14-year-old anti GMO teen schools ignorant TV host

Originally posted by Phage
Yes. That certainly was an ignorant TV host. What a surprise.
Usually TV hosts are highly intelligent and well informed.

edit on 8/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Thanks for the morning chuckle. I love your sarcasm.

Toward the end of the interview O'Leary suggests that Rachel is a shill for the "anti-GMO crowd" (not sure if that's an exact quote but accurate reiteration is not O-Leary's strong suit either). He comes across as a shill by continually twisting and misrepresenting Rachel's statements. None of O-Leary's sophist tactics work on this remarkably informed and alert young woman. It appears that Kevin O'Leary and Bill O'Reilly are cast from the same mold. Funny how money talks through the mouths of its servants.

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by IntrinsicMotivation

 

You know GMO foods are helping feed Africa right? Specifically Corn for people and alfalfa for cows, chickens, goats etc.

edit on 7-8-2013 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

The oil in Sudan or Libya's Gold couldn't help divert that? How about all those blood diamonds the populace continues to purchase? Or maybe those Lithium veins they've been finding?

Oppression is waged on all fronts be it food, money, shelter, or rights. This is by design.

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by Oldsguy

 

Considering Monsanto is thriving in Europe I am not sure where you got your information from...

so they are are they, they maybe keeping their conventional seeds going but will no longer purse gm approval.

"Amongst other things, this means we are no longer seeking approval to commercialise biotech seeds in the EU.

A Monsanto spokesman told The Daily Telegraph: "Monsanto´s business in Europe is very strong and growing. In order to better serve farmers in Europe we will be investing several hundred million dollars in Europe over a decade to expand our conventional seed production and breeding.

Major GM food company Monsanto 'pulls out of Europe'

reply to post by raymundoko


I apologize, I am typing from my phone, didn't mean to misquote you, but in essence it was an emotional statement you made, "gmo is feeding Africa."

Like I said, they did this with vaccines, "it is helping them", only to find out it was doing the exact opposite of what we were told.

I would like to believe that there is no evil intentions behind gmo, but unfortunately I am sure there are people in this world that can take something that is meant to help mankind and twist it to be the opposite.

For example:
Controlling food can be a powerful tool for controlling the world and deciding who lives and who does not.
But by all means consume gmo's all you want, that is your choice.

To contribute to the op video, I agree with the girl and feel we should be able to make a choice for ourselves as to what we put into our bodies.

Firstly, I have met and am in contact with Miss Parent and some of her family. What you see is what you get. In my opinion a whole load of awesomeness!

Secondly I am a lowly, nobody, song writer. But just recently, I have been Attacked by Pro-GMOer's about my 4 Min. Music Video Synopsis of the GMO issue. It's called WE WILL ROCK MONSANTO. Just a song n Video!

What I have found is that their tactics, phrases, (phages?) and their insulting (non "lets look for truth together" system of attack) is nearly identical. They get all flummoxed when you insert humour and silliness and they really show their identical training, when you agree with a point or 2 (for fun), and once they realize it, once again they start tripping all over their own words!
For me, when they start to question and criticize the science in my SONG is when I get the biggest laugh and finally I type in big words ARTISTIC LICENCE! They don't know how to respond.(except insults) Just watch for identical phrases, tactics in the same order Tactic 1 then 2 then 3... and you can see they are hired mouths! So until they realize and fix their transparency, we can see them cuz we are wearing the special glasses like Roddy Pipper in Carpenters,"They Live". If you would like, give my Video spin, the link is below. Keep the faith friends!
Ron Fuller

youtu.be...

Originally posted by IntrinsicMotivation
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

I have never declared my stance on the GMO subject, but thanks for jumping the gun and assuming where I stand on the subject.

I do believe my question was specifically for Phage, but thanks for answering for that member too.

My stance on GMO is there is not enough research on long term effects. A proper longitudinal study would be nice, but it is costly and takes time.

Tinfoil, are you someone who gets the latest and newest vaccines? Or do you wait till there is more research on it before you put the substance into your body?

Or another example, a new model car comes out and you buy it, come to find out there are problems with it that are worked out by the next year for this new model. If you would have waited and did the research, you could have saved yourself the trouble.

Do you see my point?

You compared GMO's to eugenics. Eugenics is a means to keep population levels down, GMO's are the exact opposite, they are for sustaining forecasted higher populations. To compare them as equal is the furthest from the truth as possible.

How do you know how long this has been in development and tested already? Do you have the urgency numbers as pertains to the exponential growth of human population, the longer you wait the more people will die from starvation.

As to the question who would be against food for all? The same forces that rely on fomenting discord and dissent to either keep power or gain power. Hungry people are a lot easier to stir up into revolutionary frenzy, and a lot easier to just let starve off. When viewed in this light, anyone against GMOs are akin to population controllers.

