their customers alive, go ahead with that. My experience is that anyone I've met in biotech is interested in not killing or harming people. Though thanks for showing the conversation has gone on long enough to reach Godwin's Law. I just really don't see the relevance in mentioning it is possible to have a lab generating anthrax in a conversation about agriculture.

    Interesting take on squirrelness. Does it apply to you bringing up that it is possible for labs with a weapon making profit motive to exist in a conversation about agricultural biotech? I don't want us talking at cross purposes, so let's be clear - I'm talking about biotech labs that are developing agricultural products for farmers, with the intent that it will eventually feed people. I'm not talking about military labs, and can't really see their relevance in a discussion on GMOs.

    Well, it appears that you've managed to combine two fallacies into one, strawman AND abusive ad hominem, which includes attacks on credibility. It's quite the accomplishment.

    I'm still not sure why your knickers are in a twist over the terminology. I originally used the USDA terminology it applies to organic regulation, in which GMOs are specifically prohibited. Surely you are not suggesting that the USDA has prohibited all foods? Or that they are entirely lacking in credibility because they present publications equating GMOs and genetic engineering, which is imprecise use of terminology, directly contradicting terminology they have elsewhere on the site?

    https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2013/05/17/organic-101-can-gmos-be-used-organic-products
    https://www.usda.gov/topics/biotechnology/biotechnology-glossary

    Regarding the connection between agriculture and warfare, my point was to illustrate that there are labs with practices ranging from good to evil and every point in between. But it's certainly a legitimate point to raise, how food has been and can be weaponized as a matter of a state's sense of national security. The specific example I provided has a very fundamental connection to agriculture, and no, it wasn't his customers that Haber was planning to kill. Here's a few suggested topics for further illumination: Haber-Bosch Process, Zyklon A and B, Green Revolution. Also, you might want to do a little more research on anthrax and its origins before suggesting that it has no relevance for an agricultural discussion.
    Please stop misusing the term ad hominem. To be an ad hominem fallacy, I would have to be saying your argument is wrong because you are the one making it. Please quote anything close to that implication. You seem to think I attacked your credibility - the closest I can think is that I stated you were wrong about GMO being synonymous with transgenic because there are more things under the GMO umbrella than transgenics, and there are natural transgenics that will never be labeled GMO.

    FYI, saying my nickers are in a twist could be construed as an ad hominem based on emotions - known as a pathos gambit or reverse appeal to emotions. I don't know what you think you're showing by linking to the USDA, or what you think I said about GMO. I'll repeat it for about a half dozenth time: GMO can refer to RNA silencing, transgenics, and several other forms of gene engineering (last I saw CRISPR was not included), when it comes to USDA regulations. Are you disagreeing with that? Are you trying to claim I'm making the "everything is GMO" argument? If it wasn't clear, me mentioning there are naturally transgenic organisms isn't me making that argument. Just to be clear, you do understand there is gene engineering besides transgenics, right? Again, a prominent example is RNA silencing, that's how Arctic Apples have their non-browning trait.

    I'm aware of of the Haber-Bosch process, and that one of the uses of nitrogen is for developing explosives. Again, I don't see the relevance, or particularly, what you think the inescapable implication is. Perhaps trying putting it out in premises. No matter how much I know about anthrax, the burden, if you actually care about being understood, is on you to provide a rational justification about the relevance. Saying look it up is shifting the burden of proof.

    I'll give you a simple example.
    1. Agro bio companies profit by selling to farmers.
    2. It follows that agro bio companies have a desire to sell products that farmers want to buy.
    3. Farmers make profit by selling to more food eaters (yes there are middle men, ConAgras of the world etc), and lose money when there are less food eaters
    4. Farmers therefore want to buy products that are safe to eat, or they will go bankrupt in the long term.
    5. It follows that Agro bios have a desire to sell safe products.

