We are all inherently gullible. It's the only way to efficiently make sense of the world. If we spent the time looking into and understanding everything we would get no where.

Your weak ongoing need to personally attack people, because of your inability to take the more complex road of evidence based reasoning in discussion would suggest otherwise

Murdoch Rags Ltd: Demands peer reviewed research and evidence based data to back up arguments he disagrees with.

Rejects Capitalism because of hand picked information that supports his opinion.

In saying that, an interesting video on this very topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7MTM4BKZ_E

I have legit seen you on numerous occasions belittle someone for expressing an opinion on a scientific topic without a science degree.

:lol:

I think you have misunderstood my post

The scientific method is based on gathering empirical evidence. Sometimes that supports the consensus, sometimes it opposes it.

By your logic are we supposed to disbelieve the consensus on gravity? A spherical earth? A solar system that revolves around the sun instead of the earth?

The problem is with the advent of identity politics, both sides are susceptible.

At present, when it comes to climate change it is generally right wingers who deny the science.

When it comes to GMO scaremongering, it is "the left" that deny the science.

When it comes to anti-vaxxers, it can be the left (think that vaccines are somehow dangerous because they are "unnatural") or the right (think there is some government conspiracy behind injecting us all).

It just depends what topic you want to look at.

The problem is identity politics, and tribal thinking. Learning critical analysis should be compulsory in every school, as this is what the problem actually is.

If so I apologise.

In my experience, the basis given for GMO rejection is typically misrepresented, even by those in academia (which is disappointing)
Many who reject GMO is not because of the food itself (the misrepresentation) - plenty of food is genetically modified already - it is to do with the unknown long term potential for ecological balance. To be blunt and put it in terms of 'left v right' and simplify it somewhat, it's the right that want to plough ahead with GMO because they are driven by greed & there's money to be made and they will misrepresent the left's view that they are 'pro' world hunger to manipulate society into action; when deep down the right couldn't give a shit if millions of people die, so long as money can be made.
History is littered with examples of money at the expense of the environment - just look at the mining industry.

Walk into a science lecture at university and ask why people reject GMO's. My wager is on the vast majority being because it's un-natural and thus unhealthy.




In places where GMO's could really make a difference, there is no ecological balance at present. I think this is a piss-take of an argument. Look at half of Africa. A century of unsustainable farming techniques has screwed them.



:lol: You have no problem doing this very thing in like every other thread :lol:



What nonsense. They're driven by the need to feed people. What a dishonest comment based on nothing but heresy and your own bias.



Again nonsense. Pure speculation. Unsubstantiated nonsense.

You have absolutely nothing to back this up.



:lol: There are literally like 200 individually mined components in whatever device you typed this intellectually dishonest post on my friend.

What you ignore (because it doesn't fit your narrative) is that mining literally anything is a learning process. Shit they used to (and still sometimes do) mine with cyanide and mercury to break down ore. To make the hard drive in your computer they have to 'wash' the ore in sodium hydroxide.

You can try and claim moral high ground all you want princess but until you actually understand mining processes instead of just copying and pasting articles off the internet, you're blowing steam out of your ass.

This is just a cover-all to compensate for the fact that the evidence of the safety of GMO crops is now unassailable.

What evidence is there of ecological damage?

The only argument that has any legs is the argument around reductions in crop diversity. But this was already an issue regardless of GMO. In fact, the ability to genetically modify crops to make them more viable could arguable lead to more diversity in the long term.

But that whole argument is more about the broader issue of industrial farming, than GMOs in and of themselves.

The other response is that seedbanks exist in many locations now in order to retain genetic diversity of crops.

The simple fact is that there is no scientific basis to oppose GMOs.

My broader point is that the left and right are both prone to irrational thinking, it just depends what topic you are looking at.

If you want to look at an issue which involves an increase in govt action or involvement then you can guarantee the right wingers will be opposed.

If it is an issue involving corporations or profit, then it will be the left who are opposed.

These biases exist for everyone. The key is to be self aware so you can manage your own bias.

There's 75 pages of people who think it matters which person gets to be USA president

Denial, denial, denial; like with global warming. Tobacco industry, oil industry, coal industry - protect at all cost. Worth trillions

Utter garbage. It's an often stated argument, that even you have misrepresented. Feel free to educate yourself.


:lol: :lol: :lol: You're (rhetorical) question proves my point. Simplistic mentality: No issue now = no issue in future...
Dear, oh, dear

You don't get away with it that easy.

Stop deflecting and back yourself up. You've made a claim, support it or shut up.

So I have to do a brain scan on every 'environmental exploiter' to check their real motives?

I don't know. All you've done is present speculation filled with your own bias.

You've always harped on about anecdotal evidence.

Maybe try to be less of a hypocrite Ricey.

You seem to struggle with differentiating informed v uninformed opinions
Garbage in, garbage out...

Your opinion is not informed. Get off your high horse.

Still waiting for something substantial to back up your anecdotal evidence regarding right wingers not caring about millions dying.

It regards to the OP I remember reading a few papers and sites that dealt with discrimination. The general consensus was that people had to compartmentalise their thoughts (as someone else suggested we can't learn everything, so what we don't know we tend to generalise).

Because humans tend to generalise their thoughts / knowledge on issues outside of their common zone (or knowledge base) they are more susceptible to believe stories that "agree" with their preconceived notions without looking into it further.

I think it was AzzaMarch who said we as individuals need to think more laterally / logically / independently. I have found with the plethora of rhetoric that gets put on social media now that more and more people are suspicious of misleading information (or at least they might have a Google / HoaxSlayer search before sharing it or using it as gospel).

Just a thought - do right wingers deny global warming because a more fucked up planet provides more 'fertile' ideological grounds for GMO....?
Oops, now I'm giving them ideas, cause they wouldn't be that clever in the first place....:lol: :lol: :lol:

No changing the goal posts.

Please confirm with evidence that right wingers would allow millions to die as long as money can be made.

You made the claim and now you're deflecting.... again.

Do you concede that your original point was an unfounded personal opinion?

Stop deflecting and answer Beth's question.

I agree with most of what Murdoch rags has to say but he loses me when he starts banging on about left vs right.