General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBreaking News: Monsanto to Be Put to Trial in Hague for Crimes Against Humanity
...
But overseas, the company and its contemporaries in the agrochemical business world are largely shunned and/or banned due to transgressions against both health and the environment.
Monsanto also has a penchant for suing farmers, another item that often goes unreported. But now the multinational company many describe as a legal bully will be placed on trial – this time in international court for Crimes Against Humanity, according to a new report from the website Sustainable Pulse.
...
The Monsanto Tribunal, which will be held in The Hague from October 12 to 16, 2016, aims to assess these allegations made against Monsanto, and to evaluate the damages caused by this transnational company. The Tribunal will rely on the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” adopted at the UN in 2011. It will also assess potential criminal liability on the basis of the Rome Statue that created the International Criminal Court in The Hague in 2002, and it will consider whether a reform of international criminal law is warranted to include crimes against the environment, or ecocide, as a prosecutable criminal offense.
...
http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/breaking-news-monsanto-to-put-to-trial-in-the-hague-for-crimes-against-humanity/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Archae
(46,344 posts)In that city, of course.
Now will it be held in the international court in that city?
More than likely, NOT.
This "March Against Monsanto" group is a bunch of quacks, conspiracy theorists, organic industry advocates and lobbyists.
Let all of us know about this "trial" or "tribunal" when they actually are reported on by a CREDIBLE source.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Just curious
Archae
(46,344 posts)The point is, I don't post articles by salesmen, quacks or politicians, when it comes to science.
GMO's are not "frankenfoods" or "poison," Roundup is not "deadly" if it's handled properly, like my Mom and I do with it.
Organic is a scam.
I saw just this week a half-gallon of "premium organic milk" in the local grocery, for $6.00.
How is it different from the gallon jugs of store brand milk?
Only one way. The price.
The gallon of store brand is about $2.50 a gallon.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Pesticides kill more than pests.
Pesticides Linked To Increased Childhood Cancer Risk
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pesticides-linked-to-increased-childhood-cancer-risk_55f6deb5e4b077ca094f9274
Monsanto asks California to pull plan to list herbicide as cancer cause
http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-monsanto-glyphosate-idUSL1N12K2P820151020
Chemical Exposure Linked to Billions in Health Care Costs
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150305-chemicals-endocrine-disruptors-diabetes-toxic-environment-ngfood/
Monsanto Knew of Glyphosate (Roundup)-Cancer Link 35 Years Ago
http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-knew-of-glyphosate-roundup-cancer-link-35-years-ago/5449462
Glyphosate residues in Roundup Ready crops are ignored in safety studies
http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16423-glyphosate-residues-in-roundup-ready-crops-are-ignored-in-safety-studies
Ban on GMO crops in Northern Ireland welcomed
http://www.greenpartyni.org/ban-on-gmo-crops-in-northern-ireland-welcomed/
The Case of Glyphosate: Product Promoters Masquerading as Regulators?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/24/the-case-of-glyphosate-product-promoters-masquerading-as-regulators/
Want to know what happens in your body when you switch from eating conventional food to organic?
We're killing our planet.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629
Where are the super weeds?
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2013/05/superweed/
Also, glyphosate is not a GMO, and while it may be concerning, it is less toxic than many older herbicides. In fact, Chipotle's non-GMO tactic meant going back to the use of harsher herbicides, and increasing super weeds.
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/05/what-does-chipotles-switch-to-non-gmo-ingredients-mean-for-pesticide-use/
Also, note that organic crops use carcinogenic pesticides.
http://ascienceenthusiast.com/organic-crops-use-carcinogenic-pesticides/
tecelote
(5,122 posts)FORBES: GMO Crops Mean More Herbicide, Not Less
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/
REUTERS: Pesticide use ramping up as GMO crop technology backfires
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X20121002#JTvKzLdoZHMLgbvr.99
HUFFINGTON POST: Herbicide and Insecticide Use on GMO Crops Skyrocketing While Pro-GMO Media Run Interference
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bronner/herbicide-insecticide-use_b_5791304.html
HARVARD: GMOs and Pesticides: Helpful or Harmful?
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/gmos-and-pesticides/
MOTHER JONES: How GMOs Unleashed a Pesticide Gusher
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/10/how-gmos-ramped-us-pesticide-use
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)His stuff was debunked in one of the pieces I already posted. (And note that his single debunked study does not mean the meta analysis in my post goes away.)
Also, I don't think you read the fourth link. It's quite balanced.
When Bad News Stories Help Bad Science Go Viral
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2012/10/03/when-bad-news-stories-help-bad-science-go-viral/
A Very Short Debunking: “Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years” Benbrook, 2009
http://www.foodsecurist.com/debunked-impacts-of-genetically-engineered-crops-on-pesticide-use-the-first-thirteen-years-benbrook-2009/
Anti-GMO study is appropriately dismissed as biased, poorly-performed
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2012/09/24/anti-gmo-study-is-appropriately-dismissed-as-biased-poorly-performed/
And guess who funds Benbrook's bad science?
Washington State Professor Allies With Organics Industry
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/06/us/document-benbrook.html?_r=0
This is a classic story that shows the ugly side of corporations. This time, the corporations are ones that have tried to pretend their the good guys, when they're not, but it's no different. It's interesting that this is an OP supposedly focused on bad corporate behavior, but it's supported by NGOs who are supported by corporations who are acting rather badly.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)How about some common sense?
Kill the insects and we kill ourselves.
What's poisonous when it is sprayed is inert when we eat it?
I agree, many "scientific" studies are bought and the results are what's paid for.
But, I'll rely on my gut feelings. Poison is poison.
840high
(17,196 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Why do you eat that poison willingly?
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Their natural pesticides repel insects, few kill them. None that are food plants.
What plant sprays gallons of poison on the earth?
What plant's poison you refer to last decades in the soil?
What food plant requires protective clothing?
Common sense. It's free!
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that wasn't true.
And if your claim that none of them are food plants is true, then your claim that centuries of testing has proved them safe is false.
Can't quite get your stories straight, can you?
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)and the natural pesticides they contain.
Kali
(55,019 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)However, I would like a list of the "lots and lots" of plants that we eat that still contain natural insecticides when we eat them.
According to your article, these insecticides can be produced in parts of plants which are never eaten (such as coconut or walnut husks), or disappear when a fruit ripens (as in the case of persimmons), or can be denatured when cooked. In other cases, such as tomatoes, the plant that contains the poisons is not eaten.
Kali
(55,019 posts)many are not aware
I suspect most modern crops are pretty weak in this area since they are "protected" by our various growing practices. I am not an expert on plant crops by any means but assume anything that is sour or bitter may be part of that list - citrus, various herbs and spices, things that contain natural tannins etc.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And go to some general statements that really take the conversation off the rails, rather than addressing the real world? What's the point in that?
Organic uses poison, too. Why are you focusing on GMOs, when they may lead to the use of less?
This is a good read for perspective: http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2014/06/salt-vinegar-and-glyphosate/
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Do you get paid to post this?
Please post articles from a reputable source.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:47 PM - Edit history (4)
it's pieces are all supported by the actual scientific consensus.
You posted nothing but long debunked anti-GMO propaganda links, many of them simply reporting on the same thing, making it appear that you're posting more content than you are, but you don't think a link that is produced by actual scientists is legitimate? WTF?
The OP links to a group that promotes chemtrail conspiracy theories, and every other kind of conspiracy and pseudoscience you can imagine, but you said nothing about that source at all. Hmm.
And use of the shill gambit just further shows that you don't know the first thing about this topic. You just bought into bad propaganda, and when you run into someone who does understand the issue, you can't discuss it. You even posted a link that you clearly had not read. It's time to step back, and question your preconceived notions. They are not based on good evidence.
The war against genetically modified organisms is full of fearmongering, errors, and fraud.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)....lol
While many of Globalresearch's articles discuss legitimate humanitarian or environmental concerns, the site has a strong undercurrent of reality warping throughout its pages. Its view of science, the economy and geopolitics seems to be broadly conspiracist. It's no surprise then that the site has long become a magnet for radicals, fringe figures and whacko elements from the left in general.
Globalresearch may be best described as the moonbat equivalent to WorldNetDaily. Whenever someone makes a remarkable claim and cites Globalresearch, they are almost certainly wrong.
Despite presenting itself as a source of scholarly analysis, Global Research mostly consists of polemicists. The prevalent strand is that a New World Order is being implemented by global elites (primarily governments and corporations). Many of the articles accept conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and propaganda in order to further this narrative.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch
NNadir
(33,542 posts)In general, when one launches an attack on science, whether it comes from the left or the right, the argument being made comes from a closed circle of people who hate science and scientists because they know nothing at all about science and scientists, except that they hate both.
Right now, several million people, many of them children are blind because people who hate science and scientists prevented the use of golden rice, engineered to include vitamin A as a nutritional feature.
There are millions of people alive today who would have otherwise died from breast cancer, or free of pain that might have crippled them with intractable arthritis, because of drugs made by scientists who genetically engineered organisms to produce those drugs.
Frankly there is nothing more obnoxious, more deadly, more ethically disgusting than letting children go blind, and letting people die from cancer, or suffer with crippling arthritis because one is too damn lazy to open a science book.
And right now, and right now, this minute, we have seven billion people to feed on this planet, the same planet that is being destroyed because people burn coal, oil and gas to run computers to post stupid stuff on the internet - this while dreaming of a nonsensical "green" fantasy land that doesn't exist - we have seven billion people who need to eat.
Every damn major agricultural product on this planet is genetically engineered, albeit through breeding historically. As far as genetic modification goes, it's called "evolution." Gene exchange between organisms has long been a regular feature of all living things on this planet, for billions of years. Leftist creationism is not qualitatively different than right wing creationism. Both represent the unyielding destruction of our country's, and the world's future.
The ignorance here is appalling.
Have a nice weekend.
Then YOU produce independent, peer reviewed, long term research published in a Scientific Journal.
That should be easy for a "science" guy like you.
I'll wait.
NNadir
(33,542 posts)Listen Bub. Google Scholar is available for anyone to use. It's free. If I enter "glyphosphate" in Google Scholar I get 144,000 hits, in three seconds.
You'll wait? For what? For me to give you an education on line because you can't be bothered to find out yourself? Do you have any idea how long a scientific education takes? For some people, many people, it never ends; it's a lifetime activity.
What's your background? Where did you get your Ph.D? In what? Molecular biology?