    You can disagree with any premise and let know why. Consider writing out in such a format why it follows that one should have a consideration about what is developed more in a lab than what foods occur naturally.
  • French_PeasantFrench_Peasant Posts: 1,636Member Member Posts: 1,636Member Member
    qpmomma1 wrote: »
    qpmomma1 wrote: »
    My vegetables are locally sourced and organic. I have a vegetable garden. :)

    Nope. Not pay extra at the supermarket for "organic" which in this context is a completely unregulated term and who knows what it means.

    We also have a garden and ours isn't organic. We use conventional fertilizers and GMO plants and seeds. :smile:

    Just out of curiosity--because I have to admit to being somewhat pitch-kettled by the thought of using valuable garden space for, say, the tasty AG21X7 or some DKC50-08RIB ("MmmmmmOnsanto-Licious!") instead of, say, Cherokee Purples and Brandywines (or even a decent hybrid)--which transgenic (GMO) plants and seeds are you planting in your personal garden, and why?

    Corn is a GMO :smile:
    Reson: We like corn

    We also use a lot of hybrids and some people consider them to be GMO since they have been genetically modified.

    @qpmomma1 GMO refers specifically to varieties that are created using transgenic technologies, in which a gene unique to one organism is inserted into an alien organism. Hybrids are created using traditional breeding techniques, either can be human-directed or occurring under natural pressures (Darwinian selection rather than human selection). Basically every organism that exists is genetically modified as there are a variety of genetic pressures being put upon it, but GMO can only get its start in a lab, not through traditional breeding methods.

    I suspect you don't have a very in-depth understanding of this, but you may have read or heard an argument in which someone advocating for GMOs tried to make the case that "GMOs are okay because we've been eating GMOs for millenia". While there are many strong points to GMOs, any person or entity that attempts to make this case is either ignorant or deliberately being deceitful, and in either case is completely non-credible.

    What is the exact corn that you are planting in your garden? *Some* recently-developed corn is GMO, predominantly commodity field corn, but it would be pretty weird to plant it in one's garden. I plant many different varieties of corn, all heirloom, all genetically modified, none GMO.

    Actually, GMO is used for things beyond transgenics. Arctic Apples are labeled GMO but they are not transgenic, they are instead created using RNA silencing techniques. Transgenic in genetics actually has a specific meaning in that DNA (genes) are taken across species.
    It isn't dishonest to say all domesticated crops are GMO, it is just pushing back on how a term is being used dishonestly from the begin, pretending there is some natural genetics that are immutable in plants (or animals) that haven't been modified and thus are natural. Not to mention, plenty of plant species that are still organic and I think even some that could be labeled heirloom are created using mutagenics. That is why using the precise term such as transgenics, selective breeding, RNA silencing, mutagenics, etc are what a genuine and informed conversation should involve.

    And frankly, if one wants to get into it, all life is transgenic due to viral activity. You have DNA right now that comes from a non-human evolutionary paths. Though I'm find with the understanding that when someone is talking about transgenics in agriculture, they probably mean things lab done glyphosate resistance or Bt trait rather than referring to the fact that the sweet potato comes from a transgene ancestor.

    I didn't say it was dishonest, I said it was deceitful, aka, usually being employed as a strategem or rhetorical sleight-of-hand (when coming from a knowledgeable commentator). I was very careful in my choice of words. :p

    There is plenty of deception coming from organic proponents too, such as the claim one sometimes hears that they don't use any poisons, or what you are suggesting, that genetics are being presented as immutable (I have not seen this latter argument) and in both cases they deserve to be called out.

    Regarding viruses, that is why I specifically link GMO to its laboratory roots above, as would the vast majority of educated commentators who are not up to some sort of shenanigans. Probably someone, somewhere, has made the argument that GMO is 100% fine because all of life is transgenic, and they are regrettably likely not questioned about the horrific slaughter of organisms that stems from this viral interface over millenia. :D

    You are correct that there are heirloom organics available that are the result of mutagenic processes...and it raises a good question why people who are concerned about transgenic engineering aren't concerned about mutagenic engineering.

