It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Follies of Activism

page: 24
<< 21  22  23   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 03:39 PM
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

he criticised me for preventing a business (Monsanto) from legitimate trade. It may well have been 'legitimate'

When a company sues farmers for patent violation and theft AND extracts a licensing fee from the victim by their own crops cross pollinating the farmers neighbouring properties then I say Monsanto deserves to rot in hell.

Maybe a "legitimate" illegitimate bastard is what he meant. LOL

The court cases are public record.

posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 04:01 PM
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The arguments you deem "proper" are in black & white in this very thread, by your own hand. Anything else to you is word salad.

If they were so good for you the corporations wouldn't fight tooth and nail to have labelling hide their inclusion. Are you sure you're well versed on the subject?

To which you responded

Yes, I've looked into the subject, and am willing to hear any counterevidence on the subject so long as it doesn't come from some nut-case's blog.

I've quoted the UN...please direct me to some scientific studies proving the long term effects on humans as being benign

posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 04:13 PM
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Banning? I think he said he stopped privatisation through exposing fraud, here refresh your memory

False argument. Stopped my previous employer, a University, from going Private by uncovering the stealth Privatisation, asking legal opinion, submitting it to editor of The Times, exposing £750m money laundering in Cyprus, Sri Lanka and Thailand, illegal weapons development for a nation gyuilty of war crimes for using said weapon and money laundering by the Cypriot Telecoms firm CYTA. Was all done without detection despite attracting attention of Intel.

posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 04:23 PM
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well Union Carbide associated with the right people it buy off and ultimately lost in India when they couldn't get the right people in the USA to build such a factory in the 1st place.

You're making this too easy. =psy-ab.1.0.0i71k1l8.

In December 1984, a Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, leaked over forty tons of the poisonous gas methyl isocyanate into the community surrounding the plant. ... In 1989 the Indian Supreme Court approved a settlement of the civil claims against Union Carbide for $470 million.

Who speaks for the 8000 dead?

When Capital punishment is enacted for criminal or gross negligence causing death or injury then maybe directors will change their behaviour.

posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 04:28 PM
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

No he was fighting a statist government. Your allegiance seems to be towards a Statist government somehow evolving through incremental internal change to become benevolent or altruistic. History has shown that rarely happens.

posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 04:44 PM
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Good to see Bees are on the rise in Canada. Now back to my argument - if GMOs were so benign why the subterfuge, where is the education of the populace by Monsanto as to the benefits of GMO? 7769/

An overwhelming majority of Canadians believe that Genetically-Modified (GM) food should be labelled. But agri-food corporations don't want consumers to know their food is genetically-engineered.

Why? Because they know that most people would buy non-GMO food given the choice, and not simply because they suspect non-GMO food is healthier, but also because they are aware that most GM crops are altered to tolerate pesticides, and that growing GM crops invariably leads to increased pesticide use over time (especially the use of Monsanto-owned “glyphosphate,” which the UN has ruled is “probably” carcinogenic). Consumers also realize GM technology and seeds are owned and controlled by a handful of transnational corporations, such as Monsanto, and they would much rather support a less industrialized and chemical-intensive method of food production.

Despite very valid reasons for wanting a choice, Liberal and Conservative governments have consistentlydenied consumers that freedom, always siding with corporations by defeating Private Member Bills to label GM foods. For example, in 2008, the Conservative government under Stephen Harper defeated such a Bill (C-517) at second reading.

How are private members bills coercion?

posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 04:59 PM
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It took a Toyota employee whistleblowers to bring Toyota to task over the deaths due to sticky accelerators.

Where was the Government in picking up the statistical anomaly.

You are for no Government enforced safety standards in vehicles?

posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 05:03 PM
a reply to: bastion

Notice how he doesn't name those alternatives and yet they are "far better", and yet you were successful through persistent lawful means.

there are far better avenues of fighting fracking that do not involve coercion and attempting to limit the rights of others, such as providing an alternative.

posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 05:15 PM
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I will do it the free market way, like an adult, by providing alternatives, not by stamping my feet and chanting and dancing in drum circles, demanding from the government that they limit another's freedoms so I can feel protected.

Free Market LOL

Tell me how the this imaginary true free market stopped the lobbyists pushing for the repeal of Glass Steagall that lead to the financial crisis of 2008 with the taxpayer being forced to pick up the bill?

"Too Big To Fail"–Steagall:_aftermath_of_repeal#Glass–Steagall_"repeal"_and_the_financial_crisis

Glass–Steagall "repeal" and the financial crisis Robert Kuttner, Joseph Stiglitz, Elizabeth Warren, Robert Weissman, Richard D. Wolff and others have tied Glass–Steagall repeal to the late-2000s financial crisis. Kuttner acknowledged "de facto inroads" before Glass–Steagall "repeal" but argued the GLBA's "repeal" had permitted "super-banks" to "re-enact the same kinds of structural conflicts of interest that were endemic in the 1920s," which he characterized as "lending to speculators, packaging and securitizing credits and then selling them off, wholesale or retail, and extracting fees at every step along the way."[44] Stiglitz argued "the most important consequence of Glass–Steagall repeal" was in changing the culture of commercial banking so that the "bigger risk" culture of investment banking "came out on top."[45] He also argued the GLBA "created ever larger banks that were too big to be allowed to fail," which "provided incentives for excessive risk taking.

Bernanke and Paulson stomped their feet before Congress.

posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 05:17 PM
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

You would have saved us all some time had you read your own source.

8. Are GM foods safe?

Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.


And more:

Although about 90 percent of scientists believe G.M.O.s are safe — a view endorsed by the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the World Health Organization — only slightly more than a third of consumers share this belief.

Are GMO Foods Safe

Guess which category you fall in.

Look, I cannot keep up with your gish gallop. If you want to converse about something, let's do it.
edit on 13-6-2018 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 05:25 PM
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Activists with signs

Parisian revolutionaries and mutinous troops storm and dismantle the Bastille, a royal fortress and prison that had come to symbolize the tyranny of the Bourbon monarchs. This dramatic action signaled the beginning of the French Revolution, a decade of political turmoil and terror in which King Louis XVI was overthrown and tens of thousands of people, including the king and his wife Marie-Antoinette, were executed.

which lead to the modern freedoms you enjoy.

The French Revolution had a major impact on Europe and the New World. Historians widely regard the Revolution as one of the most important events in human history.[1][2][3] In the short-term, France lost thousands of her countrymen in the form of émigrés, or emigrants who wished to escape political tensions and save their lives.

At least Canada has a Bill Of Rights, unlike us dumb asses in Oz

edit on 13-6-2018 by TheConstruKctionofLight because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 21  22  23   >>

log in