Somehow, I don't think you have a Ph.D in molecular biology. Your demand, hollow and insipid, suggests otherwise.
But since you ask, how about I start here, by producing, since you are too lazy to look for yourself, just one of the 144,000 papers on the subject, from an issue in a journal for agroscientists wholly devloted to the subject of glyphosphate, Monsanto's product, agroscientists being the people who keep most of the world's food on the table for the seven billion people living in it, a non-trivial task: Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide (Pest Management Science Special Issue: Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds and Crops
Volume 64, Issue 4, pages 319–325, April 2008)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I asked a question:
Where is the long tern, independent, peer reviewed research published in a Scientific Journal that concludes that GMOs offer no significant damage to either humans, pets, stock,wild animals, or the environment.
Despite your rude and incohesive rant, this is NOT "proving a negative".
It IS what we call "Science".....
or would you just take Monsanto's word for it, you know...the guys who made Agent Orange and claimed it as safe too.
Well,,NOW we have the research on Agebnt Orange. Unfortunately, Monsanto used human beings for "test subjects"
and an unspoiled Rain Forest for their long term "experiments".
I can get a million hits on Google by typing in "Titty". The number of hits on Google means NOTHING ( much like your whole post).
The problem with your failure to produce long term, independent, peer reviewed publiched Research is that it does NOT exist.
Monsanto used bribed politicians and "their" guys at the FDA to approve GMOs..... not scientists.
NNadir
(33,542 posts)ask someone to prove a negative, because you're L-A-Z-Y, and obviously have a poor education.
Any topic that produces 144,000 references on a premier scientific search engine will obviously have a range of views, but science doesn't involve proving stuff to every asshole who comes along saying that he won't believe x or y or z because 50 years ago the organization the author works for did something questionable. Science is done by consensus.
The consensus among agricultural scientists is that we need to increase agricultural yields to feed humanity, and the products of agrochemical companies, including but not limited to Monsanto, are working their asses off to make that happen.
Suppose my rationale for saying that the German "renewable energy" program sucks because 75 years ago Germans were killing Jews.
Suppose I announce that no research produced at Princeton University is valid because the one time President of that University, Woodrow Wilson, was a Ku Klux Klan excusing racist.
Would I be justified, or would I just be being stupid?
You simply are a bad thinker. Period.
Now if you were educated, you would respond with a statement about your level of education so that one could tailor, if one was interested in addressing such buffoon bluster, a search among the 144,000 references that one can easily get in 3 seconds or less.
But that's not what happened.
Let's be clear here. You're not asking for knowledge. You're assuming your bias is true and are claiming that in order to refute your bias, someone has to 1) spoon feed you an education you are not competent to absorb and 2) accept that any use by you of the logical fallacy of Poisoning the Well will immediately render any attempt to educate your sorry ass invalid...
Clearly, you won't know a peer reviewed paper if it bit you in the ass. In any case, you've announced quite confidently that you know that any thing presented to you would be a lie, since you fucking know. You're simply just another creationist who knows everything because you know it, you believe it, and not one can tell you otherwise, albeit a creationist on the left.
As for your statement about "agent orange" and your less than intelligent reference to the word "titty" well, the less that's said the better. It is one thing to be intellectually deficient, and is another thing to assert that one has the right to hurt others as a result.
There are seven billion people on the planet. Agroscientists in academia, in industry, and in regulatory agencies around the world are doing the best to feed those people, and clearly their goals are not being realized, because in part, of the catcalls from clueless insulting poorly educated ideologues, and in part, because the challenges are too large. Science is hard enough. We, the world's scientists, don't need you as much as you need us, even if you're not bright enough to know it.
Have a great week.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)or other crap.
I want to eat food. I try to stay as organic as I can, and as local as I can myself, and when I switched, noticed that I was feeling less tired, and also could think more clearly. But that is just me.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)It doesn't mean less pesticides or less toxic pesticides. It doesn't even mean no synthetic pesticides.
It's nothing more than a marketing term that in no way guarantees a safer product.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)They have strict regulations as to what can be labeled "organic."
Here in the Northeast we have a certification organization that makes it very tough to certify your produce as organic.
I know, I used to work in a food co-op warehouse for many years.
We were selling organic goods before it was cool, so don't tell me that organic means no pesticides. I know better.
And after further inspection, there are also federal guidlines: http://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/organic-standards
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Organic products come from all over the world, and New York state isn't keeping them all out.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)But the actual lack of regulation when it comes to organic farming, especially in regard to pesticide and herbicide use, makes that belief rather flimsy, to be very kind.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)And I KNOW most of the farmers that I buy from. I have known many of them for more than 20 years.
You can believe what you want, but I know what I know.
Now stop trolling please.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And I know people in Portland, Oregon who believe that same thing.
A funny thing happens when people start showing up at local organic farms without warning.
It's not so easy to grow that much food. And the lack of regulation is rather astounding.
I'm not trolling. I'm just making a point to not let the usual anti-GMO, organic is great nonsense go unchecked. It's not helping anyone, and it's time for progressives to fight against the "halo effect" that is not earned.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)I used to drive a truck for the local food coop warehouse. I know them. Some have been my friends for more than thirty years.
Yes, the "halo effect" as you put it should be scrutinized. In my case, I know the farmers. There are also a growing number of CSAs here in the Northeast, who strive to either farm organically, or with very little fertilizer and such. Several apple farmers have told me that the amount of pesticides and fertilizers that is "recommended" by the manufacturer is staggering. I believe they do this to make more money, and the farmers agree. But that is another point.
I have had my own garden and manage to control pests with companion planting, and use compost tea for fertilizer. I have been doing this for a long time, and can provide some of my own diet with this method.
Monoculture farms, and big corporate farms that dub themselves as "organic" should be the first ones to be investigated afaic.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Interesting how your story changes and how you call someone a troll for making the obvious bullshit call.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Thank you for trolling. You shall now be ignored.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Now I can't look forward to replies from someone who simply makes it up as they go.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I'm quite familiar with it. I'm not telling you organic means no pesticides. I'm telling you organic is no guarantee that pesticides will not be used regardless of what you believe. It's not even a guarantee that no synthetic pesticides are used.
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div6&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7#se7.3.205_1601
Organic is nothing more than a marketing term which in no way guarantees a safer, more nutritious, or higher quality product.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Far away from any independent farmers who might use that crap, and no neighbors.
or Urban Pollution, or the toxic suburbs.
We grow most of our own food.
The amazing part was how shockingly GOOD the homegrown food was compared to Supermarket...or even "Farmer's markets".
We keep HoneyBees and Free Range too.
Of course, all GMOs, non-naturally occurring pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers are forever banned from our little hilltop in The Woods.
MY wife is a two times Cancer survivor.
She is now in complete remission.
The Hague is where Monsanto belongs,
but Monsanto has very powerful "friends" in the White House that will cover for him.
Still, having "Monsanto" and "The Hague" in the same sentence made me happy today.
.
.
.
.
.
Maybe the pendulum IS swinging back.
IF so, it has a LOOOOONG way to swing.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)My eating habits did not change, other than I am eating as local and as organic as possible.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)There is simply no basis for your belief.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)You are the expert, I take it.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It's just how things work, and that funny thing called science has noticed them.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)I know all about science. I have an MS in Geology that I got in 1975. Okay?
You could have a PhD in trolling yourself, so please stop it.
Thanks in advance.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And repeating silly organic marketing cliches doesn't help your reputation.
NNadir
(33,542 posts)...for example, what is good for "just you" is not an issue.
You want to eat food, and you can, being comfortably bourgeois and having the privilege of living in a rich country.
There are billions of people who are not living a luxurious life of "feeling less tired" and "thinking more clearly," but if I may note, you are clearly not thinking more about those people with your new "clear thinking."
The tenor here is that Monsanto scientists wake up in the morning thinking to themselves "how can I kill more people to make money." This is a huge injustice, rather smug if I may say so.
The people engaging in the chorus of this tenor are nevertheless spectacularly uninterested in the people who many agribusiness scientists - and I personally have met quite a few of them - are actually very involved in serving, for instance, the nearly one billion people identified by the UN Millenium Goals Report still living on less than $1.25/day.
You, of course, can afford to throw away foods infested with insects, or deal with low yields and thus higher priced foods, but trust me, those living on $1.25/day are not really quite so privileged.
Now that, by your own description, you are "thinking more clearly," maybe you can set aside some of that libertarian indifference to everyone else on the planet and figure out, with this new "clear" thinking, how you will contribute, as many Monsanto (and other agroscientists) being subjected to mock trials by Kangaroo ersatz courts are doing, to addressing the needs of that particular one billion human beings who can't be like American "foodies," driving to farm stands in their SUV's to buy "locally grown" foods.
How clearly does one think, and how tired does one get in a famine? Can you provide me with some "clear thinking" on this score?
Enjoy the rest of the weekend.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Nobody at Du has ever said,"Monsanto scientists wake up in the morning thinking to themselves "how can I kill more people to make money."
NO!!!!
What people say here is that Monsanto wakes up saying "How can I make more money for Monsanto & Me?"
...and could really give a shit if people die in their quest for Money & Power.
Thankfully, some European Countries are saying...["Hey. Wait a minute! Where is your long term, peer reviewed independent research proving these new species are safe?"
NNadir
(33,542 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 8, 2015, 01:58 AM - Edit history (2)
...I'll take your remark for what it is, contempt for science and scientists.
As for what a "strawman" is, I've already discussed your inability to utilize standard logical reasoning, i.e. that which avoids, for example, overt logical fallacies, and, in my opinion, such ability as you have for utilizing such reasoning is roughly comparable to your knowledge of science and scientists, which is to say zero.
From the Primary Scientific literature, albeit a journal that is devoted to what may be called "scientific epistemology," I'll leave you with this link to a journal article devoted to discussing whether scientists have a responsibility to confront nonscientific woo-woo stuff from loud and obnoxious deniers of science:
Synthese August 2014, Volume 191, Issue 12, pp 2751-2765
Now it is very clear from your hysterical ranting that you have never in your life set foot inside an academic library of any kind, and will thus be unable to access the text, so I'll simply produce the excerpt that best applies to this rather vapid conversation:
But are there limits to the type of dissent scientists have an obligation to seek and engage while practicing science? In constructing climate models for instance, do researchers have duties to create opportunities for climate change skeptics to critically evaluate their work and take those criticisms seriously? Are there obligations to include them on conference programs? Should journals make an effort to include intelligent design (ID) scientists as reviewers for manuscripts related to evolutionary theory? While not many would advocate that dissenting views be censored, the question is whether scientists always have obligations to involve dissenters in evaluating research, accepting hypotheses, taking scientific problems to be solved, or in synthesizing the current state of a science for policymakers.
