Comments by "boz" (@BOZ_11) on "Obama Gives Monsanto Get Out of Jail Free Card" video.

  1. "as if their life depended on it" Oh he's genuinely pissed off; making me think his livelihood is tied up in this. He's even petty enough to want tried and tested farming methods dating back thousands of years to go through GMO style testing. They dress it up as "pro-science" and caricature the safety-first side as "anti-progress". You can make all the progress you want without making us all unpaid participants in your worldwide test lab.
    2
  2. There are lots of GMO's. Some were developed yesterday, and the first ones were harvested around 1995. They're not all at the same level of maturation! Don't pretend they're all equally suitable
    2
  3. "these arguments against GE or GM foods are based on fear" Some GMO's will be safe, others will linked to ill health. Some will pass into the food suply, and hopefully the questionable shit won't. If you care more for progress than your health, I suggest you sign up to get paid for involvement in experimental drug trials
    1
  4. You/Monsanto claim all GM foods are safe for mass consumption. Those duly concerned with human health ask for evidence, and you put the burden of proof on those asking for safety assurances. The Church says there is a god, those duly concerned with the propagation of BS ask for evidence, and you put the burden of proof on those asking for assurances. You are a fuckwit.
    1
  5. I have a frame of reference. You people can neither think, nor read, nor write properly, so I certainly don't trust the results of your gene splicing, especially if you are representative of the calibre of person employed in these endeavors. I feel as though a government undertaking would be much more discerning in their efforts to source labour. Having said that I could be made to think well, of a minimum of two years, but that does not matter. What matters are those damned politicians
    1
  6. Given how clinical trials of drugs take about 8 years to reach the consumer, I say 8 years. What do you think? 6 months? 1 year? No trials at all, and just let the public consume it all? How much do you care?
    1
  7. And none of those poisonous mushrooms make it into the market. When I asked you if you had any more moot points, I wasn't being serious...
    1
  8. But you're ignorant of the potential harm to human health. The problem is that's true even of Monsanto scientists, who are quite frankly being pushed to maximise profits, but not safety. You're actually part of the problem since you would have us all be test subjects
    1
  9. Apparently he signed up for experimental drug trials, for some cash. He literally did "jump in"
    1
  10. Except corporations aren't people. If I wind down my company have I committed murder? Don't be a fucking imbecile. Corporate personhood is a corruption of the law
    1
  11. Hence the need for a tentative but progressive attitude. Something our friends tend to be lackadaisical about
    1
  12. Utter trite. If we allow it into the food supply without adequate prior verification, then the way we identify its harmful effects is by observing PEOPLE who are harmed by the inclusion of said foods in our food supply. This is not only ant-science, it's anti-human.
    1
  13. this is true of GMO's too. Why are yo so dense?
    1
  14. But infected wheat doesn't make it into our food supply as it stands. Have any more moot points?
    1
  15. "TheFounderUtopia 1 day ago This has been flagged as spam show • Not Spam" No more discussion with you, who would relieve the church of the burden of proof. Ignoramus
    1
  16. You don't actually have any arguments. You simply make false assertions, like falsely proclaiming all GMO's safe. Mr. shill
    1
  17. I'll bitch about any GMO that makes it to market and doesn't have an honest, long term, peer reviewed study to corroborate its safety for public health, AND I'll bitch about fucking Monsanto for buying politicians and turning us all into guinea pigs
    1
  18. I'm only reading comments written in response to me. You and JarJar Binks have distracted me all afternoon
    1
  19. Mutations in GMO's are still random, you fuckwit
    1
  20. I already know he was being a disingenuous shit, and called him out on it. I don't need you to agree
    1
  21. I'm no more likely to take your advice than I am in listening to a child over the subject of equity investments. All of your BS centres around "this could happen, or that could happen". No lethal mutation makes it into our food supply, certainly not on a level that could cause widespread concern, but you caricature the situation like an irrational fool with your false equivalences between organic and GMO. Many GMO trials end up in a dead end and as such aren't fit for consumption. [cont..]
    1
  22. You ARE in line with Mitt Romney since that is precisely what he believes. When the law changes to remove corporate personhood, you will change your mind. When they reinstate corporate personhood, you'll change your mind yet again. You will do so because your mind is malleable to the whim of authority. This quote describes you perfectly: "“They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority" ― Gerald Massey
    1
  23. You do not understand his point. With selective breeding, nature takes care of the configuration and produces something stable and safe. With gene splicing, the manufacturers have to ensure their product is stable, since if it isn't, the potential for some unstable organism cross-breeding with their natural equivalents is a nightmare waiting to happen. Pollen can wander for miles on the backs of flying insects, and into neighbouring farms
    1
  24. I'm convinced you're being deliberately obtuse. ""SPECIFIC GMO's do, since they're patented by their creators. Patent = ownership."" - Me. GMO = genetically modified organism. A SPECIFIC GMO would be one pertaining to its creator; NOT that the concept of GMO belongs to the creator. You are painfully stupid
    1
  25. Paste back to me the part where I say some manufacturer(s) own the CONCEPT of genetic modification. Fix your reading comprehension or stop typing
    1
  26. At this point I'm just having fun with a lower order being
    1
  27. Millions of years of cross-pollination say otherwise
    1
  28. .. but this being the case, you would rather (through plain ignorance of any failed trials) tell people that our current safeguards around GMO's are totally irrational. This is completely against the current FDA stance and other food and drug bodies across Europe who have seen fit to be tentative about their introduction. Now, at the behest of some bald fuckwit on youtube, we should abandon all such safety procedures, and just allow the population to be nothing more than a giant test sample?
    1
  29. Dont be such a fucking pedant. Stop focusing on the "100%" The burden of proof regarding food safety lies firmly with monsanto, NOT the naysayers. The people who want this shit all over the human food supply ARE anti-science since there is no long term peer reviewed study of any GM food's suitability for mass consumption. Christ, the first GM crops were harvested mid 90's! Nothing to do with Norman Borlaug, before you give me that BS spiel
    1
  30. There is absolutely nothing wrong in labelling GMO's as GMO's any more than in choosing to call a spade a spade. You'd be taking away the customer's right to choose, borne out of your ill gotten confidence in the system of checks and balances
    1
  31. Cross pollination has been going on for millions of years. Humans have been cross breeding plants (in farming) for thousands of years, with no cause for widespread concern. I fail to see how your tangential point on viruses and bacteria has anything to do with the subject at hand, but then I suppose I can't expect every fuckwit's response to be focused.
    1
  32. Except I didn't flag it as spam. It was fun interacting with a clown, but I'm moving on. Thanks for playing.
    1
  33. "GM doesn't belong to any "manufacturer"" Specific GMO's do, since they're patented by their creators. Patent = ownership. "He tried to shift the burden of proof away from GMO manufactures, which is akin to shifting the burden of proof away from the church" - Me "I would say the onus is on people to prove that GM is harmful for consumption" - You It's plain for any onlookers to see this. I'm happy to highlight it
    1
  34. "but after nearly 20 years do you really not think we have at least some usable data?" You're not actually alluding to any data at all; you're simply being presumptuous where you don't have a citation. "By your standards nothing would EVER get approved" - "My" standard being a peer reviewed study? Don't be obtuse. "Meanwhile third world starvation is growing" Nobody is starving due to lack of production; they starve due to the economic conditions of this global economy.
    1
  35. Mutations aren't even the issue, since most have no harmful effects for the consumer. As you say, mutations happen all the time, except your shill of a friend says the next mutation in organic foodstuff could "kill people"!! HAHA. If that's not an outright lie then I don't know what is. You're blowing this up to make sure conventional crops look like killers, like a true snake oil salesman
    1
  36. "worries corrupt politicians and corporations, but also scientists" They're not on the same team "create something desperately needed globally" Nobody starves due to lack of food but lack of currency. Fighting for a better system is partially to reject that which has been brought to market early or even perhaps shouldn't have been brought altogether
    1
  37. Try logging out of youtube and ctrl+f to find your name. Or try in another browser that's not logged in. A lot of reasonable comments are being marked as spam though.
