Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

TED is Dead


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 nucklehead

nucklehead

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,324 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 03

Posted 20 September 2013 - 09:57 PM

http://www.hangtheba...lks-about-gmos/

Allow me to be the first to announce that TED is dead. Why? Because the group that organizes so-called "TED talks" has been thoroughly hijacked by corporate junk science and now openly rejects any talks about GMOs, food as medicine, or even the subject of how food can help prevent behavioral disorders in children. All these areas of discussion are now red-flagged from being presented on any TED stage.

This is openly admitted by TEDx itself in a little-known letter publicly published on December 7, 2012. Click here to view the letter.

In that letter, TED says that people who talk about GMOs are engaged in "pseudoscience." Those who discuss the healing potential of foods are spreading "health hoaxes."The letter also advises TEDx organizers to, "reject bad science, pseudoscience and health hoaxes," meaning anyone who talks about GMOs, "food as medicine" or similar topics.The TED organization, incredibly, believes that food cannot be medicine and does not contain medicine. Perhaps someone should educate TED about resveratrol, curcumin, phycocyanins, polyphenols and ten thousand other chemicals created by plants that have medicinal functions in the human body. To deny this is to nearly admit you believe the Earth is flat and that the sun and stars revolve around our planet. It is a sure sign of a feeble mind that cannot grasp the very simple and readily evident idea that the human body evolved in an environment full of plants with beneficial physiological effects, including many medicinal effects.


  • 0
biggerabacus_zps5cae10b6.jpg

#2 TheRussianRocket™

TheRussianRocket™

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,480 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 13

Posted 20 September 2013 - 10:09 PM

Yea... Heard earlier Monsanto paid TED to not talk against them...
  • 0

fD9sila.jpg
^^Salter^^


#3 ckamo

ckamo

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,335 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 06

Posted 20 September 2013 - 10:11 PM

I haven't read through that entire open letter yet, but from the looks of it....I disagree with your quote. They aren't banning people from talking about GMOs. Nor are they calling people who do pseudo-scientists. From what I've read so far, they are just saying BEWARE of speakers who want to talk about GMOs, because this is a topic that tends to attract people who aren't qualified to talk about it.



2. Red flag topics
These are not “banned” topics by any means — but they are topics that tend to attract pseudo-scientists. If your speaker proposes a topic like this, use extra scrutiny. An expanding, depressing list follows:
Food science, including:

  • GMO food and anti-GMO foodists
  • Food as medicine, especially to treat a specific condition: Autism and ADHD, especially causes of and cures for autism
Because of the sad history of hoaxes with deadly consequences in the field of autism research, really look into the background of any autism-related talk. If you hear anything that sounds remotely like, “Vaccines are related to autism,” — RUN AWAY. Another non-legitimate argument: “We don’t know what works, so we have to try everything.” Pretty much all the time, this argument is designed to cause guilt in suffering parents so they’ll spend money on unproven treatments.



Is this what the quote was talking about?
Because yeah, if someone came and told me that if an autistic person ate X plant, they would be cured...I'd say I wouldn't believe them either....

I'm sure there must be more to this story than that letter, I'll for sure do some reading. But as someone going into scientific research, I think TED and TEDx has been a great way for scientists, especially in basic research, to show non-scientists WHY they do their research and how it affects everyone else.


edit: nevermind, I clicked on the link to the letter and thought I had clicked on the link to the site from the OP.

edit 2: OK, I can't get through that link...why? Because it is written by what seems like a very angry person who is taking bits of that letter out of context.

Example:
Quote from the article:

These so-called “pseudoscience” topics include:
• Consciousness, free will and the non-material “mind”
• “The fusion of science and spirituality” — as if higher spiritual awareness is somehow not a valid pathway for the discovery of truth
• Nearly all neuroscience.
• The placebo effect, something that has been experimentally proven to exist through tens of thousands of clinical trials.
• Any and all “healing,” including Reiki or hands-on healing, healing touch, etc.


Here is the actual quote from the letter:

  • "Healing," including reiki, energy fields, alternative health and placebos, crystals, pyramid power
  • "Free energy" and perpetual motion machines, alchemy, time travel
  • The neuroscience of [fill in the blank] — not saying this will all be non-legitimate, but that it’s a field where a lot of goofballs are right now
  • The fusion of science and spirituality. Be especially careful of anyone trying to prove the validity of their religious beliefs and practices by using science


I'm not sure what is meant by neuroscience, but the rest of it...well, I think anyone would be hard pressed to find a peer-reviewed article in a reputable scientific journal about the health benefits of crystals or reiki.



