View Poll Results: Your vote on this proposal would be?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    9 20.45%
  • no

    25 56.82%
  • no, but I would vote yes on labeling

    8 18.18%
  • undecided

    2 4.55%
Page 3 of 23 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 224

Thread: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

  1. #21
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,143

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    You have absolutely no idea what science is and is not capable of. Nobody does. And it'll continue being that way as long as we allow anti-science legislation like this to exist.

    Not to mention anti-science legislation that is chock-full of the words "god" and "the creator".
    Uh. What the hell are you talking about?

    All I said was that he is wrong that we don't have enough food, and why he is wrong, and GMO's aren't going to help with that anyway, even if we WERE short on food.

    Unless you can invent a crop that breaks the laws of physics by generating its own matter from nowhere, GMO's can't fix all the soil problems inherent to the way we farm. "Science" as a larger whole may be capable of it, but our current methods are not.

    Beyond that, anyone who rejects any limitations on the use of science en masse either hasn't thought about it, or has no ethics and no respect for any kind of life. Would you be ok with science using live human subjects to test the lethality of ammunition?

    If you say "no," you are in favor of limiting science.

    If you say "yes," I am frightened for those around you.

  2. #22
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,559

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Uh. What the hell are you talking about?

    All I said was that he is wrong that we don't have enough food, and why he is wrong, and GMO's aren't going to help with that anyway, even if we WERE short on food.

    Unless you can invent a crop that breaks the laws of physics by generating its own matter from nowhere, GMO's can't fix all the soil problems inherent to the way we farm. "Science" as a larger whole may be capable of it, but our current methods are not.

    Beyond that, anyone who rejects any limitations on the use of science en masse either hasn't thought about it, or has no ethics and no respect for any kind of life. Would you be ok with science using live human subjects to test the lethality of ammunition?

    If you say "no," you are in favor of limiting science.

    If you say "yes," I am frightened for those around you.
    We're not talking about putting restrictions on research, we're talking about completely eliminating the entire genetic engineering sector, which is exactly what this bill did for the state of California.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  3. #23
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,143

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    We're not talking about putting restrictions on research, we're talking about completely eliminating the entire genetic engineering sector, which is exactly what this bill did for the state of California.
    And I said nothing about the bill itself, did I? So why are you all Rambo at me?

    By the by, methods of research are a vital component of science.

  4. #24
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,559

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    And I said nothing about the bill itself, did I? So why are you all Rambo at me?

    By the by, methods of research are a vital component of science.
    I'm not rambo, I'm just pointing it out. I can understand legislation that limits the methods used in research, but to cut it out altogether because a few people fear we're playing god is outrageous. (I'm not saying you said that, just that this bill is saying that)
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  5. #25
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    No, it's stupid.
    I understand the risk of GMO, I just think that they're minor when compared to the benefits.

    Hybridization does the same thing, that GMO does.
    It combines favorable genetics, which produces a superior product.

    Although hybrid plants are less specific.
    And yes, I know that GMO processes use outer species genes to make the finished product.
    All I have to say is, SFW.

    Your wanted legislation is just another chicken little, in the science world.
    Oh Harry, maybe this will help you not to resemble that word you insist on using in spite of its spot on description of your knowledge on this topic:


    Differences Between Hybridization and Genetic Modification
    Trevor Caswell
    February 12, 2012

    The difference between Hybridized and Genetically Modified foods is often confusing for people. Many believe that people have been genetically modifying things for thousands of years when in reality we have only been hybridizing. What is the difference and why are the waters so murky? Does the difference even matter or are we just splitting hairs? People are rightly concerned about the safety and healthiness of their foods as can be seen by the increased demand for organic and in this same way we should be concerned about the differences between hybridization and genetically modified organisms (GMO's). Hybridization is a natural process that can be controlled by man while genetic modification is a completely lab-made process that threatens not only the existence of organic foods and thereby our health, but also the sovereignty of people over their food supply.