    ETA smiley
    I fail to see the meaningful distinction you draw between dishonest and deceitful. Your explanation of deceitful seems to be a subcategory of dishonest with a particular purpose. In neither case is drawing out the definition really actually defending that it is either.

    The immutability of genetics isn't a direct argument, but rather an implication in wanting to use the term Genetically Modified Organism - the contrast would - if we're talking organisms - be something that had genes that had not modified or changed. I think this pushes on people's natural faulty appeals to tradition - that there existed a golden age, and that it also applies even to genes, so that now, things moving away from those genes must be getting worse - that entropy is even winding down life. I think that even without necessarily being conscious of it, people wanting to use GMO to dissuade people are relying on that kind of feeling.

    I also fail to see the relevance of what is done in a lab versus what is not, or more precisely fail to see why anyone should feel it a bad thing. Frankly, it strikes me relying on an intuition that is, frankly, bass ackwards. Labs with the intent to make something safe for people are, in probability, far, far more likely to be safe than the average of life on this Earth, and even greater compared to the safety of natural conditions in the universe.
    The point in comparing transgenics is to show there's nothing inherently unnatural about transgenics because most people worried about something being done in lab are fallaciously applying an appeal to nature fallacy. I also fail to see the relevance in pointing out viruses are harmful, as if that is supposed to imply something about transgenic traits transferred by them that persist through generations showing they are neutral at worst, and almost certainly beneficial if they show strong fixation in the gene pool.

    I imagine I see the raised question of mutagenics differently than you do. I think it has an answer - most people that aren't concerned about mutagenics aren't because they just flat out don't know what they are, or if they have any knowledge, they don't understand the difference in how it is massive hammering with a cudgel where as transgenics is far more like the precision of a scalpel.

    The distinction between dishonest and deceptive is that one can be deceptive without being dishonest. For example, here is an example of a non-deceptive conversation:

    Uneducated person: I really want GMOs to be labeled; I don't want to eat this dangerous stuff.
    Educated person: First of all, I don't like the term GMO, I wish that the media used the term GEO, because even your Beefmaster tomatoes are technically GMOs. But that aside, labeling is unnecessary, because you can always buy USDA organic foods that are certified GMO-free. I personally don't think it is something to worry about as the USDA and FDA have provided assurances it is safe, and they are very rigorous in their vetting.

    And here is that same conversation using the kind of deceptiveness (but not dishonesty) that I have seen in dozens of such conversations:

    Uneducated person: I really want GMOs to be labeled; I don't want to eat this dangerous stuff.
    Educated person: It's silly to even worry about it. You are already eating GMOs and you are in fact growing GMOs in your garden. We've been growing and eating GMOs for centuries, just about everything you buy at the grocery is a GMO, and we know that they are completely safe--your Beefmaster genetics aren't going to kill you. So there is no need for labeling GMOs--they have been shown to be completely safe through history.

    What i find to be very interesting is that you are using the same deceptive-but-not-dishonest rhetorical techniques:

    "I also fail to see the relevance of what is done in a lab versus what is not, or more precisely fail to see why anyone should feel it a bad thing. Frankly, it strikes me relying on an intuition that is, frankly, bass ackwards. Labs with the intent to make something safe for people are, in probability, far, far more likely to be safe than the average of life on this Earth..."

    First, an ad hominem attack suggesting I mentioned labs, not as a neutral tool/facility in which genetic engineering is created, but because I have some kind of "intuition" that they are "bad", which is not what I said at all. All I said was, it's where genetic engineering happens (unless you know of farmers using recombinant DNA techniques out in the back 40). I would certainly hope it would be clear that my comments in this thread are based on deep and broad reading, research, formal training, and hands-on practice in agricultural and scientific matters, so I am perplexed by your rhetorical choice to employ a logical fallacy to reduce it to "muh feelz."

