IDK, you brought it up. Shitty food is cheap because of farm subsidies, how many more times do I have to say it?
lol. Let's start over. In your first relevant post, you made three claims...
1) You explicitly stated that GMO food is "shitty"
2) You implied that GMO crops are subsidized in preference to equivalent non-GMO crops
3) You explicitly state that subsidies for GMO crops cause "good naturally grown food" to be prohibitively expensive
In my first reply, I asked you to elaborate on point #2.
In your second post, you explicitly confirmed point #2 by saying it was "common knowledge" that GMO crops are subsidized in preference to non-GMO crops. You then post four links that have virtually nothing to do with special subsidies for GMO crops, but instead deal more with...
a) Obesity, circulatory issues, etc as a consequence of increased consumption of unhealthy/sugary/fattening foods (no shit)
b) The fact that farming subsidies do exist (no shit)
In my second reply, I explicitly reject your source's relevancy to your initial argument, and then dispute original claim #3 as well. I didn't back up my disagreement regarding #3, but if you really think that healthy foods are so unaffordable I could easily quote some numbers from local market catalogs.
In your third post, you then make another significant claim...
4) You implicitly stated that GMOs have no inherent economic advantage to them, and are only produced because of subsidies
In my third reply, I reject this argument by providing examples of how GMO crops are more productive than unmodified ones for farmers, and then by questioning the utility of genetically modifying crops in the first place if otherwise, especially considering the health concerns that you and many others have.
In your fourth post, you say "Spending money to make money" which is basically a nonsensical statement on its own, and then state the value of the patents.
In my fourth reply, I ponder the meaning of anything you just said in relevance to your initial argument. To elaborate, why would giant biotech companies need to be subsidized for creating a product that increases yield of a given crop and thus results in GMO crops being a more economical choice vs unmodified crops? Are you saying that farmers are subsidized so that they might buy GMO crops so that biotech companies don't go bankrupt because of the expensive process of designing GMO crops? I have no idea what you're even trying to say there.
In your fifth post you admit to cluelessness and then claim to having been repeating your claim that "Shitty food is cheap because of farm subsidies", which is not a point you made explicitly ANYWHERE in this argument, and not one I even disagree with. You've repeatedly failed to back up any of your initial claims and have now completely changed the argument. Please reread your earlier posts and either admit to having misspoken in your initial argument, or try to provide cogent reasoning to support your assorted claims if you do in fact still support them.
