My first poll for the NZ public

[Banditbandit]

Obviously, he's not a Green, because their attitude to GM crops is that it's better to let people starve than a) use actual science to help them and especially b) have a company make money out of applying that science.

This is the same "actual science" that told us human beings could not catch Mad Cow Disease??? The same actual science that assures us the "GM food is safe" ???

The same actual science that gave us Thalidomide?

The same actual science that took 17 years to identify a microwave oven as the source of "cosmic radiation" ??? http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...e-for-17-years

The same scientists who that once told us smoking was good for asthma .. and then argued that there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer ???

Do you trust the GM-producing companies with your life ??? Every time you eat GM-produced food that is exactly what you are doing ...

(I have no issue with companies making money ....)

[Zedder]

That's nice. For your consideration: The Charitable Industrial Complex - Peter Buffett

That's nice. For your consideration:http://www.forbes.com/sites/howardhu...-philanthropy/

[bogan]

So you are saying that profit and efficiency are more important than people's lives?

That we should let people starve to death in the name of profits and efficiency ???

What kind of a person are you ???

Oh and yeah .. massive food transportation is currently carried out all around the world .. Here's ONE piece about it ... there are heaps more ...

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandst...rink.shopping6

No, I'm saying there is no significant link between those two things that allows us to trade one for the other on a mass scale. If you think there is, how much of your profits do you donate to such causes?

Didn't see any staple food crops in that list, or are you suggesting people will starve if they miss out on their prawns and marlin?

[Brian d marge]

Written in small letters so that he doesnt see it
Ocean 1 posted a link to historical food prices and wage
Lost of good info there

[Banditbandit]

No, I'm saying there is no significant link between those two things that allows us to trade one for the other on a mass scale.

I'm sorry - I must be having a dense day ... I don't get your point

If you think there is, how much of your profits do you donate to such causes?

If I got your first point I might be able to answer ... But basically I'm not too wealthy, but I'm pretty good at harvesting wild food and I share the excess with people who need it (the ones who "want" it I make stand in line behind those who need it .. )

Didn't see any staple food crops in that list, or are you suggesting people will starve if they miss out on their prawns and marlin?

Sure, those two are there - but so are potatoes, carrots, lettuce, apples, spinach, chicken and peas ... you're picking two top end items to highlight and poo-poo the results .. not a legitimate move in any argument.

[bogan]

This is the same "actual science" that told us human beings could not catch Mad Cow Disease??? The same actual science that assures us the "GM food is safe" ???

The same actual science that gave us Thalidomide?

The same actual science that took 17 years to identify a microwave oven as the source of "cosmic radiation" ??? http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...e-for-17-years

The same scientists who that once told us smoking was good for asthma .. and then argued that there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer ???

Do you trust the GM-producing companies with your life ??? Every time you eat GM-produced food that is exactly what you are doing ...

(I have no issue with companies making money ....)

Quite a rant there full, I'm a bit surprised there is no use of the term 'pakeha science' though, or is that implied since the other net is pretty holey?

[mashman]

That's nice. For your consideration:http://www.forbes.com/sites/howardhu...-philanthropy/

Indoctrination at its finest. That old white guy woulda been one of the first too most likely. You in later years if you like.

[Banditbandit]

Quite a rant there full, I'm a bit surprised there is no use of the term 'pakeha science' though, or is that implied since the other net is pretty holey?

I'm sure we have had this conversation before ... "science" has no way to prove that it is describing reality in any way - it can only be based on a use value. (And it is useful) Western epistemologies are empty ... as are all current human epistemologies - there is no way to show they have any connect to a real truth.

[mashman]

Quite a rant there full, I'm a bit surprised there is no use of the term 'pakeha science' though, or is that implied since the other net is pretty holey?

Still not at the tingly bit eh.

[Zedder]

Indoctrination at its finest. That old white guy woulda been one of the first too most likely. You in later years if you like.

Ahh yes, the standard answer and ad hominem. He's rather wealthy and happy I hear, I can relate to that.

I'm standing by for the next stage: Threats to murder me in my sleep...

[bogan]

I'm sorry - I must be having a dense day ... I don't get your point



If I got your first point I might be able to answer ... But basically I'm not too wealthy, but I'm pretty good at harvesting wild food and I share the excess with people who need it (the ones who "want" it I make stand in line behind those who need it .. )



Sure, those two are there - but so are potatoes, carrots, lettuce, apples, spinach, chicken and peas ... you're picking two top end items to highlight and poo-poo the results .. not a legitimate move in any argument.

My point is that we are not letting people starve to death for profit and efficiency. Because those things can't be traded off against one another on a mass scale. Ie, we could cut profits on food production (by giving it away) and decrease efficiency of food transportation (by transporting it to give away), yet the starving would continue.

A lot more wealthy than those who starve though, if you beleive that wealth can be given up to prevent starvation, why are you still wealthy at all?

None of those are transported en-masse as staple food items either though.

I'm sure we have had this conversation before ... "science" has no way to prove that it is describing reality in any way - it can only be based on a use value. (And it is useful) Western epistemologies are empty ... as are all current human epistemologies - there is no way to show they have any connect to a real truth.

Yeh, you often hide behind the same arguments. This is a classic strawman, up there with you don't understand or you have no idea , obviously if nothing is really real then real things are not real. Not very fucking helpful to those who really could benefit from a judicious application of science though!

[mashman]

Ahh yes, the standard answer and ad hominem. He's rather wealthy and happy I hear, I can relate to that.

I'm standing by for the next stage: Threats to murder me in my sleep...

Nope, just adding a little fun to a truism.

... I wouldn't waste your time if I was you, although my proxy may be along shortly to back himself up

[Zedder]

Nope, just adding a little fun to a truism.

... I wouldn't waste your time if I was you, although my proxy may be along shortly to back himself up

Look what happens when you stop taking your pills. Your proxy? How effluent that makes you look.

[Banditbandit]

My point is that we are not letting people starve to death for profit and efficiency. Because those things can't be traded off against one another on a mass scale. Ie, we could cut profits on food production (by giving it away) and decrease efficiency of food transportation (by transporting it to give away), yet the starving would continue.

OK. Now I get your point. I'm not convinced. The world produces 1.5 times the amount of food to feed the entire population. If we redistributed the food to everyone how would people continue to starve?

A lot more wealthy than those who starve though, if you beleive that wealth can be given up to prevent starvation, why are you still wealthy at all?

I could give you several answers - I won't. It pricks my conscience occasionally ...

Yeh, you often hide behind the same arguments. This is a classic strawman, up there with you don't understand or you have no idea , obviously if nothing is really real then real things are not real. Not very fucking helpful to those who really could benefit from a judicious application of science though!

Hang about - I didn't say "nothing is real" . We can not prove a link between what we claim we know and "reality". Big difference ...

I'm not hiding behind arguments or strawmen ... the inability to prove a link to "reality" is the basis of post-modernism ... and the shift to linguistics and discourse analysis ... even Kuhn, Feyerabend and Lakatos (all respected philosophers of science) agree that what we call "scientific knowledge" is agreed within the discourse of science - whoever has the best arguments has their ideas accepted as "current science" is the way that Feyerabend puts it ...

Lakatos and others do accept the efficacy of science - hard to argue with that really as we sit and communicate on computers ... but a use value is very different from a truth value (which does not exist).

[bogan]

OK. Now I get your point. I'm not convinced. The world produces 1.5 times the amount of food to feed the entire population. If we redistributed the food to everyone how would people continue to starve?



I could give you several answers - I won't. It pricks my conscience occasionally ...



Hang about - I didn't say "nothing is real" . We can not prove a link between what we claim we know and "reality". Big difference ...

I'm not hiding behind arguments or strawmen ... the inability to prove a link to "reality" is the basis of post-modernism ... and the shift to linguistics and discourse analysis ... even Kuhn, Feyerabend and Lakatos (all respected philosophers of science) agree that what we call "scientific knowledge" is agreed within the discourse of science - whoever has the best arguments has their ideas accepted as "current science" is the way that Feyerabend puts it ...

Lakatos and others do accept the efficacy of science - hard to argue with that really as we sit and communicate on computers ... but a use value is very different from a truth value (which does not exist).

Source?

Figured as much.

See, again you hide behind vagaries instead of addressing the point. I'm not interested science philosophy atm, it has its place; but that place is not one for you to hide behind.