    In the next sentence, you replace the concept of "labs in general" with the careful phrase "labs with the intent to make something safe for people." Well, certainly no one can argue that labs designed for safety purposes have a better track record than raw Darwinian nature. But as you and I both know, there are all kinds of labs, from Hitler's assorted labs to labs that might be weaponizing military-grade smallpox to labs that are dedicated to a profit motive and held to certain standards to labs that are 100% dedicated to safety. Sometimes they can be a mixed bag of great good and horrifying evil, such as any lab where Fritz Haber set up shop. At any rate, for some reason, you are trying to twist my neutral reference to labs into a demonstration that I am "bass-ackwards" to "intuit" that they are "bad" when [insert selected labs here] are actually quite wonderful.

    Very cleverly constructed, but again, I don't understand the need for shenanigans and squirreliness, aka, deceptiveness.

    I am basically 100% agreeing with you on viruses (like labs a neutral tool in general; but ranging from destructive to beneficial in particular) and mutagenics (people r dumb).

    Sorry, not seeing how the way you're considering that it isn't dishonest, but if you see the distinction as having merit, you're fine with continuing it. It seems to me, even in the second conversation you're portraying the person as intentionally equivocating, which I don't see how it isn't dishonest.

    As far as ad hominem goes, are you using some kind of proprietary use of the term? An ad honimem, at least a fallacious one, is saying something about the interlocutor disproves their point, rather than actually engaging with the point. What you are accusing me of would be more properly called a strawman - that you feel I'm assigning arguments to you that you haven't made. You could take note though, I never assigned that opinion to you - I distinctly said "why anyone". If my digression came off as strawmanning you in particular because you have no problem with lab generated food, my apologies. Can I take it you don't feel there is some reason to label the various biotech developments that are done via a lab? As far as saying I should intuit your opinion as coming from deep knowledge, why? You've used GMO as interchangeable with transgenic and done in a lab, when all three have distinctions.

    I didn't replace any concept. I defined it. If you think there are labs out there that don't have an intent to keep their customers alive, go ahead with that. My experience is that anyone I've met in biotech is interested in not killing or harming people. Though thanks for showing the conversation has gone on long enough to reach Godwin's Law. I just really don't see the relevance in mentioning it is possible to have a lab generating anthrax in a conversation about agriculture.

    Interesting take on squirrelness. Does it apply to you bringing up that it is possible for labs with a weapon making profit motive to exist in a conversation about agricultural biotech? I don't want us talking at cross purposes, so let's be clear - I'm talking about biotech labs that are developing agricultural products for farmers, with the intent that it will eventually feed people. I'm not talking about military labs, and can't really see their relevance in a discussion on GMOs.

    Well, it appears that you've managed to combine two fallacies into one, strawman AND abusive ad hominem, which includes attacks on credibility. It's quite the accomplishment.

    I'm still not sure why your knickers are in a twist over the terminology. I originally used the USDA terminology it applies to organic regulation, in which GMOs are specifically prohibited. Surely you are not suggesting that the USDA has prohibited all foods? Or that they are entirely lacking in credibility because they present publications equating GMOs and genetic engineering, which is imprecise use of terminology, directly contradicting terminology they have elsewhere on the site?

    https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2013/05/17/organic-101-can-gmos-be-used-organic-products
    https://www.usda.gov/topics/biotechnology/biotechnology-glossary

    Regarding the connection between agriculture and warfare, my point was to illustrate that there are labs with practices ranging from good to evil and every point in between. But it's certainly a legitimate point to raise, how food has been and can be weaponized as a matter of a state's sense of national security. The specific example I provided has a very fundamental connection to agriculture, and no, it wasn't his customers that Haber was planning to kill. Here's a few suggested topics for further illumination: Haber-Bosch Process, Zyklon A and B, Green Revolution. Also, you might want to do a little more research on anthrax and its origins before suggesting that it has no relevance for an agricultural discussion.
    Please stop misusing the term ad hominem. To be an ad hominem fallacy, I would have to be saying your argument is wrong because you are the one making it. Please quote anything close to that implication. You seem to think I attacked your credibility - the closest I can think is that I stated you were wrong about GMO being synonymous with transgenic because there are more things under the GMO umbrella than transgenics, and there are natural transgenics that will never be labeled GMO.