I'm not at all saying that there is no possibility TED and Monsato have an agreement in place, but from what I'm reading from that letter...TED isn't guilty of quite a few of the accusations laid against them in the article.

Edited by ckamo, 20 September 2013 - 10:38 PM.

  • 0

#4 LostViking

LostViking

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,399 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 09

Posted 20 September 2013 - 10:24 PM

TED has been a sham for a while now. It is so big and popular now that it can't help but be corrupted.

As far as talk about GMOs, food as medicine, etc. are concerned, I agree with the above poster, those debates draw a lot of people who are unqualified to discuss the topics, and there are a lot of people out there who will believe anything they hear on those topics so long as it supports their views, its a recipe for disaster to allow that type of talk without heavy screening first.
  • 0
Posted Image

#5 ckamo

ckamo

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,335 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 06

Posted 20 September 2013 - 10:41 PM

TED has been a sham for a while now. It is so big and popular now that it can't help but be corrupted.
As far as talk about GMOs, food as medicine, etc. are concerned, I agree with the above poster, those debates draw a lot of people who are unqualified to discuss the topics, and there are a lot of people out there who will believe anything they hear on those topics so long as it supports their views, its a recipe for disaster to allow that type of talk without heavy screening first.

Oh absolutely. Screening their speakers would be a long and tedious process, but it's necessary. The flip side to this is that maybe there hasn't been a lot of research in support of certain views because the funding isn't there (ie, big pharma companies don't hand out grants to people who want to do research into why drug XYZ is bad for people).
  • 0

#6 butters

butters

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,344 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 20 September 2013 - 10:44 PM

*
POPULAR

The original link is bunk. Anything written in such a shrill tone is suspect. And if you read the actual intent of the rules, you will see that the OPs link is a giant overreaction.
  • 5

#7 VancouverCanucksRock

VancouverCanucksRock

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,302 posts
  • Joined: 11-February 09

Posted 20 September 2013 - 11:31 PM

So no more Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventures? :(
  • 0
Posted Image WHen idiots think numbers are words, I do believe in 2012 for cleansing Earth of the idiots

#8 BanTSN

BanTSN

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,850 posts
  • Joined: 08-October 06

Posted 21 September 2013 - 12:21 AM

Watched one yesterday about how we can manufacture real cow leather in a lab and how that will eventually lead to manufactured meat.

I suppose the concern about GMO's will be long dead by then.
  • 0
Posted Image

#9 Warhippy

Warhippy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,706 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 13

Posted 21 September 2013 - 11:51 AM

TED has actually been suspect for a while now. It has gone from grass roots to corporate sponsored and as such one cannot bite the proverbial hand that feeds.

If Ford is paying you millions of dollars you cannot speak out against Ford using cheap labour in Bangladesh can you?

If Monsanto is supplying millions in production costs by the same reach you cannot say Monsanto engineered and supplied pesticides are directly responsible for bee kills in countries still using Monsanto products can you?

It is much like the people who brought us Food Inc, which Monsanto has an ongoing lawsuit over regarding defamation when they aired Monsanto contracts and crops were being unfairly forced upon farmers and through pollination were leading to theft of land via lawsuits against small farmers.

I personally just don't trust anyone to not have an agenda when Corporation X is in their closing credits.
  • 0
CIaude Giroux Posted 27 June 2014 - 04:15 PM


He's out for 6 months (which will hinder his development) and he really needs that development. There's already worries that he won't translate to the NHL and he'll end up a huge ass bust.

 

 


#10 Johnny Debt

Johnny Debt

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,707 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 21 September 2013 - 12:07 PM

TED has actually been suspect for a while now. It has gone from grass roots to corporate sponsored and as such one cannot bite the proverbial hand that feeds.

If Ford is paying you millions of dollars you cannot speak out against Ford using cheap labour in Bangladesh can you?

If Monsanto is supplying millions in production costs by the same reach you cannot say Monsanto engineered and supplied pesticides are directly responsible for bee kills in countries still using Monsanto products can you?

It is much like the people who brought us Food Inc, which Monsanto has an ongoing lawsuit over regarding defamation when they aired Monsanto contracts and crops were being unfairly forced upon farmers and through pollination were leading to theft of land via lawsuits against small farmers.

