GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post

20-08-2003, 11:42 PM

(Bill Oliver) wrote in
:

If you read that in my words I think it's time to sit back and read it
again. I did not say that.

I'm only saying there are other concerns beside the purely rational
ones. If you do not allow for that the rest of your arguments will
never be heard. Fact of life.

OK. We can agree then. That there is no rational basis for believing
that Roundup is a danger to humans when used correctly.

You believe that Roundup is a danger to humans when used correctly
based purely on irrational, unscientific, ideologic bases.

I believe that there is no rational basis for believing that Roundup is
no danger to humans when used correctly.

OK. Go with God.

Just don't *pretend* that you have a rational or scientific
basis for your belief.

Scientific no, rational yes. It would be the first time EVER that
Monsanto spoke the truth; hardly believable. And besides, the best
decisions are hardly ever made purely rational.

Not to me. But if you want to convince ppl you'll have to win their
trust. They will not trust you if you ignore their (irrational)
doubts.

And by "ignore" you mean "fail to pander to." As in

"Oh, yes, there is absolutely no rational basis for
it, but let's pretend that Roundup is dangerous because
it makes us feel better."

No, I don't mean that. Just adress the issue and show that you have the
same doubts about a companies trackrecord. It only shows your human..

Funny, you don't have any problems with *that*
conflict of interest, do you?

I'm not accusing anyone of a conflict of interest.

On the contrary. That is exactly what you accuse Monsanto of. You
may have not joined the lynch mob around *me,* but you somehow decline
to use the same criteria when evaluating the critics of Roundup as you
do when evaluating the claims of Monsanto.

As I said, I believe that Monsanto should do a much better job in
proving their claims. It should be proven above and beyond all doubt,
easily verifiable for everyone and without any connections between the
researchers and the company. This should do a ridiculous amount of
proving; that is the price they pay for past behavior.

Tell me, Ursa, what about
the conflict of interest by those in the organic gardening industry --
those who make money pandering to what you agree are irrational fears?

I disagree with using fear as a means of getting business. I would think
that the majority in that part of the industry has genuine concerns
about non-organic farming. And if not, they can hardly do as much damage
with their lies as Monsanto can (and will if it makes them money).

I prefer organic farming not out of fear but because I think it is
better for our future, more in balance with the complicated machine
called nature that we still do not understand, and in the long run
cheaper to execute. The current path is a dead-end creating more
problems than it solves.

Roundup must be declared dangerous because it represents
unacceptable thought.

Pure and simple.

Monsanto to me respresents unacceptable thought...

I didn't say "Monsanto." I said "Roundup."

Hmmm. Roundup and its linkage to GM-tech represents Monsanto's way of
thinking.

Recognizing the science, and noting that ther is no evidence of danger
to humans when Roundup is used as directed is a *thought crime.*

Whether or not Roundup actually causes damage to humans is
*irrelevant.*

I don't think so. I even hope it is as you state it. I think the current
evidence pro Roundup is too thin, in light of historical
misrepresentation. I find this rather rational actually and would find
it a sign of poor judgement of it wasn't taken into consideration.
Frankly, I can hardly believe that you are doing it.

If you refuse to acknowledge these simple facts you can not expect us
to take your position seriously.

If you have any *facts* that show that Roundup is a danger to humans
when used as directed, bring them out.

Simply saying you don't like Monsanto doesn't make Roundup dangerous
to humans when used as directed.

I think that simply saying that there is no evidence showing Roudup is
dangerous in not enough. The absence does not prove anything. There
could be a lot of reasons why that evidence is not available.

Your argument boils down to the fact that your dislike for Monsanto
means that you don't care about the facts about Roundup.

Because of the reasons why I dislike MS I want more facts, more, more.
As long as it isn't proven beyond any (even unreasonable) doubt the
claims are suspect. Anyone believing them at this stage is either naive
or suspect.

That's fine. Just recognize that your opinion about Roundup is
totally irrational and not based on science or fact.

And don't pretend otherwise.

I think my behavior is rational. As in an analogy you brought up
earlier; if the Germans hadn't shown remorse about their crimes in WWII
we would still not trust anything they do and there wouldn't be a united
Germany now. And if Churchill had based his decisions purely on the
scientific data at that time, the Germans would not have been beaten.

Ursa..

--
==================================
Ursa (Major)/ \ *-*-* *
___________/====================================\_______*-*______