General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: You can't criticize one pseudoscience when supporting another. [View all]Orrex
(63,172 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 25, 2015, 01:08 PM - Edit history (6)
Really? Here's the list again, and I've bolded the examples that the anti-GMO crowd has used in this thread so far:
[hr]Fear-based[font color="blue"] Reply #148[/font]
Scientists cannot be trusted [font color="blue"]Reply #29[/font]
Anti-corporation[font color="blue"] Reply #148, #152[/font]
Anti-profit[font color="blue"] Reply #153[/font]
Celebrity endorsed
Deny scientific consensus [font color="blue"]Reply #44, #58[/font]
Cite discredited "studies" [font color="blue"]Reply #21[/font]
Leaders are not scientists
Call those who disagree "shills" [font color="blue"]Reply #41[/font]
Claims government/corporate conspiracy
Uses appeal to nature fallacy [font color="blue"]Reply #45[/font]
Misues precautionary principle [font color="blue"]Reply #33, #35[/font]
Claims all manner of sickness [font color="blue"]Reply #1[/font]
Claims special knowledge
Says GMOs untested/unregulated [font color="blue"]Reply #3, #44[/font]
Links to Natural News & Dr. Mercola
Main info source is YouTube videos
Message spread through Facebook memes
Correlation = causation
Call those who disagree "sheeple"
Believes talk show hosts over scientists[hr]I've seen most of the others in previous anti-GMO threads here on DU, and on the internet-at-large I have seen all of them many times over.
Far from being "nonsense," the comparison in the OP is demonstrable fact.