namelesstavern.net

You don't have to like what they do, but there is a great deal of things said about them that is simply not true. It's not their business to be ethical. That's the government’s job. If they're breaking the law, that's one thing, but this whole pollen cloud claim is bogus and doesn't even pass the simple logic test. You think professional farmers are just letting any random seed cultivate in their farm? You think they’re going to let the wind blow pumpkin seeds into their tomato harvest and just be like, oh look what nature created. Oh well. If someone had a harvest of a copyrighted seed, they have a right to sue, just like anyone else.

Having said that, you had a right to think they're litigious bastards for it and have nothing to do with them. In this case, I personally think they were justified and are being unfairly criticized.

Zanchief wrote:You think professional farmers are just letting any random seed cultivate in their farm? You think they’re going to let wind blow pumpkin seeds into their tomato harvest and just be like, oh look what nature created. Oh well. If someone had a harvest bad of a copyrighted seed, they have a right to sue .

What about neighboring farms that grow same produce? Selective logic to prove your argument?

You have a source or just an assumption of this happening? I'm not going to refute a straw man you've created to win this argument. Site a specific lawsuit.

Zanchief wrote:You have a source or just an assumption of this happening? I'm not going to refute a straw man you've created to win this argument. Site a specific lawsuit.

Same goes for your argument buddy

You're right, pollen seems bogus and was a poor choice of words. Seeds is what i should've said, and what they're actually doing is much worse than what i originally said http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201109 ... eeds.shtml

Hating a company for shady business dealings and backdoor government dealings isn't even relevant.

This is about wild and baseless claims that some retarded fad diet and foods labeled with advertising buzz words is somehow nutritionally superior.

I'm kinda interested in this debate and you're starting to be facetious Ganzo. It's not Zan's burden to prove what isn't there. If you're claiming something happened or could happen then it's up to you to site a source.

Ganzo wrote:

Zanchief wrote:You think professional farmers are just letting any random seed cultivate in their farm? You think they’re going to let wind blow pumpkin seeds into their tomato harvest and just be like, oh look what nature created. Oh well. If someone had a harvest bad of a copyrighted seed, they have a right to sue .

What about neighboring farms that grow same produce? Selective logic to prove your argument?

To stay on track with the argument, do you have any examples or lawsuits backing this comment ^^^^? I wanna know if this is something that has happened.

So far all you've responded with was:

Ganzo wrote:

Zanchief wrote:You have a source or just an assumption of this happening? I'm not going to refute a straw man you've created to win this argument. Site a specific lawsuit.

Same goes for your argument buddy

1) You didn't back up your claim. 2) Everything Zan said is referenced by past lawsuits and the written law. 3) What exactly are you asking him to site or are you just being argumentative?

Monsanto topic aside, seems like Zan's claim is that food of the "regular" variety is the same, health value wise, as the stuff that's free range, organic, natural, pesticide free alternatives. This is not saying anything about how it tastes, but rather its value nutritionally. Do you disagree? Why? Do you have anything that disproves this? Zan, do you have something that proves your claim?

Zanchief wrote:

Ganzo wrote:Where did I say that GMO or geneticaly modifying products made them more harmfull?

Ganzo wrote:I mean meat and dairy produced in US and Canada is banned in most of the world because of how bad it is, how full of radiation, hormones, antibiotics and bacteria it is; why would i eat it.

This is where it started. You specifically said the food was irradiated. This is likely before you did yourself a favor and goggled this. Back peddle all the way back to an 'I was wrong'.

Yes sugar found in fruit is largely identical to either candy with cane sugar (yes people pay more for cane sugar) or the dreaded high fructose corn syrup.

Ganzo, it is true that meat and dairy from the US apparently don't meet (npi) the European standard and is banned all across Europe and in over 160 countries worldwide. Does this support your argument or is this totally separate from the whole free range, pen raised argument entirely? Zan, on the same subject here, does this have anything to do with your argument with Ganzo about pen raised vs. free range? Is Europe overreacting or just dumb to ban our meat and dairy? Do the arguments overlap or am I on the wrong subject? That's the stuff I wanna know from your guys' debate.

