DJS

Joined

• started 9 topics
• posted 2,933 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by DJS

• 
  48

  Evidence based folks: what is your stance on GMO's and why?

  by cappytan in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so, the anti-gmo movement scored another victory today.

  chipotle has opted to only use non-gmo food items.. hooray for them.

  i'm pretty neutral on the subject, mostly because, other than questionable treatment of farmers, i have seen no evidence to avoid gmo's for health reasons.. basically, my neutrality boils down to the stance that i'll buy non-gmo, so long as the price is reasonable.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DJS

  CrazyGuy,

  When you aren't posting videos of KH intrusions you are making ridiculous unsubstantiated, reactionary comments. Your 'friend' is likely full of theist bullshit:

  "According to Food Allergy Research and Education, “nearly any food is capable of causing an allergic reaction.” Most allergens are proteins, and the organization states that ninety percent of food-allergic reactions in the United States are caused by allergens from only eight foods: peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, wheat, soy, shellfish and fish.

  Of those, only soy is commercially available in genetically modified varieties. But if a person is allergic to conventional soy, s/he will also be allergic to GM soy as it is not different compositionally. The Food Allergy Service, maintained by the Institute of Food Research in the United Kingdom, asserts that “to date, no food derived from GMOs has been found to cause new allergies.”

  The AllergenOnline database at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, independently managed by a panel of internationally recognized allergy experts who review and vote on allergen inclusion, does not list any allergens coming from GMOs. The database “lists every known protein that has been shown to cause an allergy and or even might be suspected of possibly causing a reaction,” said Richard Goodman, a food allergy research professor who runs the database at the university. Three main tests are conducted to ensure that any new proteins from GM foods do not cause allergies: in vitro test, in silico test and digestion.

  The in vitro test introduces new proteins into serum from people with existing allergies. The new proteins pass the test if the antibodies in the serum do not attack it. The in silico test compares the new proteins to known allergens, making sure that they are not similar. Finally, digestion involves destroying the proteins with heat, acid and stomach enzymes, going by the rationale that many allergens are resistant to digestion.

  These tests kept the only documented case of a GM soybean that was potentially allergenic off the market. Researchers who tried to improve the nutritional quality of soybeans using a Brazil nut protein realized that they were working with an allergen and immediately stopped the work. This is strong evidence that scientific methods to prevent allergy-causing GMOs from reaching consumers are robust and work."
• 
  118

  "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth . ."

  by nicolaou in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so where did god exist before he created the heavens?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DJS

  Hold Me, "I would recommend all those who believe in God and the Bible to seek other venues for their Bible discussion."

  Since you only recently arrived, it is awfully presumptuous of you to suggest such. If it isn't working out for you so well, perhaps everyone else should stick around and you should leave. Just a thought. As I explained to CalebFromFlorida, evidence is required to make an argument on this site. Perhaps you should find a better venue for you - one that revels in myths, legends, talking snakes and fiery dragons.

  We've ALL done the bible research you are talking about. I immersed myself in that when I was a Dub. Likely, so did Cofty and Viviane and everyone else on this site. It all turned out to be Hebrew spin and nonsense.
• 
  48

  Evidence based folks: what is your stance on GMO's and why?

  by cappytan in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so, the anti-gmo movement scored another victory today.

  chipotle has opted to only use non-gmo food items.. hooray for them.

  i'm pretty neutral on the subject, mostly because, other than questionable treatment of farmers, i have seen no evidence to avoid gmo's for health reasons.. basically, my neutrality boils down to the stance that i'll buy non-gmo, so long as the price is reasonable.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DJS

  20 years,

  Some states have passed such laws.

  And there is a consensus as to the safety of GMO food. To suggest otherwise is to search for the very few antagonists who 'feel' differently. From Scientific American: "The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization and the exceptionally vigilant European Union agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques—which swap giant chunks of DNA between one plant and another—genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, is less likely to produce an unexpected result. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has tested all the GMOs on the market to determine whether they are toxic or allergenic. They are not."

  Based on meta-data studies, GMOs are safe, kinder to the environment and more profitable for farmers. Soon those few extremist reactionaries will be likened to Jenny McCarthy and her rants about vaccinations. Unless, of course, Killer Tomatoes terrorize the villagers.