    FYI, saying my nickers are in a twist could be construed as an ad hominem based on emotions - known as a pathos gambit or reverse appeal to emotions. I don't know what you think you're showing by linking to the USDA, or what you think I said about GMO. I'll repeat it for about a half dozenth time: GMO can refer to RNA silencing, transgenics, and several other forms of gene engineering (last I saw CRISPR was not included), when it comes to USDA regulations. Are you disagreeing with that? Are you trying to claim I'm making the "everything is GMO" argument? If it wasn't clear, me mentioning there are naturally transgenic organisms isn't me making that argument. Just to be clear, you do understand there is gene engineering besides transgenics, right? Again, a prominent example is RNA silencing, that's how Arctic Apples have their non-browning trait.

    I'm aware of of the Haber-Bosch process, and that one of the uses of nitrogen is for developing explosives. Again, I don't see the relevance, or particularly, what you think the inescapable implication is. Perhaps trying putting it out in premises. No matter how much I know about anthrax, the burden, if you actually care about being understood, is on you to provide a rational justification about the relevance. Saying look it up is shifting the burden of proof.

    I'll give you a simple example.
    1. Agro bio companies profit by selling to farmers.
    2. It follows that agro bio companies have a desire to sell products that farmers want to buy.
    3. Farmers make profit by selling to more food eaters (yes there are middle men, ConAgras of the world etc), and lose money when there are less food eaters
    4. Farmers therefore want to buy products that are safe to eat, or they will go bankrupt in the long term.
    5. It follows that Agro bios have a desire to sell safe products.

    You can disagree with any premise and let know why. Consider writing out in such a format why it follows that one should have a consideration about what is developed more in a lab than what foods occur naturally.

    I thought you already invoked Godwin's Law and printed yourself a Certificate of Achievement in Argument Victory a week ago....?

    (I didn't woo you.)
  • magnusthenerdmagnusthenerd Posts: 659Member Member Posts: 659Member Member
    qpmomma1 wrote: »
    qpmomma1 wrote: »
    My vegetables are locally sourced and organic. I have a vegetable garden. :)

    Nope. Not pay extra at the supermarket for "organic" which in this context is a completely unregulated term and who knows what it means.

    We also have a garden and ours isn't organic. We use conventional fertilizers and GMO plants and seeds. :smile:

    Just out of curiosity--because I have to admit to being somewhat pitch-kettled by the thought of using valuable garden space for, say, the tasty AG21X7 or some DKC50-08RIB ("MmmmmmOnsanto-Licious!") instead of, say, Cherokee Purples and Brandywines (or even a decent hybrid)--which transgenic (GMO) plants and seeds are you planting in your personal garden, and why?

    Corn is a GMO :smile:
    Reson: We like corn

    We also use a lot of hybrids and some people consider them to be GMO since they have been genetically modified.

    @qpmomma1 GMO refers specifically to varieties that are created using transgenic technologies, in which a gene unique to one organism is inserted into an alien organism. Hybrids are created using traditional breeding techniques, either can be human-directed or occurring under natural pressures (Darwinian selection rather than human selection). Basically every organism that exists is genetically modified as there are a variety of genetic pressures being put upon it, but GMO can only get its start in a lab, not through traditional breeding methods.

    I suspect you don't have a very in-depth understanding of this, but you may have read or heard an argument in which someone advocating for GMOs tried to make the case that "GMOs are okay because we've been eating GMOs for millenia". While there are many strong points to GMOs, any person or entity that attempts to make this case is either ignorant or deliberately being deceitful, and in either case is completely non-credible.

    What is the exact corn that you are planting in your garden? *Some* recently-developed corn is GMO, predominantly commodity field corn, but it would be pretty weird to plant it in one's garden. I plant many different varieties of corn, all heirloom, all genetically modified, none GMO.

    Actually, GMO is used for things beyond transgenics. Arctic Apples are labeled GMO but they are not transgenic, they are instead created using RNA silencing techniques. Transgenic in genetics actually has a specific meaning in that DNA (genes) are taken across species.
    It isn't dishonest to say all domesticated crops are GMO, it is just pushing back on how a term is being used dishonestly from the begin, pretending there is some natural genetics that are immutable in plants (or animals) that haven't been modified and thus are natural. Not to mention, plenty of plant species that are still organic and I think even some that could be labeled heirloom are created using mutagenics. That is why using the precise term such as transgenics, selective breeding, RNA silencing, mutagenics, etc are what a genuine and informed conversation should involve.

    And frankly, if one wants to get into it, all life is transgenic due to viral activity. You have DNA right now that comes from a non-human evolutionary paths. Though I'm find with the understanding that when someone is talking about transgenics in agriculture, they probably mean things lab done glyphosate resistance or Bt trait rather than referring to the fact that the sweet potato comes from a transgene ancestor.

    I didn't say it was dishonest, I said it was deceitful, aka, usually being employed as a strategem or rhetorical sleight-of-hand (when coming from a knowledgeable commentator). I was very careful in my choice of words. :p

    There is plenty of deception coming from organic proponents too, such as the claim one sometimes hears that they don't use any poisons, or what you are suggesting, that genetics are being presented as immutable (I have not seen this latter argument) and in both cases they deserve to be called out.

    Regarding viruses, that is why I specifically link GMO to its laboratory roots above, as would the vast majority of educated commentators who are not up to some sort of shenanigans. Probably someone, somewhere, has made the argument that GMO is 100% fine because all of life is transgenic, and they are regrettably likely not questioned about the horrific slaughter of organisms that stems from this viral interface over millenia. :D

    You are correct that there are heirloom organics available that are the result of mutagenic processes...and it raises a good question why people who are concerned about transgenic engineering aren't concerned about mutagenic engineering.

    ETA smiley
    I fail to see the meaningful distinction you draw between dishonest and deceitful. Your explanation of deceitful seems to be a subcategory of dishonest with a particular purpose. In neither case is drawing out the definition really actually defending that it is either.

    The immutability of genetics isn't a direct argument, but rather an implication in wanting to use the term Genetically Modified Organism - the contrast would - if we're talking organisms - be something that had genes that had not modified or changed. I think this pushes on people's natural faulty appeals to tradition - that there existed a golden age, and that it also applies even to genes, so that now, things moving away from those genes must be getting worse - that entropy is even winding down life. I think that even without necessarily being conscious of it, people wanting to use GMO to dissuade people are relying on that kind of feeling.

    I also fail to see the relevance of what is done in a lab versus what is not, or more precisely fail to see why anyone should feel it a bad thing. Frankly, it strikes me relying on an intuition that is, frankly, bass ackwards. Labs with the intent to make something safe for people are, in probability, far, far more likely to be safe than the average of life on this Earth, and even greater compared to the safety of natural conditions in the universe.
    The point in comparing transgenics is to show there's nothing inherently unnatural about transgenics because most people worried about something being done in lab are fallaciously applying an appeal to nature fallacy. I also fail to see the relevance in pointing out viruses are harmful, as if that is supposed to imply something about transgenic traits transferred by them that persist through generations showing they are neutral at worst, and almost certainly beneficial if they show strong fixation in the gene pool.

    I imagine I see the raised question of mutagenics differently than you do. I think it has an answer - most people that aren't concerned about mutagenics aren't because they just flat out don't know what they are, or if they have any knowledge, they don't understand the difference in how it is massive hammering with a cudgel where as transgenics is far more like the precision of a scalpel.

    The distinction between dishonest and deceptive is that one can be deceptive without being dishonest. For example, here is an example of a non-deceptive conversation:

    Uneducated person: I really want GMOs to be labeled; I don't want to eat this dangerous stuff.
    Educated person: First of all, I don't like the term GMO, I wish that the media used the term GEO, because even your Beefmaster tomatoes are technically GMOs. But that aside, labeling is unnecessary, because you can always buy USDA organic foods that are certified GMO-free. I personally don't think it is something to worry about as the USDA and FDA have provided assurances it is safe, and they are very rigorous in their vetting.