Some dissenters seem to assume that such obligations exist and that scientific communities are failing to meet them. For example, climate change skeptics charge they have unfairly been excluded from conference programs and advisory panels and that their work has been treated unfairly in the peer-review process (Pearce 2010; Michaels 2009). Creationists and ID theorists argue that evolutionary theorists unreasonably dismiss their arguments against evolutionary theory (Behe 2007; Wells and Dembski 2007; Witt 2005).
The idea that scientists have obligations to provide opportunities for dissenting views thus raises concerns. First, establishing public venues for all dissenters to be heard and have their criticisms considered may contribute to a false public perception that there is significant disagreement or that no scientific consensus exists. Indeed, some private companies and think-tanks have funded scientific research aimed at generating skepticism about climate change and environmental toxins, stalling the development of public policy, and creating doubt among the public and policymakers (Oreskes and Conway 2010; Michaels 2008). Although this may happen regardless of whether scientists seek and engage the participation of dissenters, there is fear that doing so risks bringing even more attention to dissenters and exacerbating the problem...
I note, with some amusement, that the authors of this paper explicitly link anti-GMO hysteria with creationism and other woo-woo stuff:
... Our focus will be on dissent that arises from scientists. In many cases, these are the dissenting views that receive much attention from laypersons and the media, as can be seen in the case of climate change and GMOs...
Now, as a scientist, it appalls me that anti-scientific thinking, contempt for, even hatred of, science and scientists is becoming so prevalent in our culture. While it pains me when I think of future generations that will have to pay the price for this ignorance and stupidity, it is unlikely to affect me personally, since I am an old man and am not likely to live all that much longer.
But I don't know what is to become of the human being in a climate like this.
To quote Hesse, from the prologue to Demian that I so admire:
I often muse on my responsibility to confront ignorance in the general public, as I know science and am devoted to it as I love it for its potential to save humanity from itself as well as for its pure beauty and wonder.
Most often, these efforts degenerate into stupid screaming, usually on the part of the person who knows no science and, in fact, hates science. This is certainly the case here. One imagines from the violent tone that if stretched far enough, this could degenerate into the kind of terrorism that has so infected the world, as it is so filled with self righteousness and anger, but no matter...
The world cannot be saved from ignorance I think, and the effort to do so may well be doomed. I am certainly done with confronting fear and ignorance in the present case. Irrespective of the academic authors of the cited and quoted paper, who I will assume you will claim to be paid off by Monsanto since anything that goes against your narrow paranoid thinking must come from Monsanto, I really think that nothing I do can make you into a sentient being.
Congratulations. Ignorance has won the day. You must be very proud.
We're done.
Nailzberg
(4,610 posts)
LiberalArkie
(15,728 posts)I buy Horizon Organic milk it is stamped for good until at least 1 month, maybe 2 months. And it is good.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Both of those greatly extend shelf life. It has nothing to do with the milk itself.
carla
(553 posts)Cancer linked recombinant bovine growth hormone in your milk is one difference.. Carcinogenic corn that underproduces. Glyphosate found to linger in the soil even up to years later and at depths not thought possible ( 9 meters in one case in the USA)...I could go on but apparently quality of your food is not an issue for you, just having more pennies to spend on who knows what...silly that i should even bother with you but truth demands a pulpit when others spout patented bull hockey-pucks. And if organic is a scam it is one of the most labor-intensive scams I have ever seen. Silly like a Republican...(shakes head slowly).
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)You drink milk?
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You believe Monsanto is being dishonest, but you are okay with posting s news release designed to create a false impression.
Odd.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Are you saying the article is lying? On a side note, we all know you are just fine with the GMOs and Monsanto. ( fron your previous posts on the topic.
Thank you for your concern.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)How can you deny that? WOW! 
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)We'll see what evidence is brought forth in the trail, I hope.
I think GMOs are awesome. I love bananas and hamburgers.
eta: Oh shit, it's not even a real trial. It's just a marketing ploy by big organic. I should have seen that sooner.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Every. Single. One.
Bananas that are not GMO are filled with seeds. Even organic bananas are GMOs, because the other kind sucks.
So yeah, we couldn't.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Are you saying Cows are made of "oats"??? Or are you referring to what they eat? If that, can they not eat organic oats???
Also, Organic bananas are not GMOs, I buy them all the time.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)GMOs are an intentional mutation. Cows were created by humans using aurochs, a type of ox that is now extinct.
Unless you have to pick a ton of seeds out of your bananas, you're organic bananas are GMOs.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Thats what the pro GMO movement wants us to thimk, that all is GMO and full and pesticides, and we should just shut up and take it.
I do not think so.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)It might taste way better than the ones we buy in the store. I wouldn't know, because I, like most Americans, have only eaten GMO bananas.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Tiny, puny banannas! You can find them in the stores, if you want to!!!!
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Do you dig the seeds out?
MADem
(135,425 posts)Then it follows up by claiming it got the information from another site, which does not say what the first one claimed:
Relying on the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” adopted by the UN in 2011, an international court of lawyers and judges will assess the potential criminal liability of Monsanto for damages inflicted on human health and the environment. The court will also rely on the Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court in The Hague in 2002, and it will consider whether to reform international criminal law to include crimes against the environment, or ecocide, as a prosecutable criminal offense. The International Criminal Court, established in 2002 in The Hague, has determined that prosecuting ecocide as a criminal offense is the only way to guarantee the rights of humans to a healthy environment and the right of nature to be protected.
http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/12/03/monsanto-put-on-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity-in-the-hague/#.VmZw-PkrIhe
And of course, the HEADLINE of the source document is a huge giveaway:
Monsanto Put on Mock Trial for Crimes against Humanity in The Hague
Key word that did not carry forward: MOCK.
The source citation is all about changing law, not charging anyone.
It's pure nonsense, this "report." That's not to say "Monsanto" has clean hands, but this isn't the way to prove it.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)This group: http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/12/03/monsanto-put-on-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity-in-the-hague/
is setting up their own court in order to put Monsanto "on trial".
Everyone else reporting on this story is going back to that group and their press release.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Start with the first: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Organic_Consumers_Association
listed as approved? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)That's rather problematic, to be kind. The fact that so few DUers note that, and call that out is, quite frankly, sad.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)We must protect the Science
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)
That organization even promotes chemtrail conspiracy theories. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/March_Against_Monsanto
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)I love Science
Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)More like the *Paid-For* Science. Science is beautiful if done for the pure knowledge, excitement of results and true advancements in society. But the distortion from the infusion of excess cash will always produce an initial stigma on any claims of research.
CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)I can't believe how many self-proclaimed science "experts" roam the halls of Democratic Underground attempting to silence those that even so much as mention the market influence on science.
Somebody up thread even went so far as to confuse standard marketing deceptions with 'bad science'.
Organic is a scam.
I saw just this week a half-gallon of "premium organic milk" in the local grocery, for $6.00.
How is it different from the gallon jugs of store brand milk?
Only one way. The price.
The gallon of store brand is about $2.50 a gallon.
.
pnwmom
(108,991 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)pnwmom
(108,991 posts)Breaking the law and polluting the environment is deceitful.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)The reality remains that the organizations tied to the OP are dishonest.
pnwmom
(108,991 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Some that promote chemtrail conspiracies, among other nonsense?
WOW!
pnwmom
(108,991 posts)Apparently the answer is no.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Why are you defending dishonest organizations?
pnwmom
(108,991 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 7, 2015, 05:41 PM - Edit history (2)
Monsanto and Dupont.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Even I know you don't believe that. Nice propaganda.
(And I know what you're trying to do.)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)They're assesing what charges can be brought against Monsanto on am INTERNATIONAL level.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)This is more commonly known as "lying".
Also, it is not at all necessary to set up a fake court to "assess what charges can be brought". That just requires some lawyers familiar with international law to spend a bit of time reviewing precedents.
This is a PR stunt, and that's it. It has zero real-world impact.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Those are not a few people , they are International organizations, and by Oct next year, probably MANY more will join them in the fight to bring Monsanto down.
I'm sorry you have a problem with what they're doing.
I personally think its amazing Monsanto is being questioned and possible CRIMINAL charges being brought against them.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Monsanto is not going to be questioned. These activists have no authority to compel Monsanto to testify.
These activists have no authority to bring any charges, criminal or otherwise.
But keep those donations coming.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Why do you keep repeating yourself? The article is clear on what they're doing.
And yes, I'm ecstatic, because it is a HUGE thing, to have organizations from all over the world weighing in on what charges they and others can bring against Monsanto on an INTERNATIONAL level.
And I'm glad they will make it public!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:04 PM - Edit history (2)
You posted an OP with a link to a page that promotes the belief in chemtrails, and many other conspiracy theories and pseudoscience scams.
Why would you do that? Don't pretend this is going to lead any actual charges. That is simply not on the table in the real world, no matter how much the organic industry people behind this propaganda pretend otherwise. And even if it would, the use of such a source and such a misleading title is simply unethical.
You have chosen to go with ideology by fighting against a technology, blindly, full speed ahead. Why would you do that?
Also, referring to people as "Monsanto fans" simply because they don't fall for bad propaganda is really not cool.
PS: If you can defend this, then defend it here.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/GMOSF/permalink/635024676636786/?hc_location=ufi
It's also being discussed here: https://www.facebook.com/FFdiscussionlab/
And why is it that the groups you are utilizing as support all ban people from discussion when they question the blind assertions made by those groups? They don't seem to care about actually getting the story right. They just want to promote their blind ideologies. Do you really think that's ok? Do you really think that's going to help anything?
Take a harder look at March Against Monsanto, and the other groups you support. They are promoting some very ludicrous things.
http://skepchick.org/2015/02/why-well-march-against-march-against-monsanto-part-1/
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)It was just a link where the article was posted. The fact of the matter is that the mock trial WILL take place on Oct 2016, it is not a lie.
You're blocked. I've heard ENOUGH of the same pro Monsanto and pro GMO propaganda from you to last me a lifetime.
Have a good one.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I have shown that the majority of those groups act similarly, and that they are funded by organic corporations, to boot.