  Once again theists and non-theists are on essentially opposite sides of an OP, This occurs whether the topic is religious or secular. Feeling, Believing, Thinking, Knowing, Proving.
• 
  16

  Do you think you should have the right to decline business on Personal or Religious grounds?

  by PokerPlayerPhil in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  should individual businesses have the right to pick and chose who they serve?

  if a muslim decides he won't bake the cake of a radical zionist that says "reclaim the temple in jerusalem" should the government be allowed to punish the muslim baker?

  maybe you can help me understand the issues more clearly because were becoming hyper-sensitive and soon your going to need a handbook what's the proper thing to say.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DJS

  OrphanCrow,

  Excellent comment. I've often thought that the same could be said for the Dark Lords' DFing policy. Destroying families can't be in the vested interest of governments. It has to hurt the economy and stress health care, etc. It is hate speech/actions. We need a few liberal EU countries to establish laws against it, and the dominoes will begin to fall. Thanks again.
• 
  48

  Evidence based folks: what is your stance on GMO's and why?

  by cappytan in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so, the anti-gmo movement scored another victory today.

  chipotle has opted to only use non-gmo food items.. hooray for them.

  i'm pretty neutral on the subject, mostly because, other than questionable treatment of farmers, i have seen no evidence to avoid gmo's for health reasons.. basically, my neutrality boils down to the stance that i'll buy non-gmo, so long as the price is reasonable.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DJS

  GMO foods have been studied in an exhaustive manner, and they will continue to be. All of us in the US have been eating GMO foods for a long time. They have been around, legally, since 1994, when the Flavr Savr tomato was approved by the FDA for marketing. The modification allowed the tomato to delay ripening after picking.

  With a little help from Wiki: In 1995, the following transgenic crops received marketing approval: canola with modified oil composition, cotton resistant to the herbicide bromoxynil, Bt cotton (Monsanto), Bt potatoes (Monsanto), glyphosate-tolerant soybeans herbicide (Monsanto), virus-resistant squash (Monsanto-Asgrow), and additional delayed ripening tomatoes (DNAP, Zeneca/Peto, and Monsanto).

  In 2000, with the creation of golden rice, scientists genetically modified food to increase its nutrient value for the first time. As of 2011, the US is the leading country in the production of GM foods. Twenty-five GM crops had received regulatory approval. As of 2013, roughly 85% of corn, 91% of soybeans, and 88% of cotton produced in the US are genetically modified.
• 
  16

  Do you think you should have the right to decline business on Personal or Religious grounds?

  by PokerPlayerPhil in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  should individual businesses have the right to pick and chose who they serve?

  if a muslim decides he won't bake the cake of a radical zionist that says "reclaim the temple in jerusalem" should the government be allowed to punish the muslim baker?

  maybe you can help me understand the issues more clearly because were becoming hyper-sensitive and soon your going to need a handbook what's the proper thing to say.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DJS

  Thanks Giordano,

  Like Indiana, a number of state legislatures, which are typically disproportionately filled with X-tian fundies, have passed or are trying to pass hate legislation. They have to know that the laws will likely be determined unconstitutional. Now they know that corporate America has its own way to effect change.

  Either way, it is hate masquerading as X-tian theology. It will interesting to watch it all play out, but the same haters were doing exactly the same thing when civil rights' laws were being passed and enforced decades ago. They are just hating a different group now.
• 
  48

  Evidence based folks: what is your stance on GMO's and why?

  by cappytan in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so, the anti-gmo movement scored another victory today.

  chipotle has opted to only use non-gmo food items.. hooray for them.

  i'm pretty neutral on the subject, mostly because, other than questionable treatment of farmers, i have seen no evidence to avoid gmo's for health reasons.. basically, my neutrality boils down to the stance that i'll buy non-gmo, so long as the price is reasonable.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DJS

  Using non-GMO foods fits Chipotle's business design. They have a kinder, gentler capitalistic approach, such as free range chickens, counseling for the chickens' families (just kidding), minimizing the use of antibiotics, living wages, etc. I applaud them for this, but their decision re: GMO vegetables, I repeat, vegetables, is based on their business design. Science hasn't anything to do with it.

