(June 2, 2013 at 12:34 pm)Rhythm Wrote: What risks?

the risks for biodiversity.

(June 2, 2013 at 12:19 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: Alternatively you can come back when you can justify why the risk is worth taking.

I don't have to. I don't think there are any substantial risks. You claim there are, but can't back your claims up with any evidence. The risks posed to ecosystems by GMOs are no different to those posed by a farmer who one year plants wheat, and the next plants potatoes. In fact, I'd argue that the risks are less due to the fact that the GMO is the same plant, just made resistant to certain pesticides.

Quote:You judge my memory capacities and my debating skills on the basis that I forgot that I wrote a sigle word.

No, I judge your debating skills on many factors. We've debated before; you pull the same stunts every time.

Quote:I might aswell ask why you soley concentrated on that word whilest ignoring the natural enviorment and the potential impact GMo might have there.

You haven't been reading my posts have you? I haven't been ignoring the natural environment and potential impact. I've addresses it in almost every single response to you. Just because I disagree with your assertions about the environment, doesn't mean I'm ignoring the environment. It means I think you are wrong...

Quote:I scrubbed toilets for 1 year, did bar and cleaning jobs for 4 years and worked in a home for mentaly disabled people for one on german wages under german work hours. Go judge someone elses workmoral.

I've done shitty jobs too. You judged my background and work ethic without even knowing about it, so I find your last sentence particularly ironic.

Quote:You, craterhorus, Vincent Vinny and ideolog008 are the only ones who see this as valid. Got some nice company there.

Those are the people who are at least verbal about it in public. I've had other people tell me privately, but of course you won't believe that. It's an objective fact that you are terrible at writing English sometimes. It gets worse when you get riled up in a debate. How many spelling errors do you reckon I'd find it I took your last 100 or so posts and ran them through a spell-checker...compared to my last 100 posts?

Quote:I would have to find it, find the phrase, copy it, transelate it and post it here - just for your royal ass. it exists and was part of a list why the EU - US free trade agreement will probably fail.
The chlorin part is what I remember because it was quoted by the german foreign minister.

No, you'd have to find it and post it here. I could do the rest...I'm not some technophobe you know...

At the end of the day though, you made a claim about the paper; it's up to you to present it. That is how burden of proof works. It isn't up to me to go looking for something you claim exists. It's up to you to provide the proof. Your refusal to do so makes me suspicious that it even exists in the first place, or that it doesn't actually back up what you've claimed. It's a typical tactic for people who suddenly get their claims held to account.

Quote:Farmers are then also bound to buy the fertilisers and pesticides provided by monsanto - therby they drop out of the market competition and depend for their existance on the price which monsanto sets.

So, the answer is to ban all GMOs? Monsanto don't need to be the only GMO company. If GMOs are accepted, which they should be, then competition naturally occurs with companies doing their own research. Again, this is how the free market works.

Quote:I know for a fact that it hasnt been proven to be riskless - can you prove the opposite?

No you don't. You've admitted that there are studies which predict stuff, but ultimately conclude that more studies needs to be done. Sorry, but prediction is not proof. A conclusion that actually concludes there is a risk to the environment would be proof. Also, I don't need to prove the opposite; you're the one making the claim here...the burden of proof is yours.

Quote:Nope, not faith, concern over a gamble with potentialy dangerous outcome.

...and the "potentially dangerous outcome" is all based on faith. That's the point. You've got no solid evidence to back it up as a concern. You've got studies which say more studying is needed. In other words, they haven't found any risks yet.

Quote:Crops will spread beyond the farm and pests which addapted to pestecides will aswell, other than that pestecides which are addpted to the addaptationprocess of pests will cause even more harm in the ecological surroundings.

That sentence makes no sense. Try again.

Quote:

Quote:YES! Considering you thought that regulation meant "just tell[ing] them" what to do and "trust[ing] them" not to anything else.

How do you assert what I think?

Dude, seriously? I fucking quoted you:

"Oh yeah, just tell them...........

What a weard reply. And what then? trust them that they wont produce the products they export to europe according to european laws."

If you don't think that, then don't fucking say it in the first place.

