The (Un)official write anything you want page

I don't believe that cows are raised that way are actually healthier than the other types, that just doesn't make sense. I'd really like for him to source his information; it's just loads of wild claims.
 
Free Range is a corporate definition to apply to bleeding heart MORONS (ones who don't/can't read).

There are other standards that mean the cow has access to shelter from the rain, otherwise its in a big open field. Additionally going for the organic thing also improves the quality.

But how, you scream? Loading it full of chemicals, antibiotics, steroids, growth hormones and modifying its genetic code to make it even bigger and faster growing can only be a good thing right? I mean, its western medicine at its finest.

I'll leave the decision up to you. I'd prefer to eat something that wandered around (so, its actually moved in its life, excluding the trip into the truck to get killed) and eaten grass, plants, flowers, dirt, small insects (on the plants), had some grain and some hay. Saw sunlight. You know... lived a natural (but still relatively short) life.

edit: http://www.neuland-fleisch.de/richtlin/index.php ( I know its in german, but you can get an idea here).


edit2: @Tully -- Wow thats a dumbass comment. You do realise that it costs a lot more money and a lot more land and a lot more "energy" to produce meat as it does vegetables right? Oh wait, broccoli is evil... i forgot.
 
Conspicuously Absent said:
edit2: @Tully -- Wow thats a dumbass comment. You do realise that it costs a lot more money and a lot more land and a lot more "energy" to produce meat as it does vegetables right? Oh wait, broccoli is evil... i forgot.
Click to expand...

Huh? Vegetables? I thought we where talking about meat. Either way, applied to veggies and meat, genetically engineered food could pave the way to the end of world hunger, or at least help immensely.
 
KILL TULLY said:
Huh? Vegetables? I thought we where talking about meat. Either way, applied to veggies and meat, genetically engineered food could pave the way to the end of world hunger, or at least help immensely.
Click to expand...

They don't eat meat very often in places like Africa, they eat vegetables. The cow is simply too fucking valuable for other uses. Your comment that if we eat less meat we will starve is retarded.

GE:
Yep, and if we fuck something up, 50 years down the road a defect we put in without really knowing leaves it vulnerable to a disease that wipes it all out. And because of its GE superiority, its overwhelmed the natural crops... Thinking about the next 5 minutes is why we're in the mess we're currently in!
 
Conspicuously Absent said:
Free Range is a corporate definition to apply to bleeding heart MORONS (ones who don't/can't read).

There are other standards that mean the cow has access to shelter from the rain, otherwise its in a big open field. Additionally going for the organic thing also improves the quality.

But how, you scream? Loading it full of chemicals, antibiotics, steroids, growth hormones and modifying its genetic code to make it even bigger and faster growing can only be a good thing right? I mean, its western medicine at its finest.

I'll leave the decision up to you. I'd prefer to eat something that wandered around (so, its actually moved in its life, excluding the trip into the truck to get killed) and eaten grass, plants, flowers, dirt, small insects (on the plants), had some grain and some hay. Saw sunlight. You know... lived a natural (but still relatively short) life.

edit: http://www.neuland-fleisch.de/richtlin/index.php ( I know its in german, but you can get an idea here).
Click to expand...

Going organic is actually worse for the environment, and has been shown, at least for vegetables, that there is no significant difference to the product. All it is making it more inefficient product taking more work to get it; however, this doesn't count if you grow you own food using only organic stuff.'

Do you dislike Genetically Modified foods? The cows now are completely different now than when we first domesticated them, hence we genetically modified them.

I do agree that I'd rather have the cows living in open fields, but claiming they are healthier and better for you I don't think is true. Please show me, preferably on English sites.
 
The point isn't necessarily that GMO's are worse or less healthy for you, it's that we really have no idea what kind of long term effects may occur to the species we modify or to our own bodies for that matter. For that matter most GMO's being produced today aren't subjected to rigorous scientific testing.
 
En Vind Av Sorg said:
The point isn't necessarily that GMO's are worse or less healthy for you, it's that we really have no idea what kind of long term effects may occur to the species we modify or to our own bodies for that matter. For that matter most GMO's being produced today aren't subjected to rigorous scientific testing.
Click to expand...

Please point me to where they aren't being tested rigorously. That just doesn't make any sense.
 
swizzlenuts said:
Going organic is actually worse for the environment, and has been shown, at least for vegetables, that there is no significant difference to the product. All it is making it more inefficient product taking more work to get it; however, this doesn't count if you grow you own food using only organic stuff.'
Click to expand...

Cause pumping your yard full of toxic chemicals is going to be good for you and the crap living in it right? But at least your lawn looks nice? Same shit for organic produce. And I would hardly call it an inferior product. There are plenty of natural ways to control pests.


swizzlenuts said:
Do you dislike Genetically Modified foods? The cows now are completely different now than when we first domesticated them, hence we genetically modified them.
Click to expand...