You have blocked me because you can't actually discuss the issues at hand. You are only repeating bad propaganda, blindly. That is the main problem here.
Here's the reality of the anti-GMO movement. It is not justified.
The war against genetically modified organisms is full of fearmongering, errors, and fraud.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)I mean why try to fight against anything when the cards are stacked against you? Everyone should just go home and eat their (GMO) Cornflakes and shut up, right? Rosa Parks should also have just shut up and let the white man have her seat. If that is an extreme example tell me where does your sliding scale stop at standing up for things you believe are harmful to society and future generations?
But then again you are being transparently disingenuous. You are not concerned at all with if they will win any case. At least be honest...you support Monsanto copyrighting the seeds of the food you eat so they can alter it to make it more profitable as is their corporate right, no matter the health consequences brought up in some links in this thread, or their suing of farmers who don't play along, because you believe their paid scientists over independent research voices. Why? I have no idea. Maybe you're and old school stuck-in-your-ways meat 'n potatoes kind of guy that likes things just the way they are thank you very much. But at least stop the fake concern and/or ridicule of those actually doing something.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)
Guess what? The scientific consensus that GMOs are safe is vast, and it includes hundreds of independently funded studies. Also, all seed companies patent all types of seeds: GMO, non-GMO, organic. There are only a small group working to develop open source seeds, at the moment. That is not a Monsanto thing. It is a thing that is done by all seed companies.
Thus, standing up to baseless fear mongering about a technology that can help the planet is the right thing to do. It is not ok to make claims that the people who do stand up to fear mongering are somehow beholden to any company, especially in light of the fact that many of the anti-GMO groups are supported financially by organic companies.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Long overdue.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts) cpwm17
(3,829 posts)
yuiyoshida
(41,858 posts)Attorneys for Monsanto will point their middle fingers at the Haque and laugh at the audacity of a court to even think they have a chance of punishing the company. The corporate headquarters will scoff and might even say, "Hey come and get us if you can". Does the Hague really think they can demand that someone come to their court from the US and go though their "silly little trial" when there is big money to be made? The company will simply lift their middle fingers to the Haque and tell them to "fuck off", that they can do what ever the hell they like, and no one will stop them. What is ruled in Europe will have no jurisdiction on American soil, and even if treaties are broken, no one will come to escort them in handcuffs back to Europe. No one.
Archae
(46,344 posts)It's a kangaroo court created by organic industry advocates and lobbyists, in that city.
They have no legal credibility, this is only a publicity stunt against Monsanto.
chapdrum
(930 posts)Hadn't heard anything of ICC for so long, was wondering whether it had gone defunct.
This is good news.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Read the article.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)They're setting up a kangaroo court with zero real-world authority.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)They're setting up the court to analyze possible international charges! It is a big difference!
They're doing it in public, and not behind doors so that many more organizations from all over the world could join.
It is really very simple!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)This requires no court. This requires 1 lawyer with experience in international law.
To actually bring charges, prosecutors at the actual ICC would have to file them. That does not require setting up a fake court to "analyze" anything.
Yes it is. They're lying in order to get more attention and more donations.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)I never said it was a real court, nor did the article. It CLEARLY explains what is the purpose of the mock trial, which is to bring ACTUAL charges on an INTERNATIONAL level. It's really that simple.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Which is a lie. Because this mock court can not do that, and has zero influence with the actual court in the Hague.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)It is not a lie, the reason for the mock court is explained in the article! They have a REASON, and that is to assess what charges the international Court will bring against them.
I think maybe you should read it again. It's all there.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)"will bring against them" is a lie. Because this faux-court has no connection to the real court, and has no ability to actually bring charges.
The other lie is that this mock court is necessary to "assess" anything. Again, the way this is actually done is lawyers look at the relevant laws and precedent...and if they are not actual prosecutors at the actual ICC, all they can do is say to those prosecutors, "In my opinion, this is a crime".
Again, this is a PR stunt. That's it. It's designed to make you think they're actually doing something, so you'll crack open your wallet and donate to those INTERNATIONAL organizations.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)after the mock trial, as I explained plenty and the article clearly states.
Let's see who will laugh last. And I guarantee you that it won't be Monsanto and its fans. Have a good night.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)There is nothing official about any of this. Please change the OP to reflect reality.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)You keep defending them all over the place. I have yet to see an anti GMO thread without you defending them, and it really baffles me as to why..
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I do defend the real world against unethical attacks, and sometimes those attacks come via unethical groups like March Against Monsanto, and other groups funded by organic companies, with the aim of promoting their products. They are no better than Monsanto, and yet you have no problem promoting them.
This OP is misleading, and that makes it unethical. And now you have again made a post that is misleading about me. That, too, is unethical.
Please stop acting in this manner. Thank you.
PS:
You posted an OP with a link to a page that promotes the belief in chemtrails, and many other conspiracy theories and pseudoscience scams.
Why would you do that? Don't pretend this is going to lead any actual charges. That is simply not on the table in the real world, no matter how much the organic industry people behind this propaganda pretend otherwise. And even if it would, the use of such a source and such a misleading title is simply unethical.
You have chosen to go with ideology by fighting against a technology, blindly, full speed ahead. Why would you do that?
Also, referring to people as "Monsanto fans" simply because they don't fall for bad propaganda is really not cool.
PS: If you can defend this, then defend it here.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/GMOSF/permalink/635024676636786/?hc_location=ufi
It's also being discussed here: https://www.facebook.com/FFdiscussionlab/
And why is it that the groups you are utilizing as support all ban people from discussion when they question the blind assertions made by those groups? They don't seem to care about actually getting the story right. They just want to promote their blind ideologies. Do you really think that's ok? Do you really think that's going to help anything?
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Should I post links?
Why are you denying the fact that you have no issuea with GMOs and Pesticides?
(And again, the OP is not misleading, you just don't like anything against the mighty GMOs)
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)They are not the same thing.
Can you please stop acting in this manner? Can you please answer the questions I have posed to you?
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)You have no problem with Monsanto, and you defend them whenever an anti GMO thread pops up.
I've already answered your question and I have explained what the Oct ',16 mock trial is about. Read the article and the thread!
Your constant defending of Monsanto's products every single thread on the subject, is tiresome to say the least.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Please answer them.
Your ideological attacks are not supported by the consensus of science.
PS:
The war against genetically modified organisms is full of fearmongering, errors, and fraud.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027242093#post1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016132470#post7
That explains tons. I guess you won't be happy when Monsanto will go down lol.
Have a good one.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You refuse to actually explore the science of the topic. You just make blind faith alliances and enemies.
WOW!
TryLogic
(1,723 posts)In recent weeks, we've learned some very disturbing truths about glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup, which is generously doused on genetically engineered (GE) Roundup Ready crops.
GE crops are typically far more contaminated with glyphosate than conventional crops, courtesy of the fact that they're engineered to withstand extremely high levels of Roundup without perishing along with the weed.
A new peer-reviewed report authored by Anthony Samsel, a retired science consultant, and a long time contributor to the Mercola.com Vital Votes Forum, and Dr. Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), reveals how glyphosate wrecks human health.
In the interview above, Dr. Seneff summarizes the two key problems caused by glyphosate in the diet:
Nutritional deficiencies
Systemic toxicity
Their findings make the need for labelling all the more urgent, and the advice to buy certified organic all the more valid.
In 2009, a French court found Monsanto guilty of lying; falsely advertising its Roundup herbicide as "biodegradable," "environmentally friendly" and claiming it "left the soil clean."
Much More: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/06/09/monsanto-roundup-herbicide.aspx
California’s Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) intends to list the herbicide glyphosate – the active ingredient in Monsanto’s RoundUp – as a carcinogenic chemical under the Proposition 65, which requires the state to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. The announcement came on 4 September, following a conclusion by the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer in March that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2015/09/glyphosate-roundup-labelled-carcinogen
The cancer-research arm of the World Health Organization last week announced that glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, is probably carcinogenic to humans.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer/
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
Archae
(46,344 posts)Botany
(70,577 posts)
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Botany
(70,577 posts)
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)This is about raising consciousness of an organization with questionable practices (like suing farmers) and has bought enough politicians to not worry about being prosecuted by a real court anytime soon.
Mock trial? You bet. This is what democracy looks like, where there is none otherwise.
MH1
(17,600 posts)It's pretty sad to see support of Monsanto's hyper-aggressive patent protection behavior, on a supposedly progressive website.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)No one is defending Monsanto, though it would be interesting to know your level of knowledge of the Monsanto lawsuit story.
swilton
(5,069 posts)there was Agent Orange. Monsanto is no friend to humanity.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)All of you out there remember Agent Orange and what it did to the Vietnamese?
deathrind
(1,786 posts)But what it is still doing...
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:26 PM - Edit history (1)
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article24751345.htmlAlso, not that it justifies the company making it, but...
"Monsanto warned the government as early as 1952 that 2,4,5-T contains a toxic substance, but this information was not acted upon.[19] This would place the blame for the effects of Agent Orange primarily on the U.S. government"
From: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Monsanto
Of course, the reality is that anti-GMOers have no real way to argue against the GMOs sold by Monsanto, (which also sells non-GMO and organic seeds, btw) so the only thing they can do is scream about a product the US government created 60 years ago. It's bizarro world stuff.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)With terrible birth defects.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)I can only hope the Hague "delivers" it.
I also fervently hope the Bride of Frankenfoods gets called-out in the process.
Dickster
(103 posts)I've used Roundup since it became available. I've used it on my corn and soybeans crops for many years. I no longer use it. The weeds it used to kill have developed resistance and some have become very hard to kill. I have neighbors who use 3-4 times the rate of the product that they did previously, and still cannot kill the weeds. So they then have to use other herbicides or hire manual labor to rid the fields of the weeds, which isn't cheap. So the total amount of herbicides has increased.
I've gone back to conventional seeds that use older, traditional methods of weed control. I still use chemical herbicides that work quite well. The seed cost is considerably less. A bag of Monsanto GMO seed corn runs around $350. I can buy a bag of conventional seed corn for $150. This past year there was no difference between my corn yield and that of my neighbors who used the GMO varieties. The savings are about $80 per acre. Monsanto soybean seed runs about $60 per bag. I can buy conventional soybean seed for half that. So I'm saving $30 per acre on soybean seed that yield the same. I'd rather keep that money in my pocket than hand it over to one of the most profitable companies on the face of the planet.
Monsanto and a handful of other companies have a monopoly on seed. It is very hard to find non GMO seed. There a a few companies left that breed conventional varieties, but it is probably less that 5 percent of the market.
I have several problems with Monsanto. They have cornered the seed market so that most farmers don't have much choice about who they buy seed from. If you buy the seed, you are forced to buy their herbicides. I also cannot save any of that seed to plant the following year, due to patent rights Monsanto has on the seed.
They have made it very difficult for any independent research to be done on their products, so the public has to rely on the "honesty" of Monsanto as to the safety of their products. Any time independent research questions the safety of their products, Monsanto unleashes a massive publicity campaign impugning the integrity of the independent research.
There is a revolving door within the USDA and Monsanto researchers, bureaucrats, etc. so we get no help out of the Dept of Agriculture. They have swallowed Monsanto's creed hook, line, and sinker.
A good portion of the rest of the world has said 'no thank you' to GMO products, for many of the same reasons I have given. They haven't drunk Monsanto's KoolAid like we have here in this country. I could go on, but enough for now......
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)+1
zalinda
(5,621 posts)to tell us about what real farming is about. I hate Monsanto for what they have done to farmers. No matter what the 'science' is of GMO's, this company is evil, and should be stopped.
Z
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)on whether GMO foods themselves are unsafe to eat? You interestingly failed to address that topic at all.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It's either an older, more toxic product than glyphosate, or he's employee people to get out in the fields, and, thus, his costs just went way up, yet, he didn't give us those costs, or the information about the product.
Most of the rest of his post is just the usual anti-GMO talking points. I suspect we might have an impostor on our hands, but I may be too suspicious.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)You know, some people actually care about not poisoning themselves and the planet. I know, that is a hard concept for you to understand ( considering your hundreds of pro Monsanto and GMO posts in the past).
It's sad, but its your choice. To each their own, right HuckleB?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)That's why I oppose returning to the use of non-GMO seeds that lead to the use of more toxic pesticides. That's why I want more regulation on the use of pesticides and herbicides in organic agriculture.
Why do you oppose those things?
The supposed farmer either used more toxic chemicals, or spent more money, while claiming he was saving money. He can't have it both ways. If he wants to spend more, great, but admit that.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that when his product gets to market, it's going to be more expensive, and not affordable by everyone not driving a Volvo.
Can't quite figure out why people who say that want to protect the environment would prefer the indiscriminate external application of insecticides (some of which will go where they do no good, or even harm, requiring more to be used in any case), to the engineering of plants to produce internal insecticides, which end up nowhere but where they are needed.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Like the fact that about 95% of the corn market in the US was composed of hybridized patented seeds BEFORE Monsanto's products ever came into existence. So the idea that Monsanto came along and fucked up a seed market where farmers were reusing their seed from year to year is one of those alternate reality myths that rely on the perpetuation of ignorance. The actual reality is that over 95% of the US corn market is composed of Monsanto's seed, but somehow we must believe that this is because the vast majority of farmers out there are just too fucking stupid to use seed that is better and cheaper.
Elmergantry
(884 posts)Roundup doesn't end up in the water table, unlike Atrazine. But I don't do grain farming anymore. Roundup is great for keeping weeds down around the outbuildings, so less CO2 emissions with the push mower. So I am fighting GW in my own special way...
yellowcanine
(35,701 posts)Equivalent to a "citizen's court" in the U.S. putting Cheney on trial. It would mean squat.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)It's an international Court and it is only the beginning.
tritsofme
(17,399 posts)This trial has the legal significance of a mock trial in a law school class.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Like i said, its just the beginning.
tritsofme
(17,399 posts)Ever. When their event is over, they can issue a press release. That's about it.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)That is why they have international lawyers as part of the team!
Keep wishing 
tritsofme
(17,399 posts)This isn't a legal proceeding and there is no path to one, it is activism.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)RT also published an article at the same subject, it is pretty impressive the make up of the said "tribunal".
If we as a country can't or refuse to go after Monsanto, the rest of the world will, as evidenced in the forthcoming " trial".
Like I said , it all has to start somewhere.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)This is just another attempt to get the true believers excited over nothing.
Kali
(55,019 posts)the words monsanto, Hague, and trial used in a press release does not equal the conclusion you jumped to
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Kali
(55,019 posts)I have a better understanding of both agriculture and the science behind these processes, than you apparently do.
I do have serious concerns about large corporations having so much control over the food supply. I have less concern about the actual science and technology being used than the fact that so much of it is "owned" by profiteers.
I imagine that is hard for you to comprehend, but maybe someday you will mature enough to see the bigger pictures in life.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)
Thanks for the laughs! Have a good one!
Kali
(55,019 posts)and frankly, it was more than you deserve.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)I just wanted to see if you maybe changed your opinion on Monsanto and GMO lately. Apparently not.
Texasgal
(17,047 posts)I guess with the time change happy hour seems more early than normal.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts) Kali
(55,019 posts) darkangel218
(13,985 posts) 
spanone
(135,870 posts)deathrind
(1,786 posts)The bullying tactics Monsanto employs against farmers is despicable.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Inviting a buddy over, and we are going to discuss my neighbors barking dog.
Did you read your link?
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)A mock trial to discuss the charges which can be brought against Monsanto, by serious organizations, not 2 people in a "living room".
I wonder if you " read the link".
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)It's a vile unspeakable organization which needs to be brought up to justice. I wish they were so harmless as a "barking dog". They are not. They are poisoning the planet.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts) meaculpa2011
(918 posts)trial in Chappaqua for "Crimes Against Suburbia."
The tribunal, made up of wealthy homeowners, will assess whether the increase in traffic caused by the former first family added to air and water pollution in the quiet hamlet, thereby eroding the value of their estates.
Details to come.
haele
(12,676 posts)This includes the damage aggressive monoculture does in ecologically sensitive areas and how it affects bio-diversity and the local resources, cultures, and economies.
It's easy to observe that an aggressive monoculture push by an outside corporation that cares only about profits in a developing country where there's still a majority of population engaged in subsistence economies can be linked to a sudden outburst in crime and political instability in those areas.
The reason international petroleum companies and manufacturers are not right up next to Monsanto is the weakness that Monsanto doesn't provide a significant number of additional "jobs" in most of these countries; there's actually a decrease in employment when Monsanto moves in as small subsistence farmers, plantations and villages are pushed aside in favor of modern mega-farms where significantly fewer people are needed to work those fields and orchards. More impoverished people flooding cities that don't have employment for them, or ways for them to continue farming, unlike the resource-extraction corporations where there is a need for a large workforce to do extracting and refining prior to transport to the factories.
Haele
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)on trial!
lots of poison supporters here today.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)you won 0-7 ........... monsanto loss once again
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)
Tab
(11,093 posts)Although I'm thrilled to see them taken to task, I was actually surprised with the observation that they are shunned by most other countries. I know people don't like what they do, but I figured they were just getting away with it and the hell with everyone else, but now it seems they've only been getting away with it here.
"Crimes against humanity" in theory actually sounds appropriate but I can't do a reading of the law so I don't know if it's applicable to this case, but it sure seems it should be.
I'm also waiting for Bush/Cheney but I'm not holding my breath on their appearing in the Hague anytime soon.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)That's fucking rich. More like "international group of chem-trail crazies meet to discuss things they know nothing about".
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Don't worry, no one will take the GMOs away from you at least for a while.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Also, Monsanto pays me big bucks to reply to you. Between you and me, we're actually really scared of this international brotherhood of anti-science dumbfucks and their LARP court. They're paying us all overtime to post comments against it.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)of posts.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=208190
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027005378#post3
And this is what you're calling the anti GMO posters "
3. Yes...
Yes they have. A simple look around this board is telling enough. For every one sensible person posting on a GMO thread are 15 rabid anti-GMO, pseudo-science shilling, Dr. Oz watching troglodytes..
Buh bye.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)
Thanks for sharing the great quote!
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Monsanto, no. The two are not synonymous. I argue with all the anti-science, mouth-breathing troglodytes on this board. Anti-vaxxers, anti-GMO, alternative medicine quackery, et al.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)"anti-GMO, pseudo-science shilling, Dr. Oz watching troglodytes."
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It's very telling.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Hoax" crowd.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)All you have is the debunked Seralini study. That's it. If you want to link to some actual peer-reviewed papers that aren't in pay-to-play publications with low impact factors, go ahead.
Pro-tip: you won't find any.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)with low impact factors,"
Precisely, all the evidence is not only behind a blackout wall it is behind a paywall as well.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)That means the researchers pay to have it published. Because reputable publications won't.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)
--imm
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)There, fixed your headline for you.
Sid
Faux pas
(14,690 posts)
StandingInLeftField
(972 posts)drag the CEO and Board of Directors in front of the Tribunal.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)They will determine which official charges Monsanto can be charged on, under the International court.
It's not as good as the real deal, but its a huge step. We need the International court involved.
TacoD
(581 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Monsanto hasn't been officially charged yet. What the October '16 trial do is determine with what charges Monsanto can be charged with in the International court, which is amazing!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)It's the first step for the International community to decide with what CRIMINAL charges Monsanto can be charged with under the International laws.
But you already knew that.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)This group has no more effect on the actions of international courts than do the silly citizen's grand juries that put Obama on trial for treason did with US courts.
That you'd promote this sort of bullshit puts you in the same league as birthers.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)It's not my first encounter with you or the other pro GMO posters. It's funny to what lenghts you go to defend them.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It has no connection at all to international legal systems.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts) jberryhill
(62,444 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)Maybe they can also look at the newer chemicals which are linked to pollinators dying ( bees ) and is being sold worldwide as a home use chemical .
aspirant
(3,533 posts)If corrupt corporations can bypass nation's laws with Kangaroo ISDS courts the people can too.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Thank you!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)So science pro!!!! Oh my!!!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I don't know why you think what you're doing is ok. It's not.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts) HuckleB
(35,773 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Time for you to go on full ignore. And please don't send anyone nasty PMs anymore.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)This OP is pure spam, and the fact you failed to acknowledge that, and do the right thing once that was shown to you is really sad.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Like this
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7421855
Keep spamming lol!
Adios.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Honesty matters.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Yah honesty is quiet important .
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:29 PM - Edit history (1)
You really don't care about integrity at all. Amazing. I used a bad word. Wow! LOL!
And it looks like you're letting the cat out of the bag on those "private conversations." Hmm.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)pnwmom
83. Here is the PM this poster just sent me. I thought the world might enjoy seeing it.
Of course I am going to block his emails. Other people should be aware of the kind of email they might get from him.
