Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Corporations Should Have To Tell Us What's In Our Food! (w/Guest: Patty Lovera) (Original Post) thomhartmann Jul 2016 OP
Just a friendly reminder Act_of_Reparation Jul 2016 #1
oh my word. you really hate organics, don't you? niyad Jul 2016 #2
No. Act_of_Reparation Jul 2016 #3
all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. niyad Jul 2016 #4
By "all", I assume you mean "none" Act_of_Reparation Jul 2016 #6
It's implied in your orginal proposition. ffr Jul 2016 #7
No, it isn't. Act_of_Reparation Jul 2016 #10
What?! ffr Jul 2016 #11
Yes, I cleverly disguised my seething hatred... Act_of_Reparation Jul 2016 #12
Ad hominem fallacy ffr Jul 2016 #13
Not quite. Act_of_Reparation Jul 2016 #14
You are correct & incorrect. Unclear what is meant by the naturalism distraction too. ffr Jul 2016 #15
It's the all or none fallacy that runs rampant on this board. Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2016 #8
300+ million people can't make food manufacturers tell them what's in the can, jtuck004 Jul 2016 #5
Corporations uber alles. chapdrum Jul 2016 #9

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
1. Just a friendly reminder
Mon Jul 11, 2016, 11:09 AM
Jul 2016


The organic non-gmo shade-grown grass-fed free-range non-HGH industry is big business, too; and all the overpriced shit you buy at Whole Foods is peddled by corporations who have a vested, financial interest in keeping you terrified of certain industry practices.

Yes, corporations should be honest about what's in their food. They should also be honest about how it's grown, how it is processed, the environmental damage it causes, and the relative health benefits it may or may not confer. Let organic farms warn their customers -- the majority of whom eat organics because they think organic farms don't use "chemicals" -- of the pesticides and fungicides with which they douse their produce. Make free-range chicken farmers warn of potential pathogens their wandering chickens may or may not pick up in their uncontrolled environment. Make them discuss how there's no evidence their premium-priced organics are any healthier than cheaper non-organic alternatives. Make them back up claims of environmental friendliness. Let's see how many organics companies are willing to jump on that bandwagon.

ffr

(22,644 posts)
7. It's implied in your orginal proposition.
Mon Jul 11, 2016, 02:22 PM
Jul 2016

I have to rely on organic products, from soil to fertilizers, to grow certain pollinating plants in my yard. The reason being, that people who haven't or who have purchased plants with chemical pesticides on the exact same species of plant that I grow, have had the pollinator's offspring die after consuming the plant they're suppose to depend upon.

Nature has been doing things the organic way for 400+ million years. It's Man that has introduced chemicals and genetically modified organisms to the mix, completely unnaturally. Life didn't allow for this crap to be introduced, but Man is forcing these ingredients and species upon the ecosystem. And that GMO DNA is being consumed by you and your body. Your DNA has to know what to do with stuff that's unnatural, parts of which will become your DNA makeup.

The fact that Organics cost more has more to do with the fact that 'that's what food costs.' The garbage you're buying for your family, isn't natural, it's alien. You can keep your money and pile it up, if that's your primary mission in life. Mine is health of myself and my family. Everything else is secondary.

ffr

(22,644 posts)
11. What?!
Tue Jul 12, 2016, 11:36 AM
Jul 2016
The organic non-gmo shade-grown grass-fed free-range non-HGH industry is big business, too; and all the overpriced shit you buy at Whole Foods is peddled by corporations who have a vested, financial interest in keeping you terrified of certain industry practices. - Act_of_Reparation


Those are your words aren't they? Maybe I just imagined you wrote that and that's your angle? So long as you believe it's not implied, that's all good and well. But how do you think a neutral third party would view your comments and graphic? Maybe a debate panel of judges? I'd find it hard to fathom them not seeing what you wrote as anything less than a hit piece. To get another perspective, replace your name on that post with mine. I'm sure you'd say the same of me.

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
12. Yes, I cleverly disguised my seething hatred...
Tue Jul 12, 2016, 11:53 AM
Jul 2016

...as a graphic detailing corporate ownership of popular organic brands and a laundry list of advertising buzzwords oft employed to hawk said brands.

You really sussed me out, you wily devil, you.


ffr

(22,644 posts)
13. Ad hominem fallacy
Tue Jul 12, 2016, 12:32 PM
Jul 2016
"You really sussed me out, you wily devil, you."

Try to hold to the argument at hand, instead of attacking me.

Your OP words are consistent with some underlying hatred you hold of the non-GMO and organic industries.

Since you cannot defend your OP and have to resort to personal attacks upon anyone who calls your line of reasoning into question, I'll assume you are admitting that we have pointed out something that is embarrassing to you. Don't be. Learn from it. Just try to hold true and be consistent in your ideas and you won't have your feet held to the fire for what you've said. This is DU after all.

What's strange about the graphic you added, is that it's incomplete. I belong to a cooperative (COOP) and most of the farmers who grow organics for the COOP are not corporations and in fact, none of them fall within any of the stereotypes listed in your graphic. There are many who provide produce from their home gardens. I don't see those listed in your graphic nor do you give them credit for the niche they fill...which leads me to believe that the graphic, while may holding some merit, is also a red herring tool.

I wouldn't be so quick to peddle something readily identifiable as deceitful.

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
14. Not quite.
Tue Jul 12, 2016, 01:19 PM
Jul 2016

An ad hominem is a fallacious argument whereby one party attacks the personal character of their opponent rather than the argument itself. Unfortunately, you have no argument for me to address. All you have is a groundless claim that I am "hateful" towards organics... a claim which, by the way, is an ad hominem.

Maybe later we can talk about argument from naturalism, assuming you're still interested in fallacious arguments.



ffr

(22,644 posts)
15. You are correct & incorrect. Unclear what is meant by the naturalism distraction too.
Tue Jul 12, 2016, 08:20 PM
Jul 2016

Okay.

Correct.
An ad hominem is a fallacious argument whereby one party attacks the personal character of their opponent rather than the argument itself.

To which I correctly stated your attack upon me using a clapping graphic and to which you are guilty of using derogatory comments towards me "...you wily devil, you..." . See above.

Incorrect.
Your OP uses a red herring graphic and you use offensive language in your proposition: "all the overpriced shit you buy, etc, etc, etc..." That is the definition of hateful speech.

It is my hope that if you intend to make statements, that you keep the idea consistent and on point, instead of diverting your argument onto personal attacks and inconsistent fallacious reasoning. Believe me, I'm just a novice at this stuff. DU is filled with many who'd go a lot further in addressing bad logic and weak reasoning ("we can talk about argument from naturalism &quot than my simple rebuttals.

That's strike two. Three and I'll just figure that you choose to continue arguing from a losing perspective and say .

The original rebuttal was: "oh my word. you really hate organics, don't you?"

Would you say that's true given what you now know about what you wrote?

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
8. It's the all or none fallacy that runs rampant on this board.
Mon Jul 11, 2016, 03:17 PM
Jul 2016

Especially when it comes to things like GMOs. Nuance is a lost art.

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
5. 300+ million people can't make food manufacturers tell them what's in the can,
Mon Jul 11, 2016, 12:14 PM
Jul 2016

What a bunch of lemmings.

We deserve every rotten bite.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»Corporations Should Have ...