Thats called forced evolution. We took a big cow and a big cow and made a bigger cow. It was still cows fucking cows. Now we're building our own cow and hoping we don't fuck something up.

I tried to think of a different example and this is the best I could get. You have a car. You tune your car in fairly obvious ways to make it work better. Then you decide to build your own engine, cause you know how internal combustion works. Your test it by the following:
1. does it turn on. yes
2. does it move the vehicle. yes

So it works, you declare it safe. It works great, better than you could have hoped. Then one day you drive it on a warm day. Suddenly your nice engine overheats and goes up like a nuclear device.

Ooops... too late now.

swizzlenuts said:
I do agree that I'd rather have the cows living in open fields, but claiming they are healthier and better for you I don't think is true. Please show me, preferably on English sites.
Click to expand...

Swizzle in a field is healthier than swizzle in a little box covered in shit but pumped full of chemicals to keep him from dieing. Cow in a little box standing in its own shit and the shit of 50 other cows is probably not as healthy as cow in a field standing in grass.

Specific information is not something I collect to point to you, I'll take a look at some point when i feel it might actually make a difference. But I've generally noticed people "get it" or go "but it costs me 2 bucks more, fuck that".
 
Conspicuously Absent said:
Your comment that if we eat less meat we will starve is retarded.
Click to expand...

Wow talk about putting words in someones mouth. When did I say anything remotely close to this?


I was implying that there is no need for people to buy organic products when they can have 10 times the food, with better nutritional value in many cases (at least for veggies), for the same price.


Conspicuously Absent said:
Cause pumping your yard full of toxic chemicals is going to be good for you and the crap living in it right? But at least your lawn looks nice? Same shit for organic produce. And I would hardly call it an inferior product. There are plenty of natural ways to control pests.

Thats called forced evolution. We took a big cow and a big cow and made a bigger cow. It was still cows fucking cows. Now we're building our own cow and hoping we don't fuck something up.

I tried to think of a different example and this is the best I could get. You have a car. You tune your car in fairly obvious ways to make it work better. Then you decide to build your own engine, cause you know how internal combustion works. Your test it by the following:
1. does it turn on. yes
2. does it move the vehicle. yes

So it works, you declare it safe. It works great, better than you could have hoped. Then one day you drive it on a warm day. Suddenly your nice engine overheats and goes up like a nuclear device.

Ooops... too late now.
Click to expand...

Where in the world are you getting your facts of the GenMod industry? This whole quote sounds like an opinionated rant to me, more akin to an argument against religion then an established science.
 
KILL TULLY said:
Where in the world are you getting your facts of the GenMod industry? This whole quote sounds like an opinionated rant to me, more akin to an argument against religion then an established science.
Click to expand...

grist.org
news.bbc.co.uk

And various links from these places.

Newspapers: Berliner Morgenpost, Tagesspiegel
Magazines: National Geographic, Das Spiegel

The problem is a LACK of facts. It simply hasn't been tested enough for something we're going to release into the wild that COULD have disastrous effects. Or it might not. But its the same arguement against building lots of nuclear power plants. They might go kaboom. They might not. They might be used by some countries to produce nuclear weapons. They might not.

edit: To some extent, it is an opinionated rant. I don't generally collect links for the purpose of arguing, if I did I'd start a blog or some shit. The "opinionated rant" stems from things I read, not from thin air or editorials.
 
En Vind Av Sorg said:
I hate to do it but I'll cite a wiki link while I continue searching.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies
Click to expand...

En Vind Av Sorg said:
BTW I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I think it's an interesting topic and one that I don't have a clear cut position on myself yet.

Some good tidbits here:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10977&page=R9
Click to expand...
I think we are on the same page here, these article pretty much say what I was thinking. The stages of GM foods as of right now isn't 100% perfect, but completely banning is absurd. I still think the foods will be tested rigorously before they hit the market. These articles appear that they are.

btw Wikipedia was shown to have the same amount of truthful information compared to the Brittanica series, so Wikipedia is a good start.

This topic is soo interesting, I've been waiting for a good time to start debating it.

Conspicuously Absent said:
1. Cause pumping your yard full of toxic chemicals is going to be good for you and the crap living in it right? But at least your lawn looks nice? Same shit for organic produce. And I would hardly call it an inferior product. There are plenty of natural ways to control pests.

2.Thats called forced evolution. We took a big cow and a big cow and made a bigger cow. It was still cows fucking cows. Now we're building our own cow and hoping we don't fuck something up.

2a.I tried to think of a different example and this is the best I could get. You have a car. You tune your car in fairly obvious ways to make it work better. Then you decide to build your own engine, cause you know how internal combustion works. Your test it by the following:
1. does it turn on. yes
2. does it move the vehicle. yes

So it works, you declare it safe. It works great, better than you could have hoped. Then one day you drive it on a warm day. Suddenly your nice engine overheats and goes up like a nuclear device.

Ooops... too late now.

