Thai farmers protest against bill on GMO farming

[GuestHouse]

I'm not moving the gold posts, I'm fixing them in the ground so that we both know what we are discussing

Have a look at the list again.

[jdlancaster]

I looked at the list... the range of issues is everyone you stated from food security to risk

[jdlancaster]

And to be clear I don't consider them issues as in... they are equal to debate. . Theyve been settled. .. just need you to pick a side

[jdlancaster]

And support your argument with data....

[GuestHouse]

And to be clear I don't consider them issues as in... they are equal to debate. . Theyve been settled. .. just need you to pick a side

I don't even want us to discuss have they been settled or not, rather do you agree these are amongst the range of issues that are voiced by both sides of the GMO debate.

1.Yes they are amongst the range of issues discussed by both sides of the GMO debate.

2.No they are not amongst the range of issues discussed by both sides of the GMO debate.

[jdlancaster]

Start at top of your list with food security. .. gmos a positive or negative? Then work your way down. State your position. .. and no.... none of the reasons you picked are legit worries about with gmos. ... but its ok.... ull avoid taking a position. ... because then ud have to support it

[GuestHouse]

Start at top of your list with food security. .. gmos a positive or negative? Then work your way down. State your position. .. and no.... none of the reasons you picked are legit worries about with gmos. ... but its ok.... ull avoid taking a position. ... because then ud have to support it

I did not ask you are they legitimate worries, I asked you if these are issues commonly raised in the discussion of GMO by both sides of the debate.

I also said, putting aside the right or wrong.

Simply are these issues amongst those commonly raised? (even if you disagree with what other people say about the issues).

If we can agree the list then I shall give my first concern for us to discuss.

[jdlancaster]

The list is whatever you consider it to be.... what people discuss is irrelevant. ... Iran debates the existence of the Holocaust.... doesn't mean it didn't happen ... I stated my opinion already on gmos.... you state yours... ive asked you since the beginning. .. any argument u want to use is fine by me... youve only used logical fallacies so far

[GuestHouse]

The list is whatever you consider it to be.... what people discuss is irrelevant. ... Iran debates the existence of the Holocaust.... doesn't mean it didn't happen ... I stated my opinion already on gmos.... you state yours... ive asked you since the beginning. .. any argument u want to use is fine by me... youve only used logical fallacies so far

JDL, your a scientist, we are focusing on a specific issue, we don't need to go off on a tangent discussing what Iran gets up to.

Do you agree the issues I listed are amongst those raised on both sides of the GMO debate? (I'm not asking you to verify the concerns of the people who raise these issues are correct or not, simply are these amongst the issues?)

[GuestHouse]

A simple yes or no JDL, then we can move on.

[optad]

Hide the xanax

[jdlancaster]

Your asking a loaded question that your preparing to use for a logical fallacy... but to answeryour question... idk if its on both sides of the debate or if there is one unless you present the arguments first... I don't think there is a real debate because you haven't presented any arguments for your position. ..I don't know if they exist and therefore cannot answer your question prior to you stating your position. .. then when there are two sides to the argument then I can answer.... so far I only see one and therefore it is not a debate

[jdlancaster]

An argument is defined (in a debate)as an opinion that is supported with evidence. Debatesare based upon arguments. I thought id thow that in there to preempt avoiding stating your arguments

[attrayant]

In your post #89:

In this post and a few others you keep raising the specter of the uncertainty of scientific knowledge. Even though you haven't used the words "precautionary principle" in the above quote, that is the appeal you're making - it's the basis for your "point of objection" in your last sentence. If you're not invoking the PP when you talk about knowledge gaps, then what are you talking about?

Oh dear Atty... What's this now.. Are you now arguing against the words that you yourself admit I "haven't used"?

If you want to know what I mean in my post #89, read it again.

It's like taking to Donald Trump.

Reporter: Mr Trump, how are you going to improve the economy?

Trump: You tell me!

Your position is unintelligible, which is why people keep asking you to clarify it. Telling them to re-read the same muddy post is not helpful (it's helpful to you, I suppose since you can continue to obfuscate).

[GuestHouse]

Your asking a loaded question that your preparing to use for a logical fallacy... but to answeryour question... idk if its on both sides of the debate or if there is one unless you present the arguments first... I don't think there is a real debate because you haven't presented any arguments for your position. ..I don't know if they exist and therefore cannot answer your question prior to you stating your position. .. then when there are two sides to the argument then I can answer.... so far I only see one and therefore it is not a debate

That is a startling claim.

[optad]

What are Donald Trumps views on GMOs?

[GuestHouse]

JDL appears to be rather timid and insecure in his scientific answer. He can't even agree to accept that a list of issues are commonly raised by both sides of the debate (even where I explicitly state I'm not asking him to agree the right or wrong of the issues).

A man with solid 'scientific' arguments would not see these issues a problem. Perhaps JDL is not so confident in his science.

-----

So lets try Attrayant,

Attrayant,

Putting aside arguments about the veracity of claims by the pro and anti GMO camps (and of course assuming that people may be decided as simply pro or anti GMO).

Let us just examine some of the claimed impacts

Food safety, Bio Diversity, Economic, Nutritional, Food security, Access to seeds, Social, Equality of access, Global markets, Local markets, Ethics of owning a gene, small scale and subsistence farming, traditional crop products, GMO contamination to other strains of same species, liability and of course risk.

