what do you think of GREEN PEACE? (Page 2) Outbackjack: You made your point alright McLipton. I provided you with some facts and you chose to blatantly ignore them. As for feeding the poor through GMOs you and both know that thats a load of crap.To feed the poor actually requires companies like Monsanto to gift "their" wares to the poor of the world.This just hasnt happened already and wont. You cant get blood out of a stone and there is very little profit for the Mega Corpse from people earning $2 a day. And lets face it. They dont give a shit about the poor(like yourself), only profit. So go take your myth making elsewhere.  LiptonCambell: You provided facts? Not exactly true jack. You asked for why don't I hold the stance for an informed consumer- I stated that organsations exist out there spreading lies, and until such lies are countered, theres no point. You asked for examples of GMO's being just as healthy as general food- I presented it, and you concluded it was a conspiracy. Now, I dunno who you were expecting to present- it doesn't matter if its the FDA or the WHO or the AFGC- you have decided that, since they do not acknowledge your beliefs, that any and all organsations are conspiring against your beliefs. There is no good answer for you, because as I'm certain you can back me up on this; You believe the world is conspiring against you. >>>To feed the poor actually requires companies like Monsanto to gift "their" wares to the poor of the world. Well, in 2003, the UN's World Food Programme offered aid, some in the form of GMO's, to the famine and drought suffering countries of Zambia and Zimbabwe. These countries rejected it, forcing their citzens to a slow, painful death. Over 10 million in that year were faced with starvation. I'm not saying that these companies are giving out their wares- The UN, the US, and other countries paid for this aid, which was rejected, one of the presidents of these countries believing the food may be "poison"- again, with no evidence to support these claims, save the fear-mongering from organsations such as greenpeace. That year, 40,000 tons of food was rejected. Awefully brave of these people to reject food when they aren't they ones going hungry. >>>They dont give a shit about the poor(like yourself), only profit. I never said I do. But 10 million people dying for unclear or untrue reasons is truely a waste of human life. Greenpeaces actions causes millions of innocent people to die. And for that, I find their existence is be a grave insult. But as you said clearly- you can't get blood from a stone- you will never admit anyone opposing GMO's is causing deaths, no matter how high the bodies are piled. So why bother continuing to argue with you about it? You'd rather believe in conspiracies. They're more interesting. Outbackjack: That has to be one of the most ignorant rants that I have ever heard from you McLipton. Greenpeace causes millions of deaths. Your one eyed twisted idealogical hatred for Greenpeace is forcing you to make stupid ignorant statements.You talk about conspiracy yet espouse this kind of ridiculous nonsense.Like like some kind of conspiracy that 10 million people actually died in a year. Pure hypocrisy. As for African governments rejecting G.M food.I too was disappointed when this food was rejected.In the absence of nothing else then this would have at least stopped people from starving.There are other motives regarding the G.M food shipments to Africa which I will detail later when I have more time.  StuckInTheSixties: AussieOi, having your thread hijacked for a personal argument, and being ignored when you plead a cease and desist, is just part of Forums here in Wireclub. You'll get used to it. You might even indulge in it. (shrugs) But it's annoying as hell when it happens to a thread you care about. Note Jack telling Lipton that it's the most ignorant rant he's ever seen Lipton post. He pretty much says that in every single encounter between those two, or any other of Jack's sparring partners. It's interesting how consistently his opponents are more ignorant with each encounter. Kind of like trying to obtain absolute zero, and never quite getting there. Lipton's thing (although he's not doing it here, surprisingly) is that he argues by quoting you, then asking a ridiculously exaggerated question in reply, implying that you have taken the position of that ridiculous question. >>> "Damn! I have ants in my kitchen. I hate ants." You hate ants. So do you also hate Gandhi? Do you also hate the Dalai Lama? >>> "Some guy with a Hummer took two parking spaces with that thing. Jeez, what a jerk?" So he took two spaces with his Hummer. Do you want to outlaw all motor vehicles? Do you also want to outlaw shoes? (laughs ... sorry guys) As for Greenpeace, I'm not knowledgeable enough about the workings of the organization to wade into this quagmire. I will say that they're pretty ballsy when they're getting between a whale and some guy behind a harpoon gun.  AussieOi: Whats a man who puts his balls between a whalers harpoon and a whale?.........An aspiring eunoch. LiptonCambell: Lol like I said 60, I can't get blood from a stone- and no matter what, me and jack seem to be talking about different things- so I was dropping it. In my defense, I quote people to address the comments I feel most worthy of addressing, and I take things to "ridiculously exaggerated" response because i feel opinions must have consistency, and be free of contradictions. "A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality." ~Atlas Shrugged Still, I standby that the issues with GMO's is closely related to my opinion of Greenpeace. I'm sorry if people find that as off topic, but the simple fact is me and jack disagree with GMO's- I feel the positions, specifically the ones held and *perpetuated* by Greenpeace, are exaggerated. Jack clearly disagrees. But it is relevant to Greenpeace, and my opinion on them. If someone were to have a long argument with the failures of the Endangered Species Act, and Greenpeace's Support of it, they wouldn't be anymore off topic. This issue reflects my opinion of this organization. Nonetheless, there's not much to gain with discussing it further. I feel I've made my points, and leave it to judgment. Outbackjack: Yes 60s seems to like behaving like the Wire police lately with his sanctimonious bullshit. As Aussie Oi knows we have a name for people like them in Australia. We call them Wowsers. EDIT-for StuckInTheSixties: Lipton, thanks for being good natured about my friendly  and not taking it too seriously.Jack, thanks ... for your comment. |