Quote:The claims I make can be aswell

We're all still waiting for you to do so. So far you've come up with a bunch of studies that say more studies are needed, and a mystical German paper which you won't present because you can't be bothered. Well, you've convinced me. </sarcasm>

Quote:Why are you replying?

Are you serious? I've never claimed this debate is irrelevant. I think it's very relevant. You're the one who continues to claim it's pointless to debate this, yet you continue to debate it. You are the one here that is being contradictory, not I.

Quote:The ban on monsanto was passed in Germany.

Well aware of that, but this debate is not about whether they banned it or not, it's about whether the ban is based on facts or not. I say it's based on lies propagated by the anti-GMO community.

Quote:Dumping nuclear waste into the channel and a 200 year coal industry.
It might not be as brutal as some eastern european chemical production sights and the districsts they belong to, but it certainly is worse than most of western Europe. Although I have to say that this is merely an assertion of mine.

Perhaps you need to be reminded of what "evidence" is. You saying something =/= evidence.

Again, your claim is that the British environment is (and I quote) "destroyed". I think that's a fucking stupid claim to make, given that so many people live here and seem to live here fine. Now, you were either overzealous with your use of words, or you need to produce evidence that the environment is destroyed, because I'm looking out of my window at the moment and it looks fine to me.

Quote:Wont happen within the next years, transparency works against that, adding to that we have the best and most honest press in Europe.

That isn't an answer to my question. The answer to a "What if" scenario is not "That won't happen", unless it's logically impossible. People believe a whole host of dumb things; transparency doesn't work against that.

Quote:There is a difference between creating a law based on nonsence which can be overturned later and something really stupid like overturning democracy.

When did overturning a democracy come into it??? My example had nothing to do with overturning democracy.

Quote:science payed by monsanto. pay a physist a hundred million and he will put up a theory disproving relativity.

No, science in general agrees with me. From Wikipedia:

"There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk to human health than conventional food"

That statement has 9 references pinned to it, from various scientific organisations. Either they are all on Monsanto's pay list, or you are completely and utterly wrong.

I have lost interest.

Go and debate with someone who complies with your Lordship`s required english language skills.

Abend.

No chance of any evidence for your position then? Didn't think so.

(June 2, 2013 at 2:19 pm)Tiberius Wrote: No chance of any evidence for your position then? Didn't think so.

Nope.

There`s just no point.

You will simply continue to reply until my reply is long enought for you to claim that I write to much in non understandable english.

(June 2, 2013 at 2:21 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote:

Nope.

There`s just no point.

You will simply continue to reply until my reply is long enought for you to claim that I write to much in non understandable english.

Given that your post just now contained a number of spelling errors, I don't think it's post length that affects your spelling. No, it's carelessness.

There is a point to posting evidence. It's calling intellectual integrity. You don't have any. I've come to understand that about you. I despise people who lack the integrity to admit when they are wrong. I will continue to expose your bullshit whilst you are here.

(June 2, 2013 at 2:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Given that your post just now contained a number of spelling errors, I don't think it's post length that affects your spelling. No, it's carelessness.

There is a point to posting evidence. It's calling intellectual integrity. You don't have any. I've come to understand that about you. I despise people who lack the integrity to admit when they are wrong. I will continue to expose your bullshit whilst you are here.

Given that you resorted to calling me a racist when I simply called you an opportunist, and that you are a historic revisionist who manages to interpret something noble into doing buisness with a racist regime.

You are the last one to talk about "intellectual integrity".

(June 2, 2013 at 2:27 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: Given that you resorted to calling me a racist when I simply called you an opportunist, and that you are a historic revisionist who manages to interpret something noble into doing buisness with a racist regime.

You are the last one to talk about "intellectual integrity".

Excuse me? Where did I call you a racist?

I'm also not a historic revisionist, so cut the crap.

(June 2, 2013 at 2:30 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Excuse me? Where did I call you a racist?

I'm also not a historic revisionist, so cut the crap.

A yeah, it was "racist symphatiser". Which doesnt change the dishonesty.

Anyway, yes you are.

(June 2, 2013 at 2:32 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: A yeah, it was "racist symphatiser". Which doesnt change the dishonesty.

Anyway, yes you are.

When did I call you a racist sympathizer? Link me to the exact post please.