Quote from Phage:

I don't think there is convincing evidence that GMOs are harmful and I don't have reason to think there is anything inherently dangerous about them. With that in mind, I see no connection between GMOs and eugenics.

With all do respect, I honestly don't know how to respond to you sometimes Phage??? It would appear that there is a motive behind your resistance in acknowledging the dangers of GMO foods that isn't serving you or anyone even though it is all very obvious to everyone else it seems. I don't understand why you would want to promote such ignorance about something that is directly affecting you and those you love all around you in what is a slow kill process of alteration. Your position seems to be going against the obvious knowledge that as time progresses will continue to be factually proven. Sad thing is that in the mean time we are all suffering the consequences physiologically, genetically, mentally, neurally and even emotionally.

I really am baffled by anyone who takes your stance under the circumstances and especially because of the colossal destruction everything gmo is related to right down to what they are doing to our crops, land, bodies, minds, economy and our entire future in general. There are various studies already that reveal the fatal side effects of gmo's.

I understand the scientific mindset which is beneficial in a questioning to all things asking for validation and proof but I don't understand a clearly defiant ignorance of something that is not only painfully clear but also poses one of the largest threats to our very lives and earth as we know it! Again do not think that any scientific evidence revealing the truth about GMO's may be purposefully altered, hidden, removed or manipulated when considering the economic fortune, companies and politics associated with it all.

Respectfully Phage I really don't understand your motive with regards to your stance in light of what seems obvious to almost everyone who has put some time into researching this. I would really love to see where you are coming from because I am baffled???

I don't want to repeat the things that people can seek for themselves or list scientific dissertations on studies. These links are not scientific studies but serve to expand the knowledge base of information.

Not a scientific paper but informative nonetheless
www.naturalnews.com...

Not a scientific piece but interesting to read
rense.com...

Again - just an informative piece to read
www.activistpost.com...

www.youtube.com...
todayyesterdayandtomorrow.wordpress.com...

reply to post by TinfoilTP


Let’s see here, googled define eugenics and got this

: a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed

And googled define GMO and got this

Genetically engineered plants are generated in a laboratory by altering their genetic makeup and are tested in the laboratory for desired qualities. This is usually done by adding one or more genes to a plant's genome using genetic engineering techniques. Most genetically modified plants are generated by the biolistic method (particle gun) or by Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated transformation.

Both are a science that involves improving an organism, how can you say that they are different?

Same concept, different organism and approach, But same concept!

I think I would rather be safe than sorry.

Last I checked, man has survived a long time without having gmo’s.

There is plenty of food to share with other countries, but are people willing to share instead of letting food go to waste?

The food is available. But people need to agree to distribute to those who don’t’ have.

Rather simple concept, I feel the problem is there are those who might view this as a loss of profit or something along those lines.

If you are an American, you cannot deny the blatant waste of food that happens here.

After eating at an all you can eat buffet and gorging like a pig, look at all that is wasted, then you go home and turn on the tv and see some commercial about children starving and yet nothing changes. I have always felt the world was backwards

The host may have been ignorant, in fact almost Fox-esque. But Jeezo, that girl was annoying as hell, the minute she opened her squeaky pain in the backside mouth.

Originally posted by IntrinsicMotivation
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

Let’s see here, googled define eugenics and got this

: a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed

And googled define GMO and got this

Genetically engineered plants are generated in a laboratory by altering their genetic makeup and are tested in the laboratory for desired qualities. This is usually done by adding one or more genes to a plant's genome using genetic engineering techniques. Most genetically modified plants are generated by the biolistic method (particle gun) or by Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated transformation.

Both are a science that involves improving an organism, how can you say that they are different?

Same concept, different organism and approach, But same concept!

I think I would rather be safe than sorry.

Last I checked, man has survived a long time without having gmo’s.

There is plenty of food to share with other countries, but are people willing to share instead of letting food go to waste?

The food is available. But people need to agree to distribute to those who don’t’ have.

Rather simple concept, I feel the problem is there are those who might view this as a loss of profit or something along those lines.

If you are an American, you cannot deny the blatant waste of food that happens here.

After eating at an all you can eat buffet and gorging like a pig, look at all that is wasted, then you go home and turn on the tv and see some commercial about children starving and yet nothing changes. I have always felt the world was backwards

The numbers of mouths to feed is such a vast number it is hard to physically understand it. There are only so many acres of accessible farmland, the amount of farmland is not increasing exponentially with the human population.

Joe sixpack sitting in his recliner is not going to change the world no matter how many commercials he responds to. It will take technology like gmos to make a difference.