P.S. I just realized how appreciative I am of the fact that none of the hundreds of thousands of DU members has ever chosen to send me an abusive email before, no matter how tempted.
So thanks to all the rest of you!
You are an asshole. You have attacked me in the most disgusting ways possible.
YOU SUCK AS A HUMAN!!!!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You have been saying far worse to many people on this page with your ugly responses. Just because you won't be direct, doesn't mean your behavior is any better. Its not.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)And that over simply dissagreing with them??
Buh bye. And please don't harrass people in PM. You sent the same nasty message to several people.
Pretty pathetic.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I'm honest, which is not a claim that can be made about this OP.
Kali
(55,019 posts)YOU talking about sending rude PMs. try some fucking self-awareness.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)The poster wasn't personally attacked, he just couldn't handle opposing views and decided to mass message f u messages to random posters in the thread.
Now you try some "fucking self awareness" for once! Even though I know you won't.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)and your responses to the reality of the OP.
Kali
(55,019 posts)don't they have to take a few basic science courses?
Yeah, that doesn't seem likely.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)275. Umm.
Yeah, that doesn't seem likely.
Just to have it on record.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Very, very scary.
What are you supposed credentials?
Response to HuckleB (Reply #291)
darkangel218 This message was self-deleted by its author.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I'm really worried about wherever you went to school, because you have some very big holes in your "understanding" of how science works.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Even PAs and MDs, they're always buying organic food, we freaking go shopping together!
I suggest you don't make any more personal attacks. It is not what a nurse would do.
As a nurse you must respect others point of view. You seem to have 0 tolerance for opposing views. I would hate to think an NP sent "f ..u.. " messages go multiple posters for simply dissagreing on a message board.
I hope I will never come anywhere near you in my personal life.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)This is yet another reason that your status is scary. You think pushing an unsupported anecdote online means something. It doesn't.
Here's why your anecdote makes no sense: "According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in association with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 88 percent of scientists believe GM foods are safe to eat, compared with only 37 percent of the public — a gap of 51 percentage points."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fred-hiatt-genetically-modified-foods-prove-hard-for-americans-to-stomach/2015/02/08/3ae7902c-ad60-11e4-9c91-e9d2f9fde644_story.html
People who understand the science, aren't buying the baseless fear that you are trying to spread.
You seem to think that you can make all the personal attacks you want upon others, even going out to find dirt, and then you can't handle actual criticism.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)You say you're an NP. Thats well above my level. Yet you send private messages cursing multiple DURs , for simply dissagreing with you?!!!
That is scary. 
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And this is all you have as a response?
And that does not change the reality that you are advocating for an ideology that is not supported by the science, and you have clearly decided that no amount of information will ever change your mind.
If it were different, you wouldn't attack people as "Pro-Monsanto" and "Pro-GMO," when those people are simply assessing the status of the science of the matter.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)That I claimed this was more than a mock trial. That I am not a nurse. That it is scary if I was one( when you sent musltiple messages cursing DUrs for simply dissagreing with you).
You have nothing . No answer.
Emojis and thats all.
You're making a fool of yourself.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)On the other hand, that doesn't say much for the likes of you.
In fact, you just doubled down, rather than even bothering to wonder if there's more to the story.
The lack of curiosity is astounding, and it explains why you don't understand the topic of GMOs, and I'm guessing many others.
You have failed to respond to attempts at actual discussion, which I would expect an actual RN to engage in with curiosity. Thus, my doubt is valid. My fears justified.
A little humility goes a long way.
Kali
(55,019 posts)the typos are getting pretty numerous
That I claimed this was more than a mock trial. That I am not a nurse. That it is scary if I was one( when you sent musltiple messages cursing DUrs for simply dissagreing with you).
You have nothing . No answer.
Emojis and thats all.
You're making a fool of yourself.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)But I am glad to serve on all juries
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)GMOs have not been peer studied on long term effects, to clearly say they are safe. Monsanto will eventually go down, to the dispair of many in this thread.
And Kali, take your personal attacks elsewhere. You're embarrassing yourself.
PS: shouldn't you give up attacking DUers personal lives now that you are on MIRT? I would say you should.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2015/12/07/no-monsanto-is-not-going-on-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity/
You really don't like the reality being pointed out for everyone to see, do you?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)This will result in a lot of irrelevant criticisms from Monsanto's colleagues and associates (especially the tiny swarm of half-witted idiots that habitually brook no criticism against Monsanto itself).
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Cuz I love a good
Response to zappaman (Reply #223)
darkangel218 This message was self-deleted by its author.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)That was something, I might say.
Very enlighting. HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Hmm.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I am simply noting that you can't respond to the actual content of any response. You would rather simply attack the poster instead. That's very telling.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Did that poster said anything of substance, except laughing at this thread? (Which you BTW you contributed to it considerably) . I am responding to content, you are the one avoiding questions.
Why are you against labeling GMO foods?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)That poster's content is weak, but it's at least to the quality of what's in the OP.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Prove it, or delete! You accuse people of an awful lot in this thread, only to distract and confuse.
Proof of where I said any differently. I'm waiting.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You and I both know what this article was trying to do. "A trial at the Hague." And you think you can actually try to pretend to be upset that you've been called out on that?
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)It is a trial, just not official. So where did I "lie"???
Back up your accusation! ( for the 20th time"
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Well, we all know that the headline is trying to con people into thinking exactly that. You know this. You were called out on that from the beginning. You never changed a thing. You kept defending this as if it is something besides what it is: A PR stunt.
Now, it's time for you to be honest. Stop the games.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Even though an unofficial one, as explained by the article!!
You stop your games! What NP sends "f*** you" messages to DUers for disagreeing with them?? You say youre an NP, yet you don't have the most basic ethics under control!!!
Do you even practice nlw? What do you do if a patient disagrees with you ?? Curse them , like you to to the DUrs??
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You realize that the more people understand that, you will lose even many of those who support your anti-GMO stance? If you don't, well, that's scary.
And your obsession with distracting from any possible discussion based on an interaction you don't know anything about is really awful.
Period.
I've asked you to stop acting in this manner, and you just keep attacking, no matter what. You don't have a justification to attack me like this, especially considering your posts on this thread. Get a mirror.
Goodbye.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)That you have to resort to lies. It is sad. I am up for discussion! I asked you multiple times to explain yourself! All you do is say that the title of the article is misleading, witn no proof at all, in dozens of posts. All you do is deflect, and never answer any questions.
So I am asking you again, how do you justify sending private messages, cursing DUrs, (as a self called NP), and saying other posters are lying about being Nurses??
I have you on record so you can't back down from that.
All you do is troll and spread your pro Monsanto, pro GMO drivel, regardless if you make up shit about other posters , of regardless if you're going to troll them in the PM!
Give us a break! DU is not as stupid as you think!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I can show any anti-GMO poster with an actual open mind that he or she is misguided, however.
You don't appear to have an open mind at all.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)You are free to enlighten the rest of DU why Is are so SAFE and why we should not label GMO products, even though consumers are asking for them!!!
Welcome to permanent ignore!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Now you're just making excuses for your failure to be honest in discussion.
BTW, if I see you at a nursing conference promoting this kind of pseudoscience, you will be called out publicly.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Or maybe they missed the dozen or so posts that shill for the charity I am heavily involved in.
Anywho, I stand by all my posts about the homeless issues and those posts linked about the people who come to my town to smoke meth, rob houses, defecate on resident's lawns/streets, and terrorize tourists.
By the way, here is the link I have posted plenty of times.
http://www.changelives.org
If you don't care for that charity for whatever reason, the other homeless charity I volunteer at for the last 1 1/2 years is this one.
http://www.epath.org/site/main.html
I realize it would be asking too much to see you donate to both, but perhaps you could forgo a sixer and donate to one?
You have a good heart so if you need any help figuring out how to donate, let me know.
ETA:
We will be very grateful and I will match any donation you make!
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Holy cow!!!
*speechless*
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Just tell me how much.
I know you're a good person so I expect you to be honest.
http://www.changelives.org
http://www.epath.org/site/main.html
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)I couldnt give a damn what you say you "donate" , when your hate against the homeless is obvious!
"Also, for homeless people living on the streets, they really don't take care of their "home." There's litter, filth, human waste, and garbage all around their "living quarters." How we can respect them when they don't even respect themselves? Get them in a shelter or get them off the streets. Life isn't fair, homeless losers. Get over it. I'm tired of walking around you."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I get my coffee every morning at the Cafe Collage and they did indeed remove the tables because it was getting out of the hand. Some days you literally had to push your way through the homeless hanging out, smoking weed, pissing round the corner and asking for handouts.
That was where I had a guy tell me he was "gonna get me some money and come back and f@ck you up". I asked him "why not f@ck me up now?" and he stumbled away muttering.
I can hold my own, but it makes me wonder how many tourists and smaller people get hit on by these losers.
It also smelt like piss every morning.
They had to get rid of the seating outside and I'm glad they did."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's not an emergency when you choose to live in an RV or on the streets.
16 years on the street is a lifestyle decision, not an emergency.
Furthermore, "People that want to live and abide by the law, if only they could" is also wrong.
The whole point of the recent whining by the VDs and their enablers is that they are upset they are no longer getting away with breaking the law like they have been for years. They have no desire to "abide by the law" and only want to change it so they can continue leeching off the goodwill of Venetians."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Thank you for agreeing that one of the reasons the gutter punks prefer the streets is that they can be high and not have to follow rules."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"My car was broken into last July for the first time in 25 years.
Stole CDs, change, and a bottle of mouthwash from the glove compartment.
Obviously, we are talking about transient losers looking for simple items to trade for drugs.
Hope you get some of your stuff back and maybe invest in a dog, alarm system, or a nice weapon.
At some point, these losers will get emboldened and try something on someone they shouldn't.
My dog silently prays they hop my fence..."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My thoughts on the homeless....
The availability of marijuana is why these fuckers are here? Are you kidding me?
They're here because they can steal our *#!%$! and get away with it.
They're here because our VNC seems to believe that Venice is some fairy tale land where gumdrops rain from the sky, kittens run freely, and the no-good, wannabe-homeless criminals have a right to make Venice their own personal shithole because "hey, they're people too".
Until they start getting their asses tossed in jail once in a while and word gets out that Venice isn't gonna tolerate their bullshit anymore, these gutter punks will just continue lowering the living standards in our community.