    Hybridization is a process that has been happening naturally throughout the existence of life on earth. Whenever two plants cross pollinate or when two animals reproduce a form of hybridization occurs. The same process that determines the colour of your eyes or hair is essentially a hybridization. Your DNA remains completely human but dominant and recessive genes that you inherit from your parents produce your specific traits be they tall, short, blue eyed or brown haired. The same thing occurs in nature when two plants from the same family cross pollinate. If a large watery tomato is crossed with a small meaty tomato you mighty luckily end up with a large, meaty tomato. The DNA is still completely a tomato but different characteristics have been triggered. This cross pollination could be made possible by a bee, a backyard farmer with a cotton swab, or even by the wind but as long as the two plants are in the same family it can and does occur naturally. One thing of note about hybridization is that it doesn't always result in a line of the new hybrid that will continue with the same characteristics. For example, seed saved from our new large, meaty tomato may revert to producing plants with the characteristics of it's parents (large, watery or small, meaty) therefore if we continually want our large, meaty tomato we would need to keep cross-pollinating the parents plants in order to get the desired seed. As often as not seed from the hybridized plant will continue to produce the desired outcome and hybridization has led to a great number of the favourite foods we have been growing and eating for centuries.

    Genetic Modification is an entirely man-made procedure where as the name implies, the genetic code of the organism is changed. The genetic change can be made between plants of the same family or by inserting DNA information from a completely different plant (or animal) into the DNA of another. Once made the new change is dominant and forever and any descendants from the organism will carry the modification within their DNA. It is important to understand that the changes made in genetic modification become dominate traits and that if a natural cross-pollination occurs via the wind, or by a bee, etc. between the GMO and a non-GMO plant the resulting plant will be genetically modified- there is no going back. How the new genetic information is placed into the DNA is also incredibly important as to do so they need a vector (or carrier) and what they use is either bacteria or a virus and this bacteria or virus remains as part of the new DNA passed down from generation to generation (except in the case of a genetic modification resulting in Terminator Seeds which are completely infertile). If we go back to using tomato's as an example, in order to make a frost resistant type, the anti-freeze transgene from a Winter Flounder (yes, a fish) was placed into the DNA of a tomato via bacteria. Other modifications are made to make plants resistant to certain herbicides but one result has been that the weeds we wanted to rid ourselves of with the herbicides have now also mutated and become resistant Super Weeds. One final note of importance regarding genetically modified seed is that they are patented and owned by corporations, making it no longer legal for individuals to save seed or share seed with their neighbours from one harvest to the next.

    It's in the interest of certain corporations to keep the differences between hybridization and genetic modification muddy. The misinformed view that we have been genetically modifying things for centuries helps create an atmosphere of nonchalance. The fact is that there is a huge difference between the two and that genetic modification has the potential to have disastrous effects on our future food health and supplies as well as the loss of food sovereignty from individuals to corporations while hybridized foods pose no hazard to any of these things. Genetically modified seed is sold to us under the guises of higher yields which has proven to be untrue, and less use of pesticides which has also proven to be untrue and as Grandma always says "if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is".

  6. #26
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by DNAprotection View Post
    Oh Harry, maybe this will help you not to resemble that word you insist on using in spite of its spot on description of knowledge on this topic:


    Differences Between Hybridization and Genetic Modification
    Trevor Caswell
    February 12, 2012

    The difference between Hybridized and Genetically Modified foods is often confusing for people. Many believe that people have been genetically modifying things for thousands of years when in reality we have only been hybridizing. What is the difference and why are the waters so murky? Does the difference even matter or are we just splitting hairs? People are rightly concerned about the safety and healthiness of their foods as can be seen by the increased demand for organic and in this same way we should be concerned about the differences between hybridization and genetically modified organisms (GMO's). Hybridization is a natural process that can be controlled by man while genetic modification is a completely lab-made process that threatens not only the existence of organic foods and thereby our health, but also the sovereignty of people over their food supply.

    Hybridization is a process that has been happening naturally throughout the existence of life on earth. Whenever two plants cross pollinate or when two animals reproduce a form of hybridization occurs. The same process that determines the colour of your eyes or hair is essentially a hybridization. Your DNA remains completely human but dominant and recessive genes that you inherit from your parents produce your specific traits be they tall, short, blue eyed or brown haired. The same thing occurs in nature when two plants from the same family cross pollinate. If a large watery tomato is crossed with a small meaty tomato you mighty luckily end up with a large, meaty tomato. The DNA is still completely a tomato but different characteristics have been triggered. This cross pollination could be made possible by a bee, a backyard farmer with a cotton swab, or even by the wind but as long as the two plants are in the same family it can and does occur naturally. One thing of note about hybridization is that it doesn't always result in a line of the new hybrid that will continue with the same characteristics. For example, seed saved from our new large, meaty tomato may revert to producing plants with the characteristics of it's parents (large, watery or small, meaty) therefore if we continually want our large, meaty tomato we would need to keep cross-pollinating the parents plants in order to get the desired seed. As often as not seed from the hybridized plant will continue to produce the desired outcome and hybridization has led to a great number of the favourite foods we have been growing and eating for centuries.

