|
Dr Creflo A Dollar posted:Nobody's forcing farmers to buy Monsanto seed, and farmers almost always buy their seed at the beginning of the season anyway. They've cornered the market and licensing the tech to the handful of companies they don't own. It's just more of the systematic commoditization of something that is needed for people to live.
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:03 |
|
|
It's not exclusively lefty, look at all of the right wing libertarian quacks who drank colloidal silver and have become just as paranoid about nukes as the worst of the greens.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Cool, another no true scotsman post. I dare you to call Greenpeace "right wing establishment crap". I wouldn't call them leftist since they have no interest in labor.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Evidence? Argument? Anything? Show how anti-vax and anti-nuke stuff is distinctly right wing establishment. Anti-vax     Anti-nuke     And lest you think a leftie made these 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:And? None of this establishes anti-vax or anti-nuke as right-wing establishment, unless you are prepared to make the argument that Dees is right-wing establishment and not a likely mentally ill fringe element. Well no one said they were establishment, I only echoed that there's plenty of other loving morons on the right and stand by that most environmentalists aren't leftist because they don't give that much of a poo poo about people are labour. Sadly, there's no real leftist party in the US so there's literally no one to tell to stop listening to loving idiots.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:If I'm going to judge a media outlet I'm going to go by it's country of origin and what country's news it primarily reports on, not an international scale unless it is expressly an international outlet. Well if you're going by such poor standards, HuffPo still ranks centrist at best and opportunistic shills at worst. Of course the owner is a conservative shithead who exploits unpaid labor so yes HuffPo is right-wing. Have some quotes from her: Arianna Huffington in The Fourth Instinct: The Call of the Soul posted:"The greatest tragedy of the modern welfare state is that we have allowed it to deprive us of a fundamental opportunity to practice virtue, responsibility, generosity and compassion." Arianna Huffington in The Female Woman: An Argument Against Women’s Liberation for Female Emancipation posted:"Women's Lib claims that the achievement of total liberation would transform the lives of all women for the better, the truth is that it would transform only the lives of women with strong lesbian tendencies. . . . The frenetic extremism of Women's Lib seeks not to emancipate women, but to destroy society." Arianna Huffington in After Reason posted:“Once democracy is established as a fundamentally economic concept, as it unambiguously has been in Sweden and is increasingly becoming so elsewhere in the West, then it functions solely for economic egalitarianism and it can be made to embrace any degree of tyranny provided more prosperity, more security and more social welfare are guaranteed. Arianna Huffington on "Firing Line," December 7, 1994 posted:“...both the women's movement and the Great Society were spectacular disasters. They maintained the big lie that government, the federal father up in the sky, is going to take care of all social disputes and kiss away every economic boo-boo. They contributed to the breakup of the American family and they also contributed to the politicization of American life." Arianna Huffington on "Firing Line," June 16, 1995 posted:“Until we dismantle the welfare state, until we dismantle bilingual education, until we dismantle multi-cultural experiments, we need to drastically reduce the high levels of immigration.” Arianna Huffington in "Make Voting Harder, Not Easier;" American Enterprise Institute; 1997 posted:"... worrying about voter turnout puts the cart before the horse. Theoretically, voting is an informed choice . . . Unfortunately, most people are as uninformed about politics as I am about college basketball. My solution: Make voting contingent upon the completion of a certain number of hours of community service . . . The immediate effect of this . . . proposal would probably be to reduce participation even further." She's a right wing shill who makes money off of deluded center of right liberals.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:First off, why is taking a publication in context of the culture it comes from and the culture it is written to a poor standard? The first reason is because you're talking to people on an international forum and it creates a series of false narratives, to the point that Americans don't understand what liberal means and thinks that Europe is socialist. As for the quotes, I was establishing Arianna's questionable character.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Explain to me again why if someone designs an organism why there shouldn't be patent protection? Why is it so absurd? Yeah, why would monopolizing and further commercializing food staples ever be a problem?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
There's food crises already all over the world due to the commercializing of food and people here are unironically saying that the next thing we need to do is reinforce that system with patents. If it was FAO or even WHO calling the shots about food research that would be great, instead it's the same publically traded shitheads who decades of work have lead to better seeds for use with their lovely pesticide, all at a higher mark up. There's a terrible structure with a rotten base that needs to be torn down and people in thread want to fix the base.