Amazing how some people just don't get it."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"These people need to be removed!
Tents on the street? where are the cops?
If they want tent city go out to the mountains
Time to clear the human garbage off the streets and make these jerks earn their keep instead of giving it to them
Want to feed homeless do it at the shelter not the beach
Want a place to keep your stuff, buy it or rent it. Leaving it on the street means you don't want it anymore, it is trash to be removed!
Don't give me that NIMBY sh*t it has been in my backyard (our backyards!) only and no where else
You want to help the homeless...so do I
I would like to help them get out of this community."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And arrest them once in a while. Put these gutter punks in jail for a couple of nights and let them know their *#!%$! will no longer be tolerated in Venice. It's disgusting out there now. Signs aren't gonna do much and good luck getting Venice merchants to stop selling single beers. They make a boatload of money doing so."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All quotes from the legend and the legend's merry crew of loving and compassionate neighbors can be found here along with dozens of others showing such admirable traits in the fight for social justice. "
...
This is from AOR link, and you just admitted to it. As someone who has volunteered countless times to the homeless shelter, who has given my last dollar in my pocket to the needy, I say shame on you!
You are the last person to make ad hominem attacks!
I have nothing else to say to you
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Now I see how the poster used other quotes in threads I was in to make it seem like it was me.
Google if you care.
Also, for homeless people living on the streets, they really don't take care of their "home." There's litter, filth, human waste, and garbage all around their "living quarters." How we can respect them when they don't even respect themselves? Get them in a shelter or get them off the streets. Life isn't fair, homeless losers. Get over it. I'm tired of walking around you."
Not my quote. It's the person above me.
I'm sure that was an honest error.
"These people need to be removed!
Tents on the street? where are the cops?
If they want tent city go out to the mountains
Time to clear the human garbage off the streets and make these jerks earn their keep instead of giving it to them
Want to feed homeless do it at the shelter not the beach
Want a place to keep your stuff, buy it or rent it. Leaving it on the street means you don't want it anymore, it is trash to be removed!
Don't give me that NIMBY sh*t it has been in my backyard (our backyards!) only and no where else
You want to help the homeless...so do I
I would like to help them get out of this community."
Again, not me. A completely different poster. I'm sure that was an honest error as well.
Funny how the poster did that.
I wonder why?
So sorry dear.
Still waiting for that donation.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Enough said.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Sure.
Venice SteelerFan said "These people need to be removed! Tents on the street? where are the cops? If they want tent city go out to the mountains Time to clear the human garbage off the streets and make these jerks earn their keep instead of giving it to them Want to feed homeless do it at the shelter not the beach Want a place to keep your stuff, buy it or rent it. Leaving it on the street means you don't want it anymore, it is trash to be removed! Don't give me that NIMBY sh*t it has been in my backyard (our backyards!) only and no where else You want to help the homeless...so do I I would like to help them get out of this community The VNC doesn't represent the community it reps the squatters, and it too needs to be removed like the nasty smelly scene on 3rd!"
http://www.yovenice.com/forum/the-trouble-maker-zone/squalor-on-3rd-street-in-venice/page-3/
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)How do you explain the rest??
So you have any explanation for calling homeless people such awful names???
zappaman
(20,606 posts)I don't call the homeless names.
I do have some choice words for people who travel to my town to dump on my streets, party all night and smoke as much meth as they can find.
You might be okay with that lifestyle...I'm not.
Anywho, thanks again for this trainwreck of a thread!
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Very very nice, zappaman. Very nice indeed.
Maybe if you would know what hunger is, or cold is, or if you're gonna be alive the next day after sleeping on the streets, maybe then you will have some compassion.
You obviously have no clue what homelessness is.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Kali
(55,019 posts) 
darkangel218
(13,985 posts) Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)...since she was that company's Director for Global and Corporate Affairs, 2001 - 2004.
Lately, she head of Mothers Demand Action and Gun Sense in America, one of Bloomie's pop-up organizations. Maybe she can pry herself away.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Probably they will its their thing to hire corrupted people.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Monsanto
Since the beginning of the twentieth century according to the groups, Monsanto has developed a steady stream of highly toxic products which have permanently damaged the environment and caused illness or death for thousands of people. These products include:
• PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyl), one of the 12 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) that affect human and animal fertility;
• 2,4,5 T (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid), a dioxin-containing component of the defoliant, Agent Orange, which was used by the US Army during the Vietnam War and continues to cause birth defects and cancer;
• Lasso, an herbicide that is now banned in Europe;
• and RoundUp, the most widely used herbicide in the world, and the source of the greatest health and environmental scandal in modern history. This toxic herbicide, designated a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization, is used in combination with genetically modified (GM) RoundUp Ready seeds in large-scale monocultures, primarily to produce soybeans, maize and rapeseed for animal feed and biofuels.
Relying on the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” adopted by the UN in 2011, an international court of lawyers and judges will assess the potential criminal liability of Monsanto for damages inflicted on human health and the environment. The court will also rely on the Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court in The Hague in 2002, and it will consider whether to reform international criminal law to include crimes against the environment, or ecocide, as a prosecutable criminal offense. The International Criminal Court, established in 2002 in The Hague, has determined that prosecuting ecocide as a criminal offense is the only way to guarantee the rights of humans to a healthy environment and the right of nature to be protected.
The announcement was made at a press conference held in conjunction with the COP21 United Nations Conference on Climate Change, November 30 – December 11, in Paris.
From http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/12/03/monsanto-put-on-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity-in-the-hague/#.VmYXF59OnqA
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)In other words, you appear to be spamming.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)So I removed you from ignore. I guess you're here to keep spamming the thread over and over again.
You kept posting that the Monsanto Trial is not a real trial. Did I ever said in this thread, that it was a real trial?? The article are making it clear that it is a mock trial, to FIND WHAT CRIMINAL CHARHES CAN BE BROUGHT AGAINST MONSANTO. It's crystal clear.
Now, please enlighten us, why are you against companies labeling GMO products, if you think they are so safe? Why do you oppose labeling?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You are now being less than honest about the follow-up responses you make, as that link is just a part of the link in the OP.
I'm not spamming, I'm responding to your spam, as has been made clear. BTW, if you can't handle blocking someone, don't do it.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)And who here said it was a real trial, and not a mock trial??
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You appear to be backing down from prior assertions that this would lead some actual charges.
Until you answer the questions I've already asked, don't ask me any questions. That's simply not how discussion works.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)The article makes it clear what it was, and that the Monsanto Tribunal is considerating what official charges they will fight to bring against Monsanto after the said trial.
Where is your proof that I said the charges are official?? And why are you opposing GMO labeling??
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Many of the responses you received clearly believe that.
And here's what you pushed in post 73.
"The article speaks for itself.
They're assesing (sic) what charges can be brought against Monsanto on am INTERNATIONAL level."
And you went on along these lines for quite some time.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Who will conduct a mock trail in Hague and see what official charges can be brought against Monsanto.
And it was the headline from the article. The article itself explains all the details. Funny how the readers can understand the article, but you cannot!!!
So in the end you falsely accused me of "misleading". You even got a post hidden on the other thread for accusing people of " lying"
your word).
A lot of attacks and no real discussion, that is what I'm seeing from you. Oh well.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Nice confession.
Anyone who wants to can see that I attempted to engage you in a real discussion. You refused. Please do the right thing, and stop pretending otherwise. Thank you.
You repeatedly attacked people as supporting Monsanto for simply finding fault with the ludicrous OP, and/or for supporting the scientific consensus on GMOs. That is not decent behavior in any way, shape, or form.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)You keep making things up as you go.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Then copy and post where I said more than the article itself said???
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You and I both know the headline is misleading, and yet you just defended it as accurate. And then I showed more by copying and pasting one of your posts.
You really think that you can just deny things and they go away?
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And when you're called out on it, you say the headline is accurate.
Again and again.
The games you're playing are not ok. Do the right thing, acknowledge the reality, and stop pretending.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Even though if not official. You accused me of changing my stance .. Prove your accusations! Copy and paste where I did that???? You got 3 of your posts hidden yesterday for falsely accusing and insulting DUers, with absolutely no back up of justification!
It's sad, really.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You keep playing that, but you know that the more people who find out the reality the worse it is for your propaganda. And propaganda is all this is.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)And your ad nauseum made up accusations? If that is not pro GMO propaganda then I don't know what is.
*yawn* because you cant provide proof for your attacks. You really should go back and self delete all the false accusations, if you want to save face.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Either it's a personal attack, a denial while pretending that the denial isn't really a denial, or going off in another direction that has already been covered, over and over again.
You can claim I haven't proven my point, but that claim isn't accurate, as we both know.
If you're worried about saving save, I suggest you look in the mirror for a long time.
BTW, where are you advocacy posts for labels for MBOs?
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)I asked you why you're against labeling? Still no answer.
Crystal clear what you're doing here. It's hilarious!!!!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You are simply pretending. This is bizarrely surreal.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)I find it "bizarrely surreal" that you pretend you did, myself.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)I see this.
Congrats.
SMH. People will believe anything. It's actually frightening you supposedly have a college degree and yet don't understand this isn't a real court or actually anything but a bunch of people "putting them on trial". Your lack of a critical thought process is astounding.
Congrats again!
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)No one said it was a real court. Point where I said it was a real court? It is a mock trial to assess what international criminal charges will be brought against this evil company.
Did you not read the article?
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)I looked at your link full of bullshit if that's what you meant by "read the article".
My stance on GMOs has no bearing assessing the stupidity of this thread.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)This is a mock trial to assess potential CRIMINAL, ecocide charges.
You can find the same information on various outlets, including RT!
Just because US is fine with Monsanto, it doesn't mean the rest of the world is. Tough luck.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Bwahahahahahahahahaha
That's the funniest thing I've read in a while. The best part, you meant it seriously!
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)RT has no monetary interest in protecting Monsanto.
Glad you finally showed your true colours.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)You have absolutely no idea what my opinion of GMOs or Monstanto is.
But yes, I do find using RT as your source on par with Natural News.
I hope your not too grief stricken when this results in absolutely nothing.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)***************************
Austria: Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810, MON 863 and T25
Notified in June 1999, initially under Article 16 of Directive 90/220/EEC, and subsequently maintained in February 2004 under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC;
France: Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810.
First notified in February 2008, under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC; and under EU Regulation 1829/2003
Germany: in April 2009 the agriculture Minister, Ms. Aigner, announced a ban on cultivation and sale of MON 810
Greece: Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810.