PS - Ganzo please don't Harrison this argument with holier than thou sarcasm. The whole "WELL I GUESS YOU'RE RIGHT AND APPLES ARE LIKE SNICKERS NP THEN HURR HURR" shit is a waste of time. This is a really good subject I'd like to see you guys debate thoroughly.

Jay wrote:Monsanto topic aside, seems like Zan's claim is that food of the "regular" variety is the same, health value wise, as the stuff that's free range, organic, natural, pesticide free alternatives. This is not saying anything about how it tastes, but rather its value nutritionally. Do you disagree? Why? Do you have anything that disproves this? Zan, do you have something that proves your claim?

Just to point out a few things, since this is going the serious route. Supermarket, mass-produced food can, conceivable, be less healthy, just not for the stated reasons (Radiation, GMOs, Pesticides, grain fed, etc). I doubt those are the reasons our meat is not acceptable for the European market, but it could be because of specific non-health related standards. I don't know why but if someone can dig them up, I'll read them.

Monsanto: I don't know everything about them, but when I do read something, it usually from a very dubious source and is usually bogus, so I tend to take those comments with a grain of salt. I couldn't read Drems link (didn't work). Are they "unethical"? Depends on your standards, I guess. I don't see why profits shouldn't be there one and only goal. Any business that trades profits for goodwill usually does that so they can increase profits by passing as a more righteous company. Copyright laws are already in place. They have every right to use them, even if it seems douchy.

Monsanto GMOs killing children across the world with poison.

Source: http://www.hippyfoodalternatives.com

Not a real place or headline, but these are typical sources you see vegans throwing around.

Or, worse yet on so many levels, a doctor throwing his degree in the ring making false claims to promote his diet program. That shit should be illegal. (and it probably is...)

I had a vegan tell me once that artificial sweeteners are toxic and made from lighter fluid (butane to be specific).

Vaccines cause autism, etc.

Vegans are retards.

http://stumblingmonkeys.blogspot.com/20 ... sweet.html

Claiming there's chloroform and antifreeze in sweeteners, using bad "science" to fool people who don't know any better. The worst part is when people gobble this shit up and the cycle continues of moronic vegans spreading stupidity.

Zanchief wrote:Monsanto: I don't know everything about them, but when I do read something, it usually from a very dubious source and is usually bogus, so I tend to take those comments with a grain of salt. I couldn't read Drems link (didn't work). Are they "unethical"? Depends on your standards, I guess. I don't see why profits shouldn't be there one and only goal. Any business that trades profits for goodwill usually does that so they can increase profits by passing as a more righteous company. Copyright laws are already in place. They have every right to use them, even if it seems douchy.

The problem with the copyright laws is that they weren't designed with genetics in mind. So now we have Monsanto making the laws, essentially, to suit their own agenda. No one is stopping them and at this rate no one can.

I hate Monsanto with a seething passion but, it's not for any of the retarded reasons shitbrained hippies do.

Harrison wrote:The problem with the copyright laws is that they weren't designed with genetics in mind. So now we have Monsanto making the laws, essentially, to suit their own agenda. No one is stopping them and at this rate no one can.

I agree. This is where the government needs to step in and get past the lobbyist.

Harrison wrote:Monsanto GMOs killing children across the world with poison.

Source: http://www.hippyfoodalternatives.com

Not a real place or headline, but these are typical sources you see vegans throwing around.

Or, worse yet on so many levels, a doctor throwing his degree in the ring making false claims to promote his diet program. That shit should be illegal. (and it probably is...)

I had a vegan tell me once that artificial sweeteners are toxic and made from lighter fluid (butane to be specific).

Vaccines cause autism, etc.