Efficiency in distribution is also needed, along with efficiency in produce per square foot of farmland. The technology is available, its implementation is unstoppable because necessity will demand it.

reply to post by TinfoilTP

Joe sixpack sitting in his recliner is not going to change the world no matter how many commercials he responds to. It will take technology like gmos to make a difference

GMOs will not feed the world. There is more than enough food already. We do not have a food problem we have a distribution problem. The poorer countries grow food that ends up on the global market whilst they starve. Explain how GMOs are going to stop this..

reply to post by TinfoilTP


It's not about having the ability. It's about having the knowledge and the focus. Sure, maybe they can do it - but do they know how to? And is that really what they're trying to do?

I think there's plenty of reason to believe there may be ulterior motives involved.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


What do you mean we don’t have the space to grow?

Humans already came up with a way to house in populated areas by building multi-storied buildings.

Look up vertical growing and tell me again that there is not enough space.

Originally posted by Phage

But you think that isn't part of the script? Big bad man picking on the poor sweet teenager. Great TV. Better than Hannity and Colms. And just as fake.

Do you mean to say it is some sort of media-based conspiracy then? So, it must have been a rehearsed drama simply for the sake of TV ratings? I would have thought a corporation like Monsanto would levy more clout than the amusement value of one evening's ratings.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

Joe sixpack sitting in his recliner is not going to change the world no matter how many commercials he responds to. It will take technology like gmos to make a difference

GMOs will not feed the world. There is more than enough food already. We do not have a food problem we have a distribution problem. The poorer countries grow food that ends up on the global market whilst they starve. Explain how GMOs are going to stop this..

The measly seven billion people that need food today is nothing compared to the 49 billion that will need food in just 50 years from now.
GMO's cannot be stopped anymore than the evil tractor invention could have.

Originally posted by IntrinsicMotivation
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

What do you mean we don’t have the space to grow?

Humans already came up with a way to house in populated areas by building multi-storied buildings.

Look up vertical growing and tell me again that there is not enough space.

GMO's will be used in verticle farming, don't worry.

reply to post by TinfoilTP

You compared GMO's to eugenics. Eugenics is a means to keep population levels down, GMO's are the exact opposite, they are for sustaining forecasted higher populations.

Higher populations of sick people.
In the meantime there is money to be made both in the GMO products, and the health industry.

If I was Prime Minister Kevin O'Leary would get deported and exiled from Canada for life. CBC should be ashamed of putting this guy on television.

That young lady on the other hand showed remarkable composure, carried herself with real integrity and scored a unanimous win in the debate imo. Has a bright future ahead of her would be my guess.

Here's some more classic O'Leary; Chris Hedges interview from the Occupy days. Prepare to roll your eyes, be careful though; they may roll right out of your head with prolonged exposure to O'Leary.



Wish they would at least keep O'leary on Dragon's Den or whatever nonsense show that is and spare the rest of us from having to see his smug arrogant face on the news. Apologies, O'Leary is the epitome of the attitude that drives me crazy. I don't mean to go on and on. He makes me so angry every time he speaks I feel like punching things. Hard.

Who can create the funniest caption. Go to: QuickMeme

What a tool, this guy. Couldn't even look her in the eye after she schooled him on the rice.

14-year old girl - 1
Obnoxious O'Leary - 0

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

The numbers of mouths to feed is such a vast number it is hard to physically understand it. There are only so many acres of accessible farmland, the amount of farmland is not increasing exponentially with the human population.

Efficiency in distribution is also needed, along with efficiency in produce per square foot of farmland. The technology is available, its implementation is unstoppable because necessity will demand it.

You are a typing contradiction in this response and in others. If the problem is too many people then having more food begets more people, creating a larger problem. It is well established that when food is abundant people breed more; just like cockroaches. GMO aside, anything that makes food more readily available to the masses will create more mouths to feed. It is also well established that poorer and lesser educated peoples or countries breed the fastest. So, your advocacy for more food to feed more people is also, unintentionally I am sure, advocating for a larger population of idiots.

Another contradiction is how you continually point out how there is a finite amount of land and no more land for growing can be created but somehow GMOs will solve this problem. Let us assume that GMOs have higher yields (which has yet to be proven outside of theory). While that would create more food per acre there is still a finite amount of acres and no yield can be increase infinitely. This means that either now, or very soon, these theoretical GMOs with higher yields would fail to keep up with the abundance of mouths to feed. How do these theoretical magic beans solve that problem?

The only thing that will cause a reduction in birth rates is a stabilization of resources vs. population. If resources are artificially inflated, in one way or another, then the natural balance is disrupted because there will exist a greater population in an area than would otherwise be there. This would then lead to other problems such as the afore mentioned famine when the GMOs run out; to war; disease; etc...

So, without discussing the safety, or lack thereof, of GMO foods, in the end they really only solve the problem of Monsonto execs not having enough greenbacks in their pockets.