  I'm with Viv (surprising, huh?). The evidence has failed to suggest that GMO plants are in any manner less healthy or more damaging than regular food. In addition to evolution, as Viv pointed out, humans have been mucking with plant and animal biology for thousands of years; we just have better tools today. The hysteria is unfounded. When Killer Tomatoes are bred that threaten the villagers, then I will modify my views.
• 
  118

  "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth . ."

  by nicolaou in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so where did god exist before he created the heavens?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DJS

  The comfort zone for atheists would be increased if it is certain that there is nothing, no feature, outside the observable universe.

  A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away I decided to live an evidence based life, which means that feelings, desires, wishes, wants and comfort zones would no longer play a major role in any decision I made and my 'beliefs' would be based on evidence. After decades of evaluation I determined there is no evidence for god. If that changes, I will believe. It is really THAT simple for me.

  Why do theists so often transfer their own irrational, emotional, reactionary feelings, thoughts and beliefs onto atheists? We do not think like you; I'm not an entrenched atheist with my angry fist in the air at god who is hoping she is dead or gone and that my atheism can be proven 'right' as if it were some religion. All I care about is the evidence, and I would surmise that most atheists are like that.
  
• 
  16

  Do you think you should have the right to decline business on Personal or Religious grounds?

  by PokerPlayerPhil in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  should individual businesses have the right to pick and chose who they serve?

  if a muslim decides he won't bake the cake of a radical zionist that says "reclaim the temple in jerusalem" should the government be allowed to punish the muslim baker?

  maybe you can help me understand the issues more clearly because were becoming hyper-sensitive and soon your going to need a handbook what's the proper thing to say.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DJS

  Thanks Onager for catching this.

  Yes it should be. A bit more about the way things work:

  Last week I completed the annual ethics' training for my company, which has an international footprint. One of the policies specifically prohibits discriminating against anyone in hiring, promoting or doing business with because of sexual preference, transgender, etc. in addition to the usual suspects (religion, race, etc.). I am certain that the official policies of nearly every major US business are similar. These companies are not going to change policies regardless of the SCOTUS' actions or state laws.

  Once the x-tian bakery in Oregon loses out on a major bakery job because of their hate filled policies, it will be interesting to see how strong their beliefs. Losing business to a few gays and lesbians won't hurt them; losing business, because of their hateful policies, to Fortune 500 companies and those with deep pockets is a horse of a different color.

  I am certain that the high profile national and international businesses located in that Oregon city, if they don't already have them, are crafting policies that enable them to not do business with businesses such as this bakery. That's how businesses work; they understand the potential harm to their public image, they consult legal, craft policies and silently begin implementing them.

  Methinks the X-tian bakers will lose some of their religion once Nike, Columbia, FLIR and other companies stop buying cakes and other sweets from this bakery based on their policies. Although this isn't exactly what Adam Smith was thinking about when he discussed the "Invisible Hand" that controls economics, this is the 21st Century version of it. Regardless of what SCOTUS determines soon, we will see these things occurring.
• 
  16

  Do you think you should have the right to decline business on Personal or Religious grounds?

  by PokerPlayerPhil in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  should individual businesses have the right to pick and chose who they serve?

  if a muslim decides he won't bake the cake of a radical zionist that says "reclaim the temple in jerusalem" should the government be allowed to punish the muslim baker?

  maybe you can help me understand the issues more clearly because were becoming hyper-sensitive and soon your going to need a handbook what's the proper thing to say.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DJS

  Phil and the rest of you,

  Billy has answered you just as a lot of us have very effectively in all of these other OPs. I don't mean to be mean, but either you can't read, you won't read or you can't process data. Every for-profit business has a legal, protected, right to determine that hate speech or other services that would be deemed objectionable, illegal, seditious, obscene, etc. by reasonable people or the law are services they won't provide.

  The NBA, FIFA, NFL, Duck Dynasty Producers and Network, etc. have a legal, protected right to establish policies that prohibit hate speech and actions by their employees and those doing business with them. So does the corner bakery operated by X-tian fundies.

  It is simple. Refusing to sell a cake to the KKK or the Black Panthers, as long as they are operating legally, is illegal, Refusing to make a cake with a hangman's noose on a tree, etc. is protected. Refusing to bake a cake with plastic figurines of the same sex on the top is illegal; refusing to bake the same cake with the same sex figurines performing a sex act is legal.

  It isn't that complicated. It only seems complicated to those whose views are colored by their personal religious and/or political beliefs.