You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] 2793089? [S] ago 

It's amusing to see your rebuttal article comes from known Monsanto shill Jon Entine.

0
0

[–] 1smartass ago 

It's amusing to see anyone link to "Truth Wiki", and also use the shill argument. You lose the instant you do either, and you do it in lieu of having any valid arguments.

You're right there with the anti vaxxers and climate change denialists. https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/antivaccine-versus-anti-gmo-different-goals-same-methods/

0
0

[–] 2794176? [S] ago 

For you to link anti-vaxxine to anti-climate to anti-GMO fails to address the issue. Each are separate, and the only reason to lump them together is to obfuscate the facts in each.

It's not as if there is a priesthood of "science" and everything science is good, or everything science is bad. The consequences of science have nothing to do with the science itself any more than the consequences of using a hammer can be to build a solid structure, to build a shoddy structure, or to smash one down. Science is a fantastic tool that enables human beings to discover and learn, however what we do with that knowledge can potentially help or harm the environment, help or harm our health, (or in-between) but ultimately if you follow the money, it can, and has, corrupted "science" where individual scientists are paid blood money by corporate interests to deny that tobacco causes harm "billions of people smoke" or lead "billions of people used leaded gasoline and lead paint". It doesn't matter how many people use something, that doesn't logically lead to it being safe or better .