• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Veganism makes me feel amoral

CLAX1911 said:
People would care.

Geneticly modified food has been around for centuries.

Those "pesticides" are part of the DNA molecule, just amino acids that the rest of the corn DNA is made of. It is in the kernels.

Um...okay.

Not sure why.


What?
Click to expand...

"Geneticly modified food has been around for centuries."

No, humans have not been introducing genes from one organism into another for centuries.
 
CLAX1911 said:
People would care.

Geneticly modified food has been around for centuries.
Click to expand...

THis is the logical fallacy known as 'equivocation', which is making the equivalent of selective breeding with what a GMO is, which is taking a gene and slicing it into another organism.
 
Fenton Lum said:
"Geneticly modified food has been around for centuries."

No, humans have not been introducing genes from one organism into another for centuries.
Click to expand...

Well yes they have. It may not have been as sophisticated as it is now, how do you think we have all of these different types of tomatoes?
 
RAMOSS said:
THis is the logical fallacy known as 'equivocation', which is making the equivalent of selective breeding with what a GMO is, which is taking a gene and slicing it into another organism.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. To modify the genetics of an organism it simply needs to reproduce. I'm a hybrid of my mother and father. The act of modifying genetics is exactly how evolution occurs.

Genetic engineering is what makes people cringy. It seems a bit of an over reaction. Take BT corn for example. They added a genetic sequence found in a species of bacteria. They labeled it endotoxin. This was a very specific gene that targeted a type of caterpillar. There is nothing to suggest it even harms other insects such as beetles and bees. Much less fish, cattle, chickens, or humans. It was an effort to use less pesticide.

So the fear of it seems misplaced.
 
CLAX1911 said:
No it isn't. To modify the genetics of an organism it simply needs to reproduce. I'm a hybrid of my mother and father. The act of modifying genetics is exactly how evolution occurs.

Genetic engineering is what makes people cringy. It seems a bit of an over reaction. Take BT corn for example. They added a genetic sequence found in a species of bacteria. They labeled it endotoxin. This was a very specific gene that targeted a type of caterpillar. There is nothing to suggest it even harms other insects such as beetles and bees. Much less fish, cattle, chickens, or humans. It was an effort to use less pesticide.

So the fear of it seems misplaced.
Click to expand...

But, that is not the definition of a GMO. That is an equivocation. I am not saying all GMO's are bad..but it is different between a GMO and selective breeding.
 
RAMOSS said:
But, that is not the definition of a GMO.
Click to expand...
If we go by what the words "genetic" "modification" and "organism" actually mean, yes it is. The reason the species stopped being primitive apelike creatures into higher thinking homosapieans was through the modification of genes.
That is an equivocation.
Click to expand...
Again no it's not. It's a more in depth description of the words represented by GMO. GMO has entered the lexicon to mean genetically engineered organisms. Lexicon isn't prescriptive it is descriptive.

So yes that damn sure is a definition of GMO and no it isn't equivocation.

If you are going to prattle about it being an equivocation again I'm going to ask you to explain why the first bit of my response is incorrect. If you can't prove it incorrect it isn't an equivocation.

I am not saying all GMO's are bad..but it is different between a GMO and selective breeding.
Click to expand...
no there isn't selective breeding modifies genetics that's the point. Is there is a difference between that genetic engineering
 
CLAX1911 said:
If we go by what the words "genetic" "modification" and "organism" actually mean, yes it is. The reason the species stopped being primitive apelike creatures into higher thinking homosapieans was through the modification of genes. Again no it's not. It's a more in depth description of the words represented by GMO. GMO has entered the lexicon to mean genetically engineered organisms. Lexicon isn't prescriptive it is descriptive.

So yes that damn sure is a definition of GMO and no it isn't equivocation.

If you are going to prattle about it being an equivocation again I'm going to ask you to explain why the first bit of my response is incorrect. If you can't prove it incorrect it isn't an equivocation.

no there isn't selective breeding modifies genetics that's the point. Is there is a difference between that genetic engineering
Click to expand...