Application lodged in April 2005 under Article 18 of Directive 2002/53/EC, and subsequently in January 2006 extended/maintained the measure under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC;
Hungary: Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810.
Notified in September 2006, under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC;
Ban on cultivation and commercial use of potato Amflora
Notified in June 2010
Italy: (Updated in Aug 2014)
General ban on cultivation of GE corn MON810
Notified by inter-ministerial decree (Health-Environment-Agriculture Ministers) entered into force in August 2013. This ban will stay in place till will be taken - at European level -steps connected to art. 54, comma 3 regulament 178/2002 (CE) and anyway not more than 18 months.
Luxembourg : Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810.
Notified in March 2009, under Directive 2001/18/EC
Ban on cultivation and commercial use of potato Amflora
Notified in June 2010
Poland: (Updated in July 2014)
Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810.
Application lodged in January 2013 under Article 16 of Directive 2002/53/EC (The EU’s Seeds Directive). The ban under the Seeds Directive affects all MON 810 varieties.
Ban on cultivation of BASF’s potato Amflora. Application lodged in January 2013 under Article 16 of Directive 2002/53/EC (The EU’s Seeds Directive).
Romania: Ban on cultivation of MON 810 maize announced by Environment minister Korodi on 27 March 2008.
The Romanian government has indicated that it intends to install the ban on the same legal grounds as France: under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC; and under EU Regulation 1829/2003. Enactment of the ban is expected in April 2008.
Switzerland: (Updated in July 2014)
In 2005, the Swiss voted by referendum a 5-year moratorium against the commercial cultivation of GM crops and animals. The Swiss government decided to extend this moratorium till 2013.
In 2012 the Swiss Parliament voted for a second extention of the moratorium until December 2017.
Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms (The Library of Congress)
The report discusses the legislation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically modified (GM) plants and foods in Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, England and Wales, France,Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the Russian Federation, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, and the United States. The European Union andInternational Protocols. This report summarizes enacted laws on the cultivation, and sale of GMOs, as well as public opinion on GM products.
http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/gmo-free-regions/bans.html
So as you can see, the ban on GMOs is not reserved to Russia.
Like I said, try again!!
Kali
(55,019 posts)Breaking News: Monsanto to Be Put to Trial in Hague for Crimes Against Humanity
...
The Monsanto Company enjoys what can only be described as a cozy relationship with the American mainstream press, in large part because it’s an America-based company that is heavily involved in lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill.
But overseas, the company and its contemporaries in the agrochemical business world are largely shunned and/or banned due to transgressions against both health and the environment.
Monsanto also has a penchant for suing farmers, another item that often goes unreported. But now the multinational company many describe as a legal bully will be placed on trial – this time in international court for Crimes Against Humanity, according to a new report from the website Sustainable Pulse.
...
The Monsanto Tribunal, which will be held in The Hague from October 12 to 16, 2016, aims to assess these allegations made against Monsanto, and to evaluate the damages caused by this transnational company. The Tribunal will rely on the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” adopted at the UN in 2011. It will also assess potential criminal liability on the basis of the Rome Statue that created the International Criminal Court in The Hague in 2002, and it will consider whether a reform of international criminal law is warranted to include crimes against the environment, or ecocide, as a prosecutable criminal offense.
...
http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/breaking-news-monsanto-to-put-to-trial-in-the-hague-for-crimes-against-humanity/
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Let's see how much are you going to laugh when Monsanto will go down.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)See, I'm not invested in that at all. I am invested in honest posting, and this OP is not honest. Nor is the anti-GMO movement.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Are just lies??
I'm trying to understand. You have hundreds of pro GMO, pro Monsanto threads on DU. Anyone can search and see that. Are you saying you were dishonest when you posted them??
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)GMOs are safe.
None of that has anything to do with Monsanto.
Your attacks on me are ugly, and baseless.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)
Let's see how much you will laugh when Monsanto will go down, and GMOs will be banned or at least labeled.
Kali
(55,019 posts)if somebody wants to have a real discussion about food, science, agriculture, corporations, policy, etc I am happy to do so.
you just want attention and are seemingly incapable of dealing with reality or anybody that contradicts whatever interpretation or fantasy you make up in your mind about events or even posts on the internet.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Because you were offered the opportunity to discuss the OP.
if somebody wants to have a real discussion about food, science, agriculture, corporations, policy, etc I am happy to do so. you just want attention and are seemingly incapable of dealing with reality or anybody that contradicts whatever interpretation or fantasy you make up in your mind about events or even posts on the internet.
All you do is personally attack. I asked what your stance on GMO was and you couldn't hold a conversation.
There are many people who are against GMO. MILLIONS,that is. There are DUers here who explained WHY they are against GMOs. Yet, you chose to post such disrespectful and nasty posts, just to try enhance your Pro-GMO propaganda.
Shameful to say the least.
You have no principles. Just personal attacks. Whatever floats your boat, really. Because Monsanto will eventually go down, with or without "your" approval.
Have a good night.
Response to darkangel218 (Reply #311)
Post removed
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)You make a mockery out of DU.
You made it clear you had no problems with the GMOs. However , your personal attacks should not be allowed here.
and I wasn't referring to having one with you anyway. you have no comprehension of science, nor with logic, critical thinking, or even an ability to comprehend an answer when somebody does bother to explain something to you.
all you do is behave like an idiot, project YOUR behaviors onto everybody else, and look foolish and hypocritical. I am not interested in wasting serious time with you. you are nothing but a silly little diversion on a couple of message boards.
You should be banned from DU for making such nasty attacks. You are a sick bully. Go get help!
Kali
(55,019 posts)how many hidden posts? (and don't bother with the insane claim that 99% are somehow my fault, that is just proof you have no math skills either)
who makes a mockery of DU? how many GBCW posts have you made? how many posts at DI have you made denigrating DU? yes, who makes a mockery of DU, indeed.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)You have attacked me randomly over the years, to the point where I considered leaving DU because of you!!!
You post regular insults to my posts, demeaning my English, even though you know I wasn't born here.
Go get help.
I will NOT quit DU because of your bullying. You're doing tne same to me as you did to Nadine!
You need help.
Kali
(55,019 posts)more creative interpretation, exaggeration, distortion, and misrepresentation. like the OP and most of your replies in this thread.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Are you jk now?? Between DU and DI all you did is to attack me!! Even in this thread you did the same attacking my job!!!
Shame on you.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Too bad you spent no time researching the reality that GMOs are safe.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)On Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:22 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
You have attacked my job, saying I "was not a nurse" you have attacked my fiance!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7429430
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
"get help" implies mental illness as an insult. this is rude, insensitive to people with mental illness and is inappropriate.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:32 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's sad to see a nasty personal feud play out like this, but it would be unfair to silence one side and not the other. I'm only voting to leave this because I can't vote to hide the entire sub thread.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Gee, I wonder who alerted.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm tempted to hide but it's really no worse than most of the rest of this thread.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Stop wasting our time.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Hang in there, darkangel218. Let it roll off your back. Ignorance is just ignorance.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts) HuckleB
(35,773 posts)
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)There will be no trial. The group holding this "tribunal" has zero authority to try anyone.
False headline, meant to deceive.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Official charges will follow. Since US is not willing to go after Monsanto, the rest of the world is. Like I said, tough luck for Monsanto lovers. 
hack89
(39,171 posts)what organization will file those charges and formally indict them?
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)No, this is nothing whatsoever to do with the ICC. This, because you don't seem to know, is the International Criminal Court. They have nothing at all to do with this show.
The Hague is a city in the Netherlands, and the capital of that country. Being in the same city as the ICC does not associate this with the ICC, any more than it associates it with the Dutch government. But they want to produce the show there for PR purposes, because so many people see 'tribunal' and 'The Hague' in the same sentence and assume it's something official. This is a group of private people, who don't represent any population, who could have just written another article or report on Monsanto and published it, but decided that enough people would fall for the hype of 'Hague tribunal!!!!' that it was worth doing the breathless press releases. They could have done it in one of their home towns, or all stayed at home and used modern communications techniques like email and Skype to keep the ecological footprint of the exercise down, but they've ignored that and gone for the "some people are gullible enough to fall for this, fuck the carbon footprint" option.
Of course, since they're just a collection of private individuals, Monsanto is not going to pay any attention. They won't be represented in the process, and so the 'tribunal' can come up with whatever conclusion they like. I don't have much hope they'll be honest, because of this Hague BS. If honest people wanted to examine Monsanto, they'd get on with it and tell people when they're done, rather than using misleading public relations techniques.
hack89
(39,171 posts)The ICC will ignore them - the ICC has their own process for investigating and indicting.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Always "helpful".
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)I"ll agree with that. However, the group doing this mockery trial has no authority to file charges against anyone.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Explain yourself please. I'm waiting.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)I was sleeping. Check above for my response.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)They'll be pulling out all the stops to paint this as a PR stunt by bunch of money-hungry organic farmers.
Can't have any more bad publicity or their stocks will tank even more.
...where's my violin...
Monsanto asked the panel to review the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) March findings on glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s blockbuster pesticide Roundup, that concluded the chemical was “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
.......On Monday, Monsanto said in a release that the 16-person panel found that “none of the results from a very large database, using different methodologies, provides evidence of, or a potential mechanism for, human carcinogenesis” from glyphosate. They also found some of IARC’s assessments “suffered from significant weaknesses,” including data choice, failure to use all relevant information and not using specific evaluation forms that weigh evidence.
The panel is comprised of industry consultants and academics, including from New York Medical College, University of London and Harvard Medical School. All but four out of the 16 panelists have previously consulted for Monsanto in some capacity, according to the company. Two are former Monsanto employees, who have published peer-review data on glyphosate while employed by the seed and biotech company.....
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2015/12/07/panel-hired-by-monsanto-consultant-finds-no-cancer.html
A freekin' CHEMICAL company is monopolizing our FOOD supply. And "Democrats" defend it...unbelievable...
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)... and a better OP on which to post this.
This OP is embarrassing to DU, and to anyone who thinks that GMOs are bad.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Do YOU think GMOs are bad??
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Do you think GMO's are bad?
( I am asking a rethorical question here of course).
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)They will go down eventually, and our resident apologists won't be happy!
burrowowl
(17,645 posts)and fined and sent to oblivion!
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)+ 1 million!!
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Say No to GMOs!!!!!!!!
X