    1
  38. Clinical trials of drugs take several years to reach the consumer.
    1
  39. Anything released from the lab you work in should be subject to 50 year trials. I just don't trust you buddy
    1
  40. selective breeding isn't "random", BY DEFINITION. You moron
    1
  41. "I've already explained how selective breeding isn't any safer than genetic modification" No you didn't you, ignoramus. What you said was, regarding organic food: "organic food is genetically modified EVERY TIME, only it's done naturally, but that doesn't make it safer since genetic mutations are random. The NEXT MUTATION COULD KILL PEOPLE". I capitalised the last bit of your quote. You're an unscientific pleb given the above quote
    1
  42. Nothing in your comment addresses the point made in mine. You respond to TYT's supposed fear mongering with your own.... fear mongering. The irony is thick and so are you
    1
  43. "organic food is genetically modified EVERY TIME, only it's done naturally, but that doesn't make it safer since genetic mutations are random. The next mutation could kill people" Here we see our hair brained brethren, telling people that the next mutation of any organically grown foodstuff, could kill people. This isn't scare mongering though. DO NOT eat organic food, people. Herp'er derp'er has spoken
    1
  44. I didn't say they owned the concept. You misconstrued.
    1
  45. There's a reason they pay you good money to be involved in experimental drug trials. I hope they pay you enough to afford that kidney transplant in a few years. I don't want the human population to be subjected to GMO trials
    1
  46. All it takes is half a dozen organised scum bags to mark all of one's comments as spam. That's what had to have happened
    1
  47. "There is no reason for it to be harmful unless it is deliberately designed to be so" That's not true in the least, especially with all the controversy around aspartame and HFCS. Your opinion is at odds with reality.
    1
  48. I've already argued, and garnered your agreement at least once. You are full of hot air. Find another pastime
    1
  49. Except I don't fear science!!! Why must that be iterated? Do you really suppose that everybody on here who gives a fuck about human health is just an anti-science nut-job? Why don't you actually read the fucking comments? There are some salient ones. I fear these companies prioritise profits over human health, and the only thing standing between their insistence on using the population as guinea pigs are these state run regulatory bodies who are in the process of being captured.
    1
  50. I know what you mean, they seem fairly archetypal. Their livelihoods are obviously tied up in this, so I started trolling about 3 comments back; too much fun
    1
  51. "Whether something occurs in nature or is modified by humans has no relevance on it's safety." Nature takes of genetic recombination with selective breeding. With GMO's, the manufacturer must, and they have to show their results as being safe for consumption before they're allowed to sell it. This perfectly normal consideration has enraged people like you who see this cautionary process as somehow regressive. Anybody who cares for progress at the expense of human health should be sidelined
    1
  52. "The gene expression is inherent" Inherent to what? the underlying DNA? Do you fucking know anything at all about epigenetics? The same gene can express itself WILDLY differently in a new environment or even in the SAME environment but in a new host. Things are not as controlled as you pretend, and that's fine so long as nothing harmful comes to market, and I'm not sure the safeguards are adequate, i.e the politicians are bought!
    1
  53. I've already addressed your idiocy, that if we adhered to your dumbfuck pettiness we'd all starve
    1
  54. I can indeed, and he's not the only propagandist on this thread
    1
  55. You want conventional crops to be subjected to the same testing as GMO's because you happen to be pissed off about the safeguards around GMO? The world doesn't revolve around your pettiness; if it did, we'd all be starving
    1
  56. The economy and the govt it has shaped gives us problems far wider than food and drug regulation or any lack thereof. This is a wider discussion, where the solutions look more like peer to peer lending and alternative democratised currencies, etc.
    1
  57. Joking aside for a moment, you keep using the words "logic" and "argument" as if these are tools that you possess. Now, you say GMO's are safe, in reference to either the technology or the GMO's themselves. It all depends on who wields it. It can be a source of great mischief if in the wrong hands; private companies who prioritise profits over public health need to be rectified, regulated or both. This is where we have agreement. We also agree on trials of at least 2+ years. What's your boggle?