Yet, the way that it is used in the agricultural and biological community is organisms that are modified via the technique of gene splicing, not through breeding.. so, like I said, you are using the logical fallacy known as equivocation.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism

A genetically modified organism (GMO) is any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques (i.e., a genetically engineered organism). GMOs are used to produce many medications and genetically modified foods and are widely used in scientific research and the production of other goods. The term GMO is very close to the technical legal term, 'living modified organism', defined in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which regulates international trade in living GMOs (specifically, "any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology").

A more specifically defined type of GMO is a "transgenic organism." This is an organism whose genetic makeup has been altered by the addition of genetic material from an unrelated organism. This should not be confused with the more general way in which "GMO" is used to classify genetically altered organisms, as typically GMOs are organisms whose genetic makeup has been altered without the addition of genetic material from an unrelated organism.
Click to expand...
 
RAMOSS said:
Yet, the way that it is used in the agricultural and biological community is organisms that are modified via the technique of gene splicing, not through breeding..
Click to expand...
Thank you for recognising that selective breeding is a form of genetic modification. And yes there are more sophisticated ways of modifying genetics.

so, like I said, you are using the logical fallacy known as equivocation.
Click to expand...
Okay, so prove selective breeding doesn't modify genetics.

After you admitted selective breeding does alter genes just above, I can only assume you don't know what false equivocation means.

The only fallacy you would have been correct in accusing me of is misleading through ambiguity. Because GMO has different meanings. However i was not relying on ambiguity because I removed it by explaining what I meant.

So if all you're going to do is crudely accuse me falsely of logical fallacies that you can't even explain the discussion is over.

Way to go crashing the conversation into an intellectual dead end. :peace
 
Fenton Lum said:
"Geneticly modified food has been around for centuries."

No, humans have not been introducing genes from one organism into another for centuries.
Click to expand...

Another thing... humans have been introducing genes from one organism into another for all their existence that's how babies are conceived.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Thank you for recognising that selective breeding is a form of genetic modification. And yes there are more sophisticated ways of modifying genetics.

Okay, so prove selective breeding doesn't modify genetics.

After you admitted selective breeding does alter genes just above, I can only assume you don't know what false equivocation means.

The only fallacy you would have been correct in accusing me of is misleading through ambiguity. Because GMO has different meanings. However i was not relying on ambiguity because I removed it by explaining what I meant.

So if all you're going to do is crudely accuse me falsely of logical fallacies that you can't even explain the discussion is over.

Way to go crashing the conversation into an intellectual dead end. :peace
Click to expand...

Selective breeding changes the frequency of allees over successive generations by chooses to breed for specific traits . It does not use bioengineering to introduce a gene to the offspring artificially.
 
RAMOSS said:
Selective breeding changes the frequency of allees over successive generations by chooses to breed for specific traits . It does not use bioengineering to introduce a gene to the offspring artificially.
Click to expand...
I never said it did use bioengineering. I said it modifies the genetics of the organism.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I never said it did use bioengineering. I said it modifies the genetics of the organism.
Click to expand...

And, that is where the equivocation lies, because the typical definition is that GMO's use bioengineering.. and your example and time frame does not.
 
RAMOSS said:
And, that is where the equivocation lies,
Click to expand...
No It isn't. Argumentum ad nausium is a logical fallacy.

because the typical definition is that GMO's use bioengineering..
Click to expand...
Once again at best you could say I was misleading using ambiguity at this point however I am not because I pointed out I removed the ambiguity by explaining how I meant it.

You assumed, that isn't my fallacy.
 
Veganism makes me feel amoral
Click to expand...
Consumer demand from outlets like McDonald's and your local butcher shop is the economic engine that sustains huge cattle herds in the U.S.

Purdue and other poultry producers raise chickens cheek by jowl in buildings the size of aircraft hangars.

Without the consumer demand for this "food" millions of these creatures would never have lived.

So which is the greater inhumanity?

- To raise these stocks to maturity of slaughter? Or

- for them never to have existed at all, in a purely vegetarian world?

And then, what would we make shoes, belts, and wallets out of?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom