all 63 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 29 points 4 months ago (1 child)

Actually they're so hopped up on ivermectin they're invincible now. That's why they're not worried 😌

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (39 children)

    It's funny how just the other day I was arguing with someone who was trying to claim that "organic" is just a meaningless label designed to dupe people into spending more on groceries...

    People who buy organic are trying to avoid precisely this kind of shit.

  • source
  • hideshow 39 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago* (38 children)

    Hold up. Organic just means containing carbon which is the building block of life.

    This leads to a strange statement like organic farmers shun organic pesticides.

    Only that isn't actually the truth. Oganic farmers can still use pesticides. There is some nuance here but for the most part organic farmers use 30% less pesticides. In some circumstances organic farmers may even apply more pesticides than a regular farmer on a single spraying.

    https://rozenbergquarterly.com/do-organic-farms-use-pesticides-how-organic-and-conventional-farming-differ/

    So the person you were arguing with isn't completely wrong and you are not completely right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (17 children)

    There are certain pesticides that are approved for organic farmers. I don't know the details of the chemistry or whether those pesticides are actually organic, but there's a whole list of pesticides that aren't allowed if you want the organic label. I can only assume the ones mentioned here are or will be among them.

    Sure, Monsanto has shady business practices and uses biased internal studies to get "organic" versions of things that are still harmful, but that's a Monsanto issue and an issue with the politicians who have Monsanto in their pockets. Same deal with roundup being labeled "safe" for household use even though independent studies say otherwise.

    But if you want to make this about semantics, then "organic" means "containing carbon which is the building block of life" when you're talking about chemistry. When you're talking about geometry, organic means something different. When you're talking about processes, organic means something different. I don't think it's that unreasonable to say organic also means something different when talking about food labels, especially when the definition in that context is clearly defined by legislation/regulatory policy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (16 children)

    If you don't know the pesticides then who is to say they are worse or better. Having studied this myself I would not tout organic farming as anything else than slightly better in some ways but not all.

    They use copper sulfate which causes heavy metal buildup that leads to liver damage and kidney disease.

    They used to use rotenone but it caused mitochondria damage leading to Parkinson's

    They use pytherins that are highly toxic to insect but the FDA considers "not likely to cause human cancer".

    They use Spinosad which is minimally toxic to mammals.

    The thing is though they often have to use much more of these comparatively to regular farming. Essentially you can be trading slightly more environmental damage for slightly less human poisoning.

    There is no doubt Monsanto's products have always caused cancer, they knew this from the start very reminiscent of big tobacco and oil. While they do criticize organic farming bringing them up as a shield of criticism for organic farming is disturbing to say the least.

    Using the proper definition of a word is not fucking semantics. Organic is meant to mean natural in marketing terms which is based off its actual definition of containing carbon. I am not sure why you insist on caring water for organic farmers.

    I will be frank, we need much better systems than the current organic farming scheme. It is not even arguably better because of the trade offs with environmental degredation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (15 children)

    Using the proper definition of a word

    My whole point was that "the proper definition" of a word changes based on context or domain.

    "Field" can mean a place where you grow crops, or a place where you play sports. Which one is "the proper definition"?

    "Organic" has multiple "proper definitions" based on what you're talking about.

    Also, it does not mean "natural" in marketing terms. "Natural" has no regulatory definition; "organic" does.

    I'm not arguing that we can't approve improve the agricultural systems writ large. That's something that we must do. But complaining about organic farming is something I mostly hear from conservatives who also deny climate change and think industrial farming is the only way to feed a civilization.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago (14 children)

    I like how you want to lecture about context or domain and then say organic is not meant to mean natural in marketing terms. You clearly don't get it. That is okay.

    https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2019/09/organic-vegetables-and-fruits-are-a-marketing-ploy

    I am not fucking complaining. This is called criticism. Stop carrying water for organic farming techniques. To say we can develop something far better is a dramatic understatement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (13 children)

    Context does matter. I'm sure when I select "organic tree supports" in the slicer software for 3D printing, it's not talking about organic chemistry. It's talking about organic geometry.

    When you say a group or event develops organically, you're not talking about chemistry. You're talking about how it wasn't centrally planned but more grew on its own.

    It's not that strange for a word to have multiple potential definitions depending on how it's being used, so talking about the definition of organic used in chemistry to refute all other uses of the term, as if it were the only possible definition, is not a good argument.

    And it's hilarious that you're trying to draw a false equivalence between "organic" and "natural" when one has a precise regulatory definition, and the other doesn't.

    Anyway, you're on a thread about the trump admin approving dangerous chemicals for use in food production. If those chemicals somehow make their way onto a list of being approved for organic produce, I'll eat my shoes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (12 children)

    What part of marketing do you not understand!?

    Please lecture me more on context. You are acting like a moron at this point.

    Anyway, I made some points and you said what you said. Cheers!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (11 children)

    What part of regulatory definition do you not understand?

    The only one acting like a "moron" is the one reduced so far as to rely on that as an insult to deflect from their inability to refute my point.

    You made a lot of red herrings to try to bait me into a defensive position. I only bothered addressing the parts that were relevant to the points that I actually made.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (10 children)

    I never said anything about regulatory definition. Your reading comprehension isn't that great I guess. You making a point about something unrelated doesn't exactly add to the conversation. But thanks for the information I already knew.

    I apologize if insulting your behavior hurt your feelings.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    I never said anything about regulatory definition.