    1
  58. Then it should be easy enough to pass that specific GMO into the market. You're suggesting we undo all safeguards pertaining to GMO's due to one cited example. Again, some GMO's will be safe, others won't, and those that aren't should not pass into the human food supply by virtue of that fact that it's unsafe.
    1
  59. "It would be impossible for someone who could not think, read and write to become a geneticist you fucking idiot" There may have been a time when this was true, but being dense is no longer an impediment it would seem :)
    1
  60. Are you seriously suggesting that "people were dying all the time back then" were being killed off by food BECAUSE it was organically grown?
    1
  61. Apparently you don't know what an ad hominem attack is, since none were directed at you so far. That might change if you show yourself deserving
    1
  62. "it would be a violation of the corporation's first amendment rights" So you agree with that idiot Mitt Romney when he says "corporations are people my friend"??? You're braindead
    1
  63. It's inferred from your dubious ability to think and reason in a public forum :) This is too much fun to be legal
    1
  64. But mutations happen WITHIN the GMO's too! They happen randomly, ALWAYS. You're not in control of when mutations occur or the type of mutations that do occur. We don't need you to be, we just need to be sure the shit's safe before we have millions of people consuming it. Please develop some compassion for people as well as for your trade. Stop being a shill
    1
  65. "If we are genetically modifying something then we have CONTROL over the genes, but if it is a RANDOM mutation then we have NO CONTROL over the genes" You control where genes go, not their expression, which is why extensive trial and error is needed. If you control which genes go where AND their expression, then you wouldn't need trials. You're scientifically illiterate
    1
  66. That's fine, so long as the safety checks are in place, but Monsanto thinks profits > people. THAT'S THE PROBLEM
    1
  67. It's not as arbitrary as you might think. That time period is directly proportional to the dubious quality of your work :)
    1
  68. Then we need public funding of GMO's, to remove the immediate need for profits. In private hands they'll poison us all for a buck
    1
  69. I didn't say that it did. He tried to shift the burden of proof away from GMO manufactures, which is akin to shifting the burden of proof away from the church. If you don't understand that, I really can't help it.
    1
  70. I accept that you're a fucking imbecile, and won't waste another moment of my time with you
    1
  71. I think the Flynn effect has brought us to a position where we need to recalibrate in order to make a score of 100 the average again. The results are in; sorry, you just lost about 20 points off your IQ score.
    1
  72. You can't control when mutation happens, or the type of mutation that does occur.
    1
  73. but the standard isn't defined by Ana. "TYT needs to quit moronically fear-mongering GMOs" - You "The next (natural) mutation could kill people." - You I sense moronic fear mongering, to use your own term
    1
  74. You're obviously completely ignorant of the need for IQ score recalibration, in the face of the Flynn effect, in order to keep a score of 100 as the average score. As for your personal question, it is the latter. Your male family members are my most frequent patrons.
    1
  75. "telling people that something is GMO doesn't inform them of anything" It tells them the product didn't come about due to selective breeding or natural selection. You don't take away their ability to choose though, you fascist. "It's damn near impossible to get funding for life saving science" Science is a methodology, not a product, you imbecile. Methodologies don't save lives, results do. The difficulty in the hunt for funding comes from our capitalist economy which wants results yesterday
    1
  76. Except your comment is hidden due to the deluge of people marking it as spam. Have a nice day, you who would relieve the church of their burden of proof.
    1
  77. Not everything is caught in the lab, and that's why field trials are needed, in order to observe how these organisms interact in the real world. Why am I having to explain the purpose of field trials to you? Are you that clueless?
    1
  78. I could do with less of that, but I'd hoped that your acknowledgement of this state of affairs (corporate personhood) does not signal your agreement with it.
    1
  79. I was highlighting the need for field trials, and you make shit up about my "standard" which I don't have nor have I fleshed out. The only thing I will say is that the FDA is bought, and that's not good for public health.
    1