I personally just don't trust anyone to not have an agenda when Corporation X is in their closing credits.


Can you provide some sources to support all of these statements?
  • 0
Oh, I'll break them down, no mercy shown
Heaven knows, it's got to be this time
Watching her, these things she said
The times she cried
Too frail to wake this time

#11 Warhippy

Warhippy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,706 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 13

Posted 21 September 2013 - 12:16 PM

Can you provide some sources to support all of these statements?

Seriously?

Do your own homework.

Watch the closing credits of any TED Talks program. Find out the subsidiaries and who the parent company is. Shocking really.

But for the sake of you I'll do some of the work

http://www.bing.com/...=MSNH56&qs=n=
http://www.ted.com/p...dtalks_sponsors
http://www.bing.com/...31266afbfc1d03b

As for not being able to bite the hand that feeds. You seriously cannot expect to be able to speak out against ANY sponsor that keeps your business afloat and still expect to keep them as a sponsor....that's common sense
  • 0
CIaude Giroux Posted 27 June 2014 - 04:15 PM


He's out for 6 months (which will hinder his development) and he really needs that development. There's already worries that he won't translate to the NHL and he'll end up a huge ass bust.

 

 


#12 Johnny Debt

Johnny Debt

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,707 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 21 September 2013 - 01:16 PM

Seriously?

Do your own homework.

Watch the closing credits of any TED Talks program. Find out the subsidiaries and who the parent company is. Shocking really.

But for the sake of you I'll do some of the work

http://www.bing.com/......=MSNH56&qs=n=
http://www.ted.com/p...dtalks_sponsors
http://www.bing.com/...31266afbfc1d03b

As for not being able to bite the hand that feeds. You seriously cannot expect to be able to speak out against ANY sponsor that keeps your business afloat and still expect to keep them as a sponsor....that's common sense


The onus is on you to provide sources.

Can you prove this " crops were being unfairly forced upon farmers and through pollination were leading to theft of land via lawsuits against small farmers."

I got this from the link you provided me:

Can a farmer be sued when a small amount of GM crop seed blows into a neighbor’s fields? Do you sue this farmer? Does he or she have to prove he or she is innocent?


It has never been, nor will it be, Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented traits are present in farmers’ fields as a result of inadvertent means. We have no motivation to conduct business in this manner, nor have we ever attempted to conduct business in this manner -- and we surely would not prevail in the courts if we did.
If a suspected instance of a farmer violating our technology agreements or patent rights is reported to us, we do not automatically assume a farmer has intentionally acted in an unethical or criminal manner. The burden of proof is not on the farmer. Instead, the burden of proof is on Monsanto to investigate the legitimacy of these claims and to resolve the issue as quickly and fairly as possible, which usually does not lead to litigation.
It is patently false that Monsanto sues farmers for the accidental presence of our technology in their crops. This misperception likely began with Percy Schmeiser, who was brought to court in Canada by Monsanto for illegally saving Roundup Ready® canola seed. Mr. Schmeiser claims to this day the presence of Monsanto technology in his fields was accidental, even though three separate court decisions, including one by the Canadian Supreme Court, concluded his claims were false. A review of the evidence presented in court makes it very clear Mr. Schmeiser’s claims are not credible.
The only way we can achieve success as a company is to work every day to show farmers, communities and consumers we are a beneficial, helpful and ethical business partner.


Edited by Johnny Debt, 21 September 2013 - 01:20 PM.

  • 0
Oh, I'll break them down, no mercy shown
Heaven knows, it's got to be this time
Watching her, these things she said
The times she cried
Too frail to wake this time

#13 Warhippy

Warhippy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,706 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 13

Posted 21 September 2013 - 01:32 PM

The onus is on you to provide sources.

Can you prove this " crops were being unfairly forced upon farmers and through pollination were leading to theft of land via lawsuits against small farmers."

I got this from the link you provided me:

[/color]

Yes I can prove it. Unfortunately due to legal restrictions details are not being released.

But again watch Food Inc. A small farmer surrounded by Monsanto soy and grain had his fields tested by Monsanto, they claimed he was using THEIR seed because his crops now had the blueprint of Monsanto seed due to pollination from neighbouring farms. He was in danger of losing his farm via legal fees and Monsanto's basic carte blanche in the USA to appropriate crops and land found using their "product" without contract or payment.