    I did, and you've been conveniently ignoring that instead of addressing the points I actually made. Have you forgotten who posted the top-level comment here? This chain is you replying to me, dude. You don't get to decide what this argument is about just to make me seem in a weaker position. You don't decide what my argument is just because the one I'm actually making is too hard for you to refute.

    You making a point about something unrelated doesn't exactly add to the conversation.

    That's exactly what you're doing. Projection in a nutshell.

    I apologize if insulting your behavior hurt your feelings.

    My feelings aren't hurt, I'm simply pointing out that you apparently don't have any good-faith arguments left because you've resorted to projection, strawmen, and namecalling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (8 children)

    Listen, you don't have a point anymore. If you had something to add other than a feeble attempt at contradiction then we could of had a lovely conversation. Your behavior is definitely an issue. Cheers!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    That's great, real great. Now go find a mirror, look into it, and say that again, word-for-word.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Ohh wow, this kid pulls out I am rubber you are glue.

    I wasn't prepared for that. You win good sir!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    People who rely on projection seem to have it so easy when they can just pull out the sarcastic "no u" as soon as they get called out on it.

    This isn't much different...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Still nothing to say, no surprise.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Yeah, you're still talking about yourself. This conversation's been at a dead end for a while now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (19 children)

    Huh? From your own link

    • organic farmers use different kinds of pesticide if they use pesticide
    • they need to use non-pesticide methods first, and any pesticide use is heavily regulated
    • while some of the organic and limited synthetic pesticides could and do have potential human health implications, the vast majority of the synthetic pesticides used on conventional produce are widely recognized as probably having some damaging impacts on humans eating produce contaminated by them.

    As a result

    • Conventional vegetables were contaminated with 2 to 17 times as many pesticides as were organic vegetables. Conventional fruits were contaminated with 6–75 times as many pesticides as organic fruits.
    • The dietary risk index was more than 50 times higher for conventional vegetables than for organic vegetables, and more than 130 times higher for conventional fruits.

    Don't both sides this. The person saying buying organic is just raising your grocery bill without changing your pesticide exposure or risks is objectively, factually wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 4 months ago* (18 children)

    If you haven't studied this then trying a gotcha is pretty dumb.

    Slightly less exposure to chemicals and a higher impact on the environment isn't always the win you think it is.

    Don't turn this into a both sides issue. Stop carrying water for organic farming practices when you don't know what the fuck you are even talking about!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (17 children)

    uses facts from your own link that contradict the point you're trying to make

    If you haven't studied this then trying a gotcha is pretty dumb.

    Okay... 🙄

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 4 months ago (16 children)

    What exactly contradicted my original statement.

    Please just stop acting stupid it is not a good look.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (15 children)

    Please just stop acting stupid it is not a good look.

    It's funny how it's typically the ones with the flimsiest arguments that say shit like this.

    If you can't see the contradiction then you apparently didn't even read it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago (14 children)

    I can see you are unable to point out the contradiction.

    I guess I was right. Cheers!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (13 children)

    I see no need to point out what's already plain as day for everyone who reads this thread.

    I won't dance for you like a monkey wearing a vest, go play your tune somewhere else

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago (12 children)

    You are acting pretty unhinged as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (10 children)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (9 children)

    You sure know how to amuse yourself...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    By leaving the top level comment?

    If that's what you mean by "started it," then whatever. You're beneath me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    You replied to me to so you are literally beneath me smarty pants.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Again, scroll up to check which one of us left the top-level comment before arguing who replied to who.

    Either way, I'm no longer entertained, although it seems you still are. Can't say I envy you...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Looks like your still below me, so strange.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Is someone writing all this down? So you can like, fix the world after it was completely broken by Trump? I doubt you can remember all of this stuff.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    I'm hoping somebody important is keeping a detailed list...

    Demagafication needs to be priority #1 of the next administration, even before reforming the parts of the system that were already broken or flawed before he took over...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    There is a podcast called Cleanup On Isle 45, it started when Trump lost the first time, and it was all about the cleanup after his disaster of a first term. It was quite satisfying, even though the through-line was "don't relax, it's not over". I stopped listening when the second trump hit the towers. If there will ever be a democratic president, I can imagine the new season will be very satisfying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    Those chemicals aren't going to hurt him much at this point while they will generate money from kick-backs.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Plus the protest-non-voters too.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    are you going to agitate your fist at your strawman until you die?

    anyways, so true bestie, liberal governments would never allow dangerous pesticides

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    It's funny that you were the one that created a strawman. Have a good day!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    ok ok I get that you dont like MAGA but "cancer linked" means someone studied it for cancer, not that it causes cancer

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Cancer linked generally means it has been shown by scientific research to increase the risk of developing cancer

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Correlation is not causation. If it was causative they would say that, but they couldn't find a direct cause and effect just a statistical connection.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago*

    The chemical world is incredibly complex. We have a hard time modeling for two chemicals reacting let alone several different chemicals inside the human body.

    This means if I am exposed to a different chemical profile than you a chemical could cause me cancer but not you.

    We are still a long way from being able to model these complex interactions between several chemicals we are exposed to.

    That is why you setup a regulatory system like the EU where chemicals are first proven safe before being used and quickly pulled even if correlation is showing a trend.

    This as opposed to the US system where all chemicals are great until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to cause enormous problems and even then still allowed or phased out only to be brought back later.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    again, linked doesnt mean proven.

    correlation, not causation

    and "cancer linked" is misused so much for it not to be serious anymore

    almostn ANYTHING is cancer linked

    did you know that living increases your chances of getting cancer by over 100%

  • source
  • parent