    Genetic Modification is an entirely man-made procedure where as the name implies, the genetic code of the organism is changed. The genetic change can be made between plants of the same family or by inserting DNA information from a completely different plant (or animal) into the DNA of another. Once made the new change is dominant and forever and any descendants from the organism will carry the modification within their DNA. It is important to understand that the changes made in genetic modification become dominate traits and that if a natural cross-pollination occurs via the wind, or by a bee, etc. between the GMO and a non-GMO plant the resulting plant will be genetically modified- there is no going back. How the new genetic information is placed into the DNA is also incredibly important as to do so they need a vector (or carrier) and what they use is either bacteria or a virus and this bacteria or virus remains as part of the new DNA passed down from generation to generation (except in the case of a genetic modification resulting in Terminator Seeds which are completely infertile). If we go back to using tomato's as an example, in order to make a frost resistant type, the anti-freeze transgene from a Winter Flounder (yes, a fish) was placed into the DNA of a tomato via bacteria. Other modifications are made to make plants resistant to certain herbicides but one result has been that the weeds we wanted to rid ourselves of with the herbicides have now also mutated and become resistant Super Weeds. One final note of importance regarding genetically modified seed is that they are patented and owned by corporations, making it no longer legal for individuals to save seed or share seed with their neighbours from one harvest to the next.

    It's in the interest of certain corporations to keep the differences between hybridization and genetic modification muddy. The misinformed view that we have been genetically modifying things for centuries helps create an atmosphere of nonchalance. The fact is that there is a huge difference between the two and that genetic modification has the potential to have disastrous effects on our future food health and supplies as well as the loss of food sovereignty from individuals to corporations while hybridized foods pose no hazard to any of these things. Genetically modified seed is sold to us under the guises of higher yields which has proven to be untrue, and less use of pesticides which has also proven to be untrue and as Grandma always says "if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is".
    Ah yes, the naturalistic fallacy.
    You know, rattle snake venom is natural, why don't you inject that into your blood stream.
    Shouldn't cause any harm.

    Clearly this article is without bias.......
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  7. #27
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    I'm not rambo, I'm just pointing it out. I can understand legislation that limits the methods used in research, but to cut it out altogether because a few people fear we're playing god is outrageous. (I'm not saying you said that, just that this bill is saying that)
    Hey genius, the proposal does no such thing...maybe you should read stuff before leaping to conclusions?
    Sec 3(c) allows for continued medical research and applications in strictly controlled environments etc, as it should be when using technologies that you dont fully understand as of yet.

  8. #28
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Ah yes, the naturalistic fallacy.
    You know, rattle snake venom is natural, why don't you inject that into your blood stream.
    Shouldn't cause any harm.

    Clearly this article is without bias.......

    Harry you can remain that word which you have such an attachment to, or you can read and understand the proposal for what it is and what it is not, what it is not is a proposal that effects 'hybrids', on the other hand it is a proposal that effects GMO's...is that within your intellectual grasp or have I set the apple to high on the shelf again?

  9. #29
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by DNAprotection View Post
    Harry you can remain that word which you have such an attachment to, or you can read and understand the proposal for what it is and what it is not, what it is not is a proposal that effects 'hybrids', on the other hand it is a proposal that effects GMO's...is that within your intellectual grasp or have I set the apple to high on the shelf again?
    I know they are different and at the same time, similar.
    You're assuming, at least as far as that paper you pushed goes, that natural equates to good/right/correct/whatever.

    I don't care if fish genes are inserted into any other plant/animal, to reach the desired effect.
    It doesn't bother me in the least.

    A lot of the hullabaloo behind GMO's, is similar to the anti vacciners, anti irradiation groups, etc.
    I simply don't care to read your biased material and fear based propaganda.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  10. #30
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    From the bill you posted:



    This makes all genetic engineering of any kind completely illegal in california. And you want to try to say it doesn't impede science? Get out of town, clown.
    Silly Rabid, tricks are for corps...the quest for profit initiates the scientific processes in the USA and then before the science is complete the motive for profit supplants the need for complete science thereby making your assessment backwards from reality. Stop the profit faucet and do the science first, that's what the proposal demands through its regulative devices.

Page 3 of 23 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •