Is he legit? or a hack?
Is he legit? or a hack?
Gavin Murphy
Julian Anderson
He has the phenotype, so he must be legit.
Parker King
he's butthurt but he's smart.
Grayson Reed
NNT is based.
Christopher Sanchez
Total hack. He just says whatever bullshit comes to mind and then says whatever he can to justify it ad hoc. See his utter trash writings on GMOs.
Jordan Myers
I try not to read too much. I'm guessing he talked about GMOs are bad not because they are GMOs but because the traits they create make it less nutritious?
In that he is right. A lot of vegetable and fruit GMO stuff ruins the actual end product's taste and nutritious value or the soil sucks ass. As long as it is the right color and not bruised the consumer doesn't care. There are many batches of carrots I buy that taste like fucking detergent because of this.
GMOs are good but unfortunately the consumer is stupid and buys shit product anyway. GMO meat is great yield though.
Nathaniel Clark
durrr GMOs are universally good because that's what the scientist told me.
I dislike the average the anti-GMO protester, because most of them have no fucking clue why GMO could be dangerous, but I fucking hate the scientists shilling GMO a fuckton more than I'll ever hate a New Age faggot protesting it. Why? Because they know the health dangers that certain GMOs can cause and yet they never address it.
We get it, changing the genome of something, in theory, is something we've done for thousands of years. Nobody cares about changing the genome in general except for Jesus fags. What's potentially dangerous is whatever chemical compound we use transgenesis to genetically express within the GMO plant or animal.
I bet you could modify plants to start expressing cocaine and not a single scientist would dare to shill against it because it's GMO. It's fucking insane how quickly hard we're pushing against GMO regulations, especially due to the potential endocrine impacts of the latest generation of GMO products.
And don't get me started on the FDA and the government in general. The government can't provide us food, water, or school that won't make your kids retarded and gay. What good are they for? Why should I have to pay taxes?
Justin Watson
>I'm guessing he talked about GMOs are bad not because they are GMOs but because the traits they create make it less nutritious?
No, he thinks they are dangerous.
>A lot of vegetable and fruit GMO stuff ruins the actual end product's taste and nutritious value or the soil sucks ass.
Like what?
Adrian Ward
>durr GMOs are universally bad because that's what a non-scientist told me
>inb4 "but that's a strawman!"
>Because they know the health dangers that certain GMOs can cause and yet they never address it.
Like what? Fuck you people are dumb. You write several paragraphs about GMOs without a single fucking substantive point.
>I bet you could modify plants to start expressing cocaine and not a single scientist would dare to shill against it because it's GMO.
You're an idiot.
Hunter Reed
>I bet you could modify plants to start expressing cocaine
you mean like coca plant?
Luis Myers
>Like what? Fuck you people are dumb.
If you took a basic molecular biology class, you'd understand the potential harm that you can cause when you induce the expression of, let's say, an acetycholinase inhibitor neurotoxin within the leaves of a berry bush to protect it against pests. Are you sure you want to consume those berries without any safety studies? I hope you have the evo-devo knowledge to demonstrate a priori that your method of transgenesis will lead to selective expression of that pesticide, because we sure as hell don't have the knowledge to predict that in every case.
What should every GMO prove? That 1) the transgenic product is harmless; or at least 2) the transgenic product is not expressed in detectable quantities in any part of the plant that is consumed. You would understand this intuitively if you weren't a retard who took some shill scientist's word at face value and instead took a class on genetics and molecular biology so you could understand the stakes for yourself.
Asher Scott
His constant arrogant and dismissive tone is quite annoying. All of his books but "Antifragile" are unoriginal
Hunter King
his quotes make great memes
Noah Smith
he's the type of person who sees through bullshit without having ulterior motives. he appears like an ornery contrarian at first, but then you realize that he's incredibly intelligent and cares too much about the truth. a lot of the most important things he criticizes comes from a place of experience and personal investment. like an aspie without the social dysfunction, maybe.
Evan Turner
>Antifragile
>look guys I made up a word that means adaptive
>aren't I original?
Parker Butler
>If you took a basic molecular biology class, you'd understand the potential harm that you can cause when you induce the expression of, let's say, an acetycholinase inhibitor neurotoxin within the leaves of a berry bush to protect it against pests.
So by "certain GMOs" you mean imaginary ones that would be stupid to create. What a retarded argument. I don't think anyone has ever defended GMOs that would have to be designed to be harmful, so all you're doing is attempting to poison the well.
>Are you sure you want to consume those berries without any safety studies?
Another idiotic strawman. Can you point me out a GMO which has not been studied to death before being put to market? Your hypothetical berries wouldn't reach that stage since they are flawed by design.
> I hope you have the evo-devo knowledge to demonstrate a priori that your method of transgenesis will lead to selective expression of that pesticide, because we sure as hell don't have the knowledge to predict that in every case.
Why would this be done a priori? You have no idea what you're talking about or how GMOs are actually produced.
>What should every GMO prove? That 1) the transgenic product is harmless; or at least 2) the transgenic product is not expressed in detectable quantities in any part of the plant that is consumed.
Which GMOs have not proved this? You are having a tantrum over nothing, because you know nothing.
Oh and let's also agree to subject hybridized cultivars to the same scrutiny yes? After all, what one plant produced in safe quantities might not be produced by another in safe quantities.
Tyler Price
he's the type of person who makes up bullshit in order to hide having ulterior motives. he appears incredibly intelligent at first, but then you realize that he's just an ornery contrarian. a lot of the most important things he criticizes comes from a place of inexperience and emotional investment. like an aspie, maybe.
Cameron Allen
>So by "certain GMOs" you mean imaginary ones that would be stupid to create. What a retarded argument.
google.com
Literally dozens of pesticides function as neurotoxins for insect nervous systems, targeting enzymes similar in structure and function to our own, since we also use many of the same neurotransmitters. And many GMOs are meant to produce pesticides within key parts of the plant in order to deter pests.
>Another idiotic strawman. Can you point me out a GMO which has not been studied to death before being put to market? Your hypothetical berries wouldn't reach that stage since they are flawed by design.
I don't know of a single GMO that has undergone the same kind of clinical studies that pharmaceuticals go through. And they should, given their potential impact on personal health and the environment.
>Why would this be done a priori? You have no idea what you're talking about or how GMOs are actually produced.
I never said it should have to be done a priori. I'm only emphasizing the fact that the potential for fucking up is enormous.
>Oh and let's also agree to subject hybridized cultivars to the same scrutiny yes? After all, what one plant produced in safe quantities might not be produced by another in safe quantities.
Since when has breeding allowed for biological monstrosities such as, I don't know, producing salmon with a fuckton of extra growth hormone?
Luke Ramirez
>google.com
LOL, no relevant results. Did you even look at the results before posting?
>Literally dozens of pesticides function as neurotoxins for insect nervous systems, targeting enzymes similar in structure and function to our own, since we also use many of the same neurotransmitters. And many GMOs are meant to produce pesticides within key parts of the plant in order to deter pests.
Only some pesticides are harmful to humans, and only some would be used in GMOs. We already know acetycholinase inhibitors are harmful. You're not connecting the dots.
>And many GMOs are meant to produce pesticides within key parts of the plant in order to deter pests.
OK, so which ones are harmful? Dumbass.
>I don't know of a single GMO that has undergone the same kind of clinical studies that pharmaceuticals go through.
Hmmm, maybe because they aren't pharmaceuticals? This would make sense for GMOs which are actually designed to be like medicine, like golden rice, but those are rare. Pesticides are not tested like pharmaceuticals because they aren't pharmaceuticals. Food is not tested like pharmaceuticals because they aren't pharmaceuticals. But GMOs are tested more heavily than both, more than the sum of their parts anyway.
>I never said it should have to be done a priori.
You:
> I hope you have the evo-devo knowledge to demonstrate a priori that your method of transgenesis will lead to selective expression of that pesticide
So what exactly is your point here?
>I'm only emphasizing the fact that the potential for fucking up is enormous.
How so?
>Since when has breeding allowed for biological monstrosities
en.wikipedia.org
>such as, I don't know, producing salmon with a fuckton of extra growth hormone?
Which GMO salmon has significantly higher levels of growth hormone?
Samuel Reyes
>Nobody cares about changing the genome in general except for Jesus fags
Yes it is the Conservatives that are opposed to GMO not the Greens are anything.
Michael Cruz
I'm most of the way through Fooled by Randomness.
His basic idea is that people can still be idiots even if they know math. Obvious point, but not frequently observed by most.