    And here is that same conversation using the kind of deceptiveness (but not dishonesty) that I have seen in dozens of such conversations:

    Uneducated person: I really want GMOs to be labeled; I don't want to eat this dangerous stuff.
    Educated person: It's silly to even worry about it. You are already eating GMOs and you are in fact growing GMOs in your garden. We've been growing and eating GMOs for centuries, just about everything you buy at the grocery is a GMO, and we know that they are completely safe--your Beefmaster genetics aren't going to kill you. So there is no need for labeling GMOs--they have been shown to be completely safe through history.

    What i find to be very interesting is that you are using the same deceptive-but-not-dishonest rhetorical techniques:

    "I also fail to see the relevance of what is done in a lab versus what is not, or more precisely fail to see why anyone should feel it a bad thing. Frankly, it strikes me relying on an intuition that is, frankly, bass ackwards. Labs with the intent to make something safe for people are, in probability, far, far more likely to be safe than the average of life on this Earth..."

    First, an ad hominem attack suggesting I mentioned labs, not as a neutral tool/facility in which genetic engineering is created, but because I have some kind of "intuition" that they are "bad", which is not what I said at all. All I said was, it's where genetic engineering happens (unless you know of farmers using recombinant DNA techniques out in the back 40). I would certainly hope it would be clear that my comments in this thread are based on deep and broad reading, research, formal training, and hands-on practice in agricultural and scientific matters, so I am perplexed by your rhetorical choice to employ a logical fallacy to reduce it to "muh feelz."

    In the next sentence, you replace the concept of "labs in general" with the careful phrase "labs with the intent to make something safe for people." Well, certainly no one can argue that labs designed for safety purposes have a better track record than raw Darwinian nature. But as you and I both know, there are all kinds of labs, from Hitler's assorted labs to labs that might be weaponizing military-grade smallpox to labs that are dedicated to a profit motive and held to certain standards to labs that are 100% dedicated to safety. Sometimes they can be a mixed bag of great good and horrifying evil, such as any lab where Fritz Haber set up shop. At any rate, for some reason, you are trying to twist my neutral reference to labs into a demonstration that I am "bass-ackwards" to "intuit" that they are "bad" when [insert selected labs here] are actually quite wonderful.

    Very cleverly constructed, but again, I don't understand the need for shenanigans and squirreliness, aka, deceptiveness.

    I am basically 100% agreeing with you on viruses (like labs a neutral tool in general; but ranging from destructive to beneficial in particular) and mutagenics (people r dumb).

    Sorry, not seeing how the way you're considering that it isn't dishonest, but if you see the distinction as having merit, you're fine with continuing it. It seems to me, even in the second conversation you're portraying the person as intentionally equivocating, which I don't see how it isn't dishonest.

    As far as ad hominem goes, are you using some kind of proprietary use of the term? An ad honimem, at least a fallacious one, is saying something about the interlocutor disproves their point, rather than actually engaging with the point. What you are accusing me of would be more properly called a strawman - that you feel I'm assigning arguments to you that you haven't made. You could take note though, I never assigned that opinion to you - I distinctly said "why anyone". If my digression came off as strawmanning you in particular because you have no problem with lab generated food, my apologies. Can I take it you don't feel there is some reason to label the various biotech developments that are done via a lab? As far as saying I should intuit your opinion as coming from deep knowledge, why? You've used GMO as interchangeable with transgenic and done in a lab, when all three have distinctions.

    I didn't replace any concept. I defined it. If you think there are labs out there that don't have an intent to keep their customers alive, go ahead with that. My experience is that anyone I've met in biotech is interested in not killing or harming people. Though thanks for showing the conversation has gone on long enough to reach Godwin's Law. I just really don't see the relevance in mentioning it is possible to have a lab generating anthrax in a conversation about agriculture.

