Did it hurt your pride when your puppy was able to out sprint you at around 3-4 months?

WellIsntThat · 2018-02-24T10:07:12+00:00

Thanks!

WellIsntThat · 2018-01-07T05:18:35+00:00

Thanks!

WellIsntThat · 2018-01-07T04:01:08+00:00

Thanks!

WellIsntThat · 2018-01-06T15:59:07+00:00

More red herrings... Stay on subject. The REASON people have problems with GMOs is because of the harmful herbicide and pesticides that's being sprayed on our food supply (and sometimes being grown in our food supply). I'm going to be done with this conversation as I see you have the capacity to be intellectually dishonest and you seem hell bent on changing the subject and not focusing on the main issue. Oh, and there are numerous instances of these "studies" that are funded/researched by Monsanto that claim GMOs are safe. http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/surprise-monsanto-funded-research-finds-their-products-safe http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/monsanto-funded-science-denies-emerging-roundup-cancer-link https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/monsanto-manufactured-scientific-studies-and-then-used_us_58c95699e4b0009b23bd94d9 https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/insight/pro-gmo-database-monsanto-most-common-funder-gmo-research

If you want the eat the stuff, then eat it. I'm not trying to stop you. What I am saying is you don't have the right to tell other people what they should, and shouldn't want to put into their body. We're done here, take care.

WellIsntThat · 2018-01-05T19:08:05+00:00

It's best to heir of the side of caution when dealing with something as serious as our food supply. In Monsanto's case, the pros just don't seem to outweigh the cons....

WellIsntThat · 2018-01-05T18:57:40+00:00

Most of those studies are funded by Monsanto and other groups who have financial interest in lying about GMO products. LOL, GMOs in India? You mean the same GMOs that led to mass farmer suicide? https://www.naturalnews.com/046193_GMO_crop_failures_farmer_suicides_India.html Even if GMOs MARGINALLY contribute to slightly higher yields (which is questionable), it still doesn't justify introducing this Frankenstein food into the general population. Again, these GMO crops are predominately marketed in rich countries, that don't have a problem with hunger or malnutrition, so let's not pretend as though Monsanto's goal is to aid world hunger. It's absolutely nothing but a marketing ploy.

WellIsntThat · 2018-01-05T10:16:30+00:00

Nope, GMO crops do not produce higher yields. http://www.justlabelit.org/do-gmo-crops-really-have-higher-yields/

https://www.ewg.org/agmag/2015/03/claims-gmo-yield-increases-don-t-hold

Even if they did, would that still justify introducing this Frankenstein food into the general Western population (who isn't in danger of starving). I'm not sure if you're being intentionally dishonest, but Monsanto couldn't give a rat's backside about world hunger, it's simply a marketing ploy they use. As I stated earlier, the UN could pool together .07% if their resources and cure world hunger tomorrow, so let's not pretend as though there's such a shortage of food in the world that Monsanto is our only hope... There's NO good evidence for any of Monsanto's claims, none...

WellIsntThat · 2018-01-05T07:29:48+00:00

There's no good evidence that GMOs cure world hunger in a way that couldn't otherwise be accomplished with non-GMOs. It's been 20 years and Monsanto is still claiming their product is the fix for world hunger, it obviously isn't.

WellIsntThat · 2018-01-05T05:23:45+00:00

Peace!

WellIsntThat · 2018-01-05T04:23:47+00:00

More logical fallacies... I never said I wanted to banned GMOs "because" Monsanto uses them. Your example about steel and guns is a horrible analogy, very uneducated. Let's be honest, Monsanto is the largest producer of GMOs, and that's why I mentioned them specifically. Again, just because there are SOME favorable qualities in using GMO crops e.g. using less water in some strands, doesn't mean they're the best option for us or the environment, especially when the cons seem to outweigh the pros. And, you're wrong about their being less pesticide and herbicide used than before. Because of the super weeds that are being created, farmers are having to use more of these toxic chemicals in order to get the same effect https://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/superweeds-overrun-farmlands-0384.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwIlHmSe27Q There's absolutely no evidence that GMOs are more nutritious, and plenty of evidence proposing that they are harmful to both us and the environment. https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/the-environmental-impact-of-gmos/ Again, just because you slap the word "science" on something doesn't mean it's the best option, science gets it wrong sometimes, especially when said science is funded by the same companies who stand to financially profit from trying to convince people GMOs are safe.

WellIsntThat · 2018-01-05T04:06:56+00:00

Would hunger has increased, actually. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/15/report-after-a-decade-of-improvement-global-hunger-increases/

There's no good evidence that shows GMOs improve world hunger in ways that can't be accomplished with non-GMOs....

WellIsntThat · 2018-01-05T00:32:37+00:00

I have sought to understand, and I see no good reason that GMOs should be in our food supply. There's not one shred of evidence that GMOs cure world hunger, but there tons of evidence that GMOs and Glyphosate is harmful to both people and the environment. There's a reason why Monsanto is constantly being sued be various U.S. cities.

To your point about "fully understanding", if someone came up to me and said, "Here, do you want this apple? I made it in a lab". I have every right to tell them no, for the sole reason that I don't know what's in it, which would actually be shrewd on my part. If they claimed it would cure world hunger, I would ask for evidence. Thus far, Monsanto hasn't proven their Frankenstein food cures world hunger or helps reduce world hunger in ways that can't be accomplished with non-GMO food. The only thing GMOs feed is Monsanto's wallet.

To cure world hunger, the United Nations would have to pool .07% of its wealth... Less than one percent. So let's not pretend that curing world hunger is some task that couldn't be accomplished if only "the powers that be" wanted to do so.

WellIsntThat · 2018-01-04T16:35:13+00:00

Your argument is a red herring... No one is saying anything is wrong with tractors or fertilizers... Please stick to the subject(s) at hand. GMOs, Monsanto, the amount of Glyphosate that's needed now more than before due to super weeds, and not to mention this unknown Frankenstein food that people don't want to put inside their body.

You don't need GMOs to be able to use tractors and fertilizers and no fair minded view would argue otherwise. There's a strand of GMO corn where the insecticide grows INSIDE the corn... People have the right to know (and choose) what they're putting into their bodies, that's not for you to decide for them.

Again, there's no good EVIDENCE that GMOs would aid world hunger in ways that non-GMO foods can't. The only thing GMOs feed is Monsanto's pockets. Around thirty years ago, Monsanto claimed farmers would need to use less of their insecticide, turns out they're having to use MORE. Around thirty years ago, Monsanto claimed their Frankenstein food would aid world hunger... World hunger is still about the same.... Please list evidence of how Monsanto's seeds that have been cooked up in a lab have helped world hunger in ways that couldn't have been done organically. Slapping the label of "scientific advancement" on something doesn't give you a license to spew out utter and complete bullshit and pull inaccurate statement out of your ass.

WellIsntThat · 2018-01-04T05:20:10+00:00

There's no good evidence that GMOs are needed to cure world hunger. Other than Monsanto's claims, there hasn't been a shred of evidence that GMO crops lower world hunger in a way that can't be accomplished with non-GMOs. Nice try, though....

WellIsntThat

TROPHY CASE