3. Swizzle in a field is healthier than swizzle in a little box covered in shit but pumped full of chemicals to keep him from dieing. Cow in a little box standing in its own shit and the shit of 50 other cows is probably not as healthy as cow in a field standing in grass.

Specific information is not something I collect to point to you, I'll take a look at some point when i feel it might actually make a difference. But I've generally noticed people "get it" or go "but it costs me 2 bucks more, fuck that".
Click to expand...

1. On the wikipedia article, which has it's sources sited, in peer reviewed journals that organic farms are less inefficient, and use more fuels to cultivate it. Also to control pests, both the inorganic and organic pesticides can cause problems. Working on GM foods that wouldn't need that is what is trying to be done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_foods

2a. That's a terrible analogy to how science works; if it were science, they'd test the car loads of times in various conditions, with robots, with humans etc, but the distinction is that in foods or health, it's so regulated that it has to go through loads and loads of tests to even come on the market. It also has to continue to be tested while it's introduced as well; however, there could possibly something we didn't notice in the initial tests, but why the fuck stop all this testing for something that could help us tremendously?

3. The whole point is that they might taste better from being free, but the amino acids and all the nutrients in meat would be exactly the same. Also it's pretty well regulated, at least in the States, to keep everything clean and to prevent the spread of disease. I don't mean to say we are doing it the best, but I think we can improve what we are doing now. Also where has it been shown they are sitting in shit and being pumped with chemicals?

I guess I don't 'get it' because I don't see how having organic foods is actually better when most studies atm show that they are the same, chemically, or they are actually hurting the environment because of the more fossil fuels used.

The whole cows in the field and better wellness for the cows is an ethical argument about how to treat animals, and not how open field cows are better.
 
swizzlenuts said:
I think we are on the same page here, these article pretty much say what I was thinking. The stages of GM foods as of right now isn't 100% perfect, but completely banning is absurd. I still think the foods will be tested rigorously before they hit the market. These articles appear that they are.

btw Wikipedia was shown to have the same amount of truthful information compared to the Brittanica series, so Wikipedia is a good start.

This topic is soo interesting, I've been waiting for a good time to start debating it.



1. On the wikipedia article, which has it's sources sited, in peer reviewed journals that organic farms are less inefficient, and use more fuels to cultivate it. Also to control pests, both the inorganic and organic pesticides can cause problems. Working on GM foods that wouldn't need that is what is trying to be done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_foods

2a. That's a terrible analogy to how science works; if it were science, they'd test the car loads of times in various conditions, with robots, with humans etc, but the distinction is that in foods or health, it's so regulated that it has to go through loads and loads of tests to even come on the market. It also has to continue to be tested while it's introduced as well; however, there could possibly something we didn't notice in the initial tests, but why the fuck stop all this testing for something that could help us tremendously?

3. The whole point is that they might taste better from being free, but the amino acids and all the nutrients in meat would be exactly the same. Also it's pretty well regulated, at least in the States, to keep everything clean and to prevent the spread of disease. I don't mean to say we are doing it the best, but I think we can improve what we are doing now. Also where has it been shown they are sitting in shit and being pumped with chemicals?

I guess I don't 'get it' because I don't see how having organic foods is actually better when most studies atm show that they are the same, chemically, or they are actually hurting the environment because of the more fossil fuels used.

The whole cows in the field and better wellness for the cows is an ethical argument about how to treat animals, and not how open field cows are better.
Click to expand...

Thank you for making me not have to type.

AKA: "What swizzle said!"
 
So somehow I got talked in to taking a 200+ lb broad hiking. :err:

In other news...

A server at a restaurant I go to after work sent me a nude pic of her GenModded tatas. Unfortunately she's a mother of 6.

I should give her a 7th. :dopey:
 
The stages of GM foods as of right now isn't 100% perfect, but completely banning is absurd. I still think the foods will be tested rigorously before they hit the market. These articles appear that they are.
Click to expand...

They already approved it. Unfortunately I can't find a less biased source at the moment. Google is letting me down and I'm about to head home. Take it with a grain of salt.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_9699.cfm
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2003/07/30/and/index.html
 
Can you supply a link with scientific concerns over what may be problematic?
Everything I have read against GenMod sounds mostly like 'what if!' with no hypothesis.

IE: If we enhance/mod 'X' then 'Y' is likely/may happen because of 'Z'.

Genuine request, not a slight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tranquillian
The (Unofficial) write anything you want page - part 2
Replies
2K
Views
83K
RC
Bloopy
Bloopy
cesse
Do you know all Hypocrisy Songs? (a game)
Replies
6
Views
592
Hypocrisy
cesse
C
AsModEe
So what are you thoughts on the new Summoning?
Replies
6
Views
278
RC
cthulufhtagn
C
MetalAges
JIMMY PAGE Will 'Definitely' Write An Autobiography
Replies
0
Views
103
Metal News 2
MetalAges
MetalAges
Black Winter Day
jaykeeley...
Replies
1
Views
175
RC
JayKeeley
J
Top Bottom
Back