    Interesting take on squirrelness. Does it apply to you bringing up that it is possible for labs with a weapon making profit motive to exist in a conversation about agricultural biotech? I don't want us talking at cross purposes, so let's be clear - I'm talking about biotech labs that are developing agricultural products for farmers, with the intent that it will eventually feed people. I'm not talking about military labs, and can't really see their relevance in a discussion on GMOs.

    Well, it appears that you've managed to combine two fallacies into one, strawman AND abusive ad hominem, which includes attacks on credibility. It's quite the accomplishment.

    I'm still not sure why your knickers are in a twist over the terminology. I originally used the USDA terminology it applies to organic regulation, in which GMOs are specifically prohibited. Surely you are not suggesting that the USDA has prohibited all foods? Or that they are entirely lacking in credibility because they present publications equating GMOs and genetic engineering, which is imprecise use of terminology, directly contradicting terminology they have elsewhere on the site?

    https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2013/05/17/organic-101-can-gmos-be-used-organic-products
    https://www.usda.gov/topics/biotechnology/biotechnology-glossary

    Regarding the connection between agriculture and warfare, my point was to illustrate that there are labs with practices ranging from good to evil and every point in between. But it's certainly a legitimate point to raise, how food has been and can be weaponized as a matter of a state's sense of national security. The specific example I provided has a very fundamental connection to agriculture, and no, it wasn't his customers that Haber was planning to kill. Here's a few suggested topics for further illumination: Haber-Bosch Process, Zyklon A and B, Green Revolution. Also, you might want to do a little more research on anthrax and its origins before suggesting that it has no relevance for an agricultural discussion.
    Please stop misusing the term ad hominem. To be an ad hominem fallacy, I would have to be saying your argument is wrong because you are the one making it. Please quote anything close to that implication. You seem to think I attacked your credibility - the closest I can think is that I stated you were wrong about GMO being synonymous with transgenic because there are more things under the GMO umbrella than transgenics, and there are natural transgenics that will never be labeled GMO.

    FYI, saying my nickers are in a twist could be construed as an ad hominem based on emotions - known as a pathos gambit or reverse appeal to emotions. I don't know what you think you're showing by linking to the USDA, or what you think I said about GMO. I'll repeat it for about a half dozenth time: GMO can refer to RNA silencing, transgenics, and several other forms of gene engineering (last I saw CRISPR was not included), when it comes to USDA regulations. Are you disagreeing with that? Are you trying to claim I'm making the "everything is GMO" argument? If it wasn't clear, me mentioning there are naturally transgenic organisms isn't me making that argument. Just to be clear, you do understand there is gene engineering besides transgenics, right? Again, a prominent example is RNA silencing, that's how Arctic Apples have their non-browning trait.

    I'm aware of of the Haber-Bosch process, and that one of the uses of nitrogen is for developing explosives. Again, I don't see the relevance, or particularly, what you think the inescapable implication is. Perhaps trying putting it out in premises. No matter how much I know about anthrax, the burden, if you actually care about being understood, is on you to provide a rational justification about the relevance. Saying look it up is shifting the burden of proof.

    I'll give you a simple example.
    1. Agro bio companies profit by selling to farmers.
    2. It follows that agro bio companies have a desire to sell products that farmers want to buy.
    3. Farmers make profit by selling to more food eaters (yes there are middle men, ConAgras of the world etc), and lose money when there are less food eaters
    4. Farmers therefore want to buy products that are safe to eat, or they will go bankrupt in the long term.
    5. It follows that Agro bios have a desire to sell safe products.

    You can disagree with any premise and let know why. Consider writing out in such a format why it follows that one should have a consideration about what is developed more in a lab than what foods occur naturally.

    I thought you already invoked Godwin's Law and printed yourself a Certificate of Achievement in Argument Victory a week ago....?

    (I didn't woo you.)
    Godwin's Law just states the chance of Hitler being used / mentioned in an internet debate reaches 100% over time. It doesn't actually say the one invoking him loses the argument.
Sign In or Register to comment.