The Onus is NOT on me to prove anything, if you're curious it is on YOU to see if what people are saying is true or not. I tend to try posting things based on fact or what I have seen and observed. People who want to learn will find basis in fact via research. People who want to argue will ask for proof via links and then back up their own claims with Wikipedia.

There is a reason whole countries are boycotting companies like Monsanto up to and including farmers in Hungary burning their fields because Monsanto tried to appropriate land in the same manner.

Also, I provided links, I provided a basis of fact, it is up to you to dispute.

The end result and bottom line as per the OP is that corporations have indeed made TED Talks a little less credible
  • 0
CIaude Giroux Posted 27 June 2014 - 04:15 PM


He's out for 6 months (which will hinder his development) and he really needs that development. There's already worries that he won't translate to the NHL and he'll end up a huge ass bust.

 

 


#14 RAMBUTANS

RAMBUTANS

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,410 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 06

Posted 21 September 2013 - 01:48 PM

Are we talking about the airline ?
  • 0
Mr. Reputable of the HFBoards

#15 Johnny Debt

Johnny Debt

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,707 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 21 September 2013 - 02:48 PM

Yes I can prove it. Unfortunately due to legal restrictions details are not being released.

But again watch Food Inc. A small farmer surrounded by Monsanto soy and grain had his fields tested by Monsanto, they claimed he was using THEIR seed because his crops now had the blueprint of Monsanto seed due to pollination from neighbouring farms. He was in danger of losing his farm via legal fees and Monsanto's basic carte blanche in the USA to appropriate crops and land found using their "product" without contract or payment.

The Onus is NOT on me to prove anything, if you're curious it is on YOU to see if what people are saying is true or not. I tend to try posting things based on fact or what I have seen and observed. People who want to learn will find basis in fact via research. People who want to argue will ask for proof via links and then back up their own claims with Wikipedia.

There is a reason whole countries are boycotting companies like Monsanto up to and including farmers in Hungary burning their fields because Monsanto tried to appropriate land in the same manner.

Also, I provided links, I provided a basis of fact, it is up to you to dispute.

The end result and bottom line as per the OP is that corporations have indeed made TED Talks a little less credible


First, lets establish the basic principles of arguments:

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.


https://en.wikipedia...burden_of_proof

You've made a number of anecdotal claims with no proof. All court proceedings are of public record, please provide evidence.

I can't find any cases where Monsanto sued a farmer for cross pollination. I can find a few where farmers broke the law, though.
  • 0
Oh, I'll break them down, no mercy shown
Heaven knows, it's got to be this time
Watching her, these things she said
The times she cried
Too frail to wake this time

#16 Warhippy

Warhippy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,706 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 13

Posted 21 September 2013 - 03:28 PM

First, lets establish the basic principles of arguments:

[/size][/font][/color]
https://en.wikipedia...burden_of_proof

You've made a number of anecdotal claims with no proof. All court proceedings are of public record, please provide evidence.

I can't find any cases where Monsanto sued a farmer for cross pollination. I can find a few where farmers broke the law, though.

I despise Wikipedia but here is a few for ya there sunshine.

Only this first link and many more that show where Monsanto has sued hundreds of small farmers for cross pollination/piracy issues. Not to mention suing farmers who harvest heritage seeds etc.

Of course now that the wheat board is gone in Canada it also opens that mess up in the praries as well as it was previously protected. So read on, enjoy

http://www.nelsonfarm.net/issue.htm

http://www.sourcewat...against_Farmers

http://www.nelsonfarm.net/

http://www.redorbit...._piracy_issues/

http://www.theguardi...rs-seed-patents

http://www.bing.com/...tion&FORM=QSRE1



And the fight back.
http://www.bloomberg...patents-1-.html

Seriously is that difficult for you type in a few simple words and look for yourself?

Edited by Warhippy, 21 September 2013 - 03:30 PM.

  • 0
CIaude Giroux Posted 27 June 2014 - 04:15 PM


He's out for 6 months (which will hinder his development) and he really needs that development. There's already worries that he won't translate to the NHL and he'll end up a huge ass bust.

 

 


#17 Johnny Debt

Johnny Debt

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,707 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 21 September 2013 - 04:10 PM

I despise Wikipedia but here is a few for ya there sunshine.


I used Wikipedia to quote the most common, universal, well known principle of arguments.

Only this first