WilliamC wrote:They are all ugly aside from Kennedy, Clinton and Reagan.

Jerseyhoya wrote:

Re: 19 Republican primary candidates and counting (politics!
Postby jerseyhoya » Tue Jul 21, 2015 1:39 pm

drsmooth wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:fwiw i think jerseyhoya has been pretty clear about his opinion on GMOs whenever the subject arises

my interest wasn't in his opinion about GMOs, but about his misrepresentation of Saletan's, and the detrimental effect doing so might have on perceptions of jerz's own opinions, whatever they might be

What did I misrepresent about Saletan?

I called his piece a very good long read. I said he does a good job of supporting my position on the issue because he takes apart the standard lies against GMOs and explains the uselessness of labeling them. I said he feels labels are useless because they provide no information about the quality/content/production/health of the food you are consuming. I said he argues Greenpeace is deeply and destructively wrong.

Everything else was going on inside your own head, you weirdo.

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:who was the last bald president anyways?

drsmooth wrote:Didn't want anyone to miss this hall of fame caliber post from someone who belongs in a hall

Jerseyhoya wrote:

Re: 19 Republican primary candidates and counting (politics!
Postby jerseyhoya » Tue Jul 21, 2015 1:39 pm

drsmooth wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:fwiw i think jerseyhoya has been pretty clear about his opinion on GMOs whenever the subject arises

my interest wasn't in his opinion about GMOs, but about his misrepresentation of Saletan's, and the detrimental effect doing so might have on perceptions of jerz's own opinions, whatever they might be

What did I misrepresent about Saletan?

I called his piece a very good long read. I said he does a good job of supporting my position on the issue because he takes apart the standard lies against GMOs and explains the uselessness of labeling them. I said he feels labels are useless because they provide no information about the quality/content/production/health of the food you are consuming. I said he argues Greenpeace is deeply and destructively wrong.

Everything else was going on inside your own head, you weirdo.

I've provided examples of your unconvincing (because inapt) misinterpretations of Saletan's own long, rambling, ambiguous post. I've suggested you've misinterpreted his writing and that in doing so, you yourself risk being misinterpreted.

You, not understanding this, decide you're entitled to call me childish names. Bravo. You've no worlds left to conquer.

You bring up the GMO or vaccine things like I haven't brought them up previously. You and I argued about GMO labeling a few months ago beginning here. You were pro-labeling then and yelling about corporations. Have you changed your mind since?

Very good long read from Slate from last week about GMOs - Are GMOs safe?

Very good long read from Slate from last week about GMOs - Are GMOs safe?

What would be the downside of labeling each food item you eat with the first name of the person who operated the machine that picked it?

I posted the Slate article last page before your question. If you had read it first, my dumb response would've been unnecessary!

I think he's doing a pretty good job of supporting my position on the issue. In addition to taking apart the standard complaints and showing the mendacity of the leading GMO opponents, I like how he explains the uselessness of labeling GMOs.

I am still probably going to Chipotle for lunch after the Open ends, though.

He feels they're useless because they provide no information about the quality/content/production/health of the food you are consuming. In that sense, they aren't educational enough about GMOs or anything else. The second bit you are talking about is a different sort of education. Improving school curricula by telling students to ignore everything Greenpeace says might be a good start.

It's not so much they have a different viewpoint as it is they're wrong. How do you feel about global warming skeptics being taught in school or creationism alongside evolution?

Saletan is quite clear that he thinks Greenpeace is deeply, destructively wrong

You said you didn't read my reply, responded to a downstream post about it incorrectly, and are now telling me I'm confused. Great job all around, doc. Top notch work as usual.

Let's try bullet points since you can't read, and I haven't insisted that he (or I) believed GMOs are unequivocally virtuous at any juncture in this discussion

-Knowing an item is a GMO tells us little about the quality/content/production/health of the product
-Genetically modifying food has done more good than harm on the whole
-The probable direction moving forward is for this gap to widen further
-The case against GMOs has been full of shit and shifting goal posts
-The case for labeling GMOs lacks merit and only seeks to exploit the full of shit case against GMOs

What did I misrepresent about Saletan?

I called his piece a very good long read. I said he does a good job of supporting my position on the issue because he takes apart the standard lies against GMOs and explains the uselessness of labeling them. I said he feels labels are useless because they provide no information about the quality/content/production/health of the food you are consuming. I said he argues Greenpeace is deeply and destructively wrong.

Everything else was going on inside your own head, you weirdo.

drsmooth wrote:what the fuck

drsmooth wrote:who knows what went on under all those wigs

Monkeyboy wrote:I can't believe Trump is seriously running.