Without even discussing the extent or even existence of these impacts, these are impacts which are frequently discussed in relation to GMO and which even if we do not agree with the positive/negative view of any one of these issues, we most of us will agree these are amongst the many issues and benefits, concerns or fears raised.

Do you agree?

[jdlancaster]

I answered your question. .. no... as you no arguments have been presented on the antigmo side.... so we are not in agreement. .... you can put me in agreement by presenting an argument. ... as of right now no argument has been presented on the side of the antigmos... that is the basis of any debate or policy discussion. .... so again we are not in agreement based on the academic definitions

[GuestHouse]

OK, thank you JDL.

You've given your answer as No.

It took a while but we got there. So while you made me wait so long for a simple answer, I hope you'll forgive me if I come back with my argument later today. I have a full day with my thesis supervisor over at the department of mathematics, so I'll be a bit busy but I will make some time to give you the attention you seek.

Meanwhile, I'm glad you concede

that is the basis of any debate or policy discussion. .... so again we are not in agreement based on the academic definitions

[jdlancaster]

Concede? Ya .... um... ok? I just disagreed with you.. or did I? Because you're incapable of putting argumt together. ... I've been asking for one since the beginning. ... all I do is wait...(you promised several pages ago) this is a one sided discussion. .. all of the arguments are on the progmo side... some antigmo claims have been made... but claims arent included in debates or discussion with evidence. . Any debater knows ive won by default. .. you amaze me... you have to be a troll... to conaciously avoid stating a position .... I find it difficult to believe you are serious

[GuestHouse]

JDL,

I've explained. I have a busy day today. As it happens doing real science in a real university in the company of real scientists.

I'll give you the attention you crave at lunch time.

And don't prejudge the argument I shall present, it is neither anti or pro GMO.

[jdlancaster]

Yes... good luck with thesis in engineering... or math... or science whichever you are doing ... I can't remember. ..

[GuestHouse]

Yes... good luck with thesis in engineering... or math... or science whichever you are doing ... I can't remember. ..

Or you don't understand that an engineer might write a thesis founded in science and mathematics?

And you 'a scientist'. Curiouser and curiouser!

But thanks for the best wishes, academic research is tough, best wishes from someone who's been through the mill themselves is much apreciated.

Edited December 15, 2015 by GuestHouse

[jdlancaster]

Never said that.. just don't know what your thesis is on... you didn't say.... so I didn't want to guess... im not an engineer. . So I really don't know what you do all day with a thesis chair in the mathematics department. ... I don't care to speculate....

[GuestHouse]

Since you are eager to get started, let's adress your denial of the issues I listed (that you do not accept are issues raised on both sides of the debate and for which you make the unequivical claim at # 183 "they are not equal to debate . They've been settled" )

This is a curious claim because the accademic litterature is filled with thousands of papers and open discussion on the impact of GMO on the issues I listed.

As a scientist you will have access to research databases, I suggest science direct as an example. Papers discussing these issues are recorded in their catalogue.

Other TVF members may not have access to academic libraries but can confirm the presence of the issues I listed by simple internet searches.

The issues I listed are present in the accademic and public discourse of GMO.

And why would they not be, the positive claims for GMO are remarkable, we can expect they would have (like all step changes in technology) have far reaching and wide impact across societies, economies, comunities. nations and global markets.

GMO is a powerful technology it has powerful affects.

But to my question on these issues you declined acceptance despite the evidence they are smongst the issues raised on both sides of the debate.

A curious denial for a scientist.

[jdlancaster]

I do have access... and I have posted multiple peer reviewed journal articles showing the benefits of gmos.... the articles are all on one side.... the side of gmos... you again avoid posting an argument and supporting it.... issue is defined as an important topic for debate or discussion. ... there is no debate or discussion because there is no evidence has been presented here against gmos

Edited December 15, 2015 by jdlancaster

[GuestHouse]

I'm presenting my argument.

I've started by, with your help, demonstrating your denial and dismissal of issues relating to GMO by both sides of the debate.

So we have established a couple of facts.

1.The issues I mentioned do exist in bothe sides of the discourse on GMO.

2. You deny and dismiss these issues.

With the help of your own words we are getting along nicely.

Edited December 15, 2015 by GuestHouse

[jdlancaster]

You have established nothing... in order for you to establish something it would require you to make a claim and then support it with evidence. .. you are avoiding making a claim again.... there are no issues.... you present no evidence.... listen... I understand. ... there is no evidence against gmos.... I get it... you have no evidence to show... I was hoping you could show me something but you can't. ..

[jdlancaster]

What is this nonsensical babble you are sputtering. ....? What are you claiming for or against gmos? Nothing you say makes sense.. gmos are safe .... and good for the economy save lives andgood for farmers.... thats my claim restated. .... nobody knows whatbyou are talking about.... you are implying things are in a debate because people talk about them? Thats what it aounds like.... I know its not what you mean.... but its what you are saying.... I talk about many things... and they surely aren't debates.... you don't make any sense.... give me a thesis statement or something. ...

[GuestHouse]

Sorry JDL.

We don't agree, so lets lay out our cases and leave it to our peers (other TVF members to review and come to their own concludions)

We can at least lay out our discussions in a poite and non abusive manner - I'm sure you will agree.

I'll contunue my case at lunchtime.

Edited December 15, 2015 by GuestHouse