Vegans are retards.

http://stumblingmonkeys.blogspot.com/20 ... sweet.html

Claiming there's chloroform and antifreeze in sweeteners, using bad "science" to fool people who don't know any better. The worst part is when people gobble this shit up and the cycle continues of moronic vegans spreading stupidity.

slow down a minute

some of the loopy hippies can get very wuwu about stuff, i'll definitely agree, but what's the justification for calling vegans retards? some of them probably are, sure, but not all of them are dumb enough to believe there's antifreeze in sweeteners.

while i don't practice veganism (or even vegetarianism) i think there are some pretty compelling reasons to do so that don't begin to cross into the absurd. economically speaking, for example, a cow consumes a huge amount of grain throughout its life. by the time that cow is processed, all the grain it ate could've fed a LOT more people than the beef it yielded.

Again, that's more about mass production and overpopulation concerns than "it's better for you."

It's undeniable that meat takes more energy to produce overall. I don't think there's a single person on this planet who decides to forego eating meat for that reason. It's just another reason they tack on to the "omg no eating things with faces" lunacy.

It's right. It does take a LOT more effort, energy, and ultimately food to raise meat. But, there's no one out there turning vegetarian because of this.

The link was one court case of many where Monsanto sued a farmer for patent infringement. You're not allowed to buy round-up ready seeds thru Monsanto and save them for next season. However, once the seeds are sold to a levenger and re-sold to a third party, US patent law states the original seller's patent has been 'exaughsted'.

So that link is about a farmer that bought cheap seed thru a levenger. Some of it was round-up ready. He saved it til next season. Monsanto sued and somehow actually won against someone who did nothing wrong. It's the equivelant of Nintendo coming down on some kid for playing a game he bought second hand, which would never happen. Like Harrison said, it's like they're making the laws, or are, at least, above them

Just google 'monsanto bogus lawsuit'. Pretty sure that was one of the first results

"Farm raised fish is actually anti-nutritional, especially tilapia. Stay away from it, it will kill you!"

Taken directly from a post on Facebook on a local fish market's page.

Then someone chimes in with:



This is the sort of shit that people spread about food with absolutely no basis in reality. It needs to stop.

Next you'll tell me that eating meat isn't natural and human beings aren't designed to eat it at all. This argument is raised by vegans regularly. It's so dumb I can't even begin to attack it. The statement just sucks the life out of me.

The anti-fish farm folk momentarily turn me into a environmentalist/conservationist. It's scary how quickly were decimating our oceans and rivers.

Seriously. We had a dude the other night that threw a big fit and cancelled his order for our smoked rainbow trout salad because it was farmed. Now i'm no environmentalist, but i think some native americans would be pissed if restaurants sold wild trout. I know i would be

My favorite are the people that think cow's milk is bad for you because we aren't designed to ingest that. It's for baby cows only, blah blah makes me see red, like Harrison and the meat thing

I always tell people they can feel free to unevolve if they want to. The human race would be so stupid and underdeveloped if we never ate meat

Harrison wrote:there's no one out there turning vegetarian because of this.

you've asked every single vegetarian? come on man

.

Yeah basically all of that. Thalidomide especially. And bees are getting fucked up because all the neonicotinoids in pesticides and all of that is definitely increasing the rates of CCD.

I live in hippy-central (eugene, or) and subscribe to very little of the type of shit harrison is talking about. Who in their right mind would? A little research goes a long way. And as far as crop and strain diversity is concerned, Monsanto has done a lot of damage. I don't think food should be a science project akin to healthcare. Shit was fine for thousands of year before we developed the technology to do any of this nonsense

Yeah, crops might fail. Part of the game. No excuse for letting plants absorb round-up and keep growing and then be assumed 'safe'

No reason to soak beef in ammonia or irradiate it. If you raise a healthy animal and butcher it and process the meat for consumption and use the carcass for stock you won't have any reason to soak it in chemicals or put it thru chemo. It's just absurd to me, entirely. Those are not justifiable business practices. It's so obscenely lazy

And how can science justify the long term effects of any of these practices when they've only been in existence for a few decades? Thankfully a lot of places have already banned the pink slime