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Do you know what patents are? You can't patent 'rice' but you can patent a specific seed. I understand that but when the vast majority of the market is being controlled by a handful of entities that do nothing but sell their own patented crops with restrictive contracts it's basically the same thing. Kalman posted:I mean, seriously. Monsanto doesn't own a patent on corn. It owns a patent on a specific gene that can be used in corn so that you cons use glyphosate with the corn. If that's not an advantage, why does it affect food crises? And if it is an advantage, well, they did manage to do something no one else had done (and something that isn't that easy to do) so they probably should be rewarded for that. That kind of thinking has been leading to waste and problems in almost every field. Rent-A-Cop posted:Food crises have much more to do with international trade than they do with IP law. Europe and the US are massively protectionist in the agricultural markets and love to dump huge amounts of practically free food aid on developing countries which tends to drive local growers out of business. They do this both because it is seen as charitable and because it allows them to support domestic producers for various economic, political or strategic reasons. I understand this but Monsanto isn't just a passive victim in all of this. They're pushing their bullshit products onto markets and funneling it all back to themselves at the expense of the world. They're riding the high of unequal trade and profiteering off of death if you will allow some dramatics. This is the future if all that is done about GMO is mock the scientific bullshit that the Green party blindly follows but continue the neoliberal loving of the world.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Yeah, corporations are evil. What does that have to do with GMO? They're just as evil with their non-GMO products and so is pretty much everyone else in agriculture because corporations are almost by definition evil. Monsanto is loving up the market with GMO's. They already hosed up the world with hybrid marketing, hosed up with pesticide, what the hell is the deal with giving it a third try seems to be the general notion. I have no issues with GMO, all of my posts in this thread have been about how both left and right sources are scared with pseudo-science crap and how plenty of people shouldn't be trusted because it's all about money. Food insecurity could be eliminated overnight if it wasn't for privatized interests in it and if it was recognized as a human right. Monsanto, along with Cargill and other agro-chemical companies, don't want that so in conclusion they can go gently caress themselves, GMO or not.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:I'm sure you have solid proof that Monsanto is 'loving up the market' with GMOs? It's a company that's based on making money by dominating market with products, why would GMO be any different for them? Slanderer posted:Um I'm pretty sure that there isn't a "end world hunger" switch in a closet somewhere that Big Monsanto is hiding from the world. Because, you know, the political, logistic, and economic issues associated with this are kinda complicated. Where did I say Monsanto was the ones keeping it back, they're looters and accomplices.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:It seems clear to me that the ethical issue is: "will the world be better off with patent protection for gene sequences or without them?" On one hand, companies have an incentive to share discoveries in the form of a temporary monopoly. On the other hand, allowing companies to patent and lock away key building blocks of genetic code could greatly slow progress in creating high-impact genetic crops. It doesn't seem like a question with an obvious answer, software patents have done a lot of harm in the form of the latter concern, and genes seem kind of similar to that, moreso than a particular design of a physical invention. You managed to sum up better what I was trying to say in my terrible, ineffectual posting. I was trying to get accross the latter with the notion of patenting GMO's would only go the route of most privatized agribusiness in general, better profits while maintaining a system that is inherently terrible for the purpose of feeding people. The problem is that I'm terrible at posting and doing it on Christmas loving day of all things just makes it worse.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Ok, so they do what pretty much any other company does, capitalism bad, etc. Do you have anything to say about what Monsanto is doing that other companies in the field are not? All I'm really getting here from you is "Raaaarrr! Monsanto bad!" with a bunch of extremely vague opprobrium, please add some substance. Monsanto is the main target because they're monopolizing the distribution of seeds with buy outs and licensing and I'm sorry that apparently this thread is only about GMO being bad from some loving green party platform instead of dealing with the biggest name in loving over food distribution. I guess liberalism wins again, Merry Christmas.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:No they aren't. Monsanto isn't even the biggest in the US. They make top 5 in a good year. They control 90% of the soy bean market and they've gotten the OK from the US government to continue with no obligation on their part.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
Well gently caress it, I guess since a company that has a long history of killing people is just taking advantage of the gross inequalities that the current system affords them is fine. I focused on Monsanto because what a goddamned shock the name of the company is in the title, and I followed it through because of trying to right the wrongs at reasons to hate Monsanto. They are the largest distributor, so I aimed at them. You can't even argue with that, no one did and instead said "that's fine" or just accepted it as if the childlike notion of a real free market existed. The consolidation of agribusiness over the last 20 years cannot be ignored nor should it just be viewed as natural as in no time in history did the combination at this level with minimum oversight ever have any good come out of it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:03 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I've never understood why the frothing anti-GMO doomsayers have latched onto Monsanto. Why not Pioneer, Bayer, or Dow? Monsanto was the first to do so. Prior to becoming a mostly genetics based company, they manufactured PCB and managed to dump 45 tons of the mess into a single creek in 1969. They also engaged in dangerous practices in disposing of it in many places. Sure, they might not have the raw body count of Union Carbide, now owned Dow, but when people asked why did I not like Monsanto, I explained why specifically with regards of that company. Cargill and Dow are also sketchy companies and I wouldn't trust them with dogsitting, let alone being a major component in food security in the 21st century. But hey, since apparently this thread is solely about GMO from some dumb loving email chain arguments and not about the ultimately dangerous practice of monopolies I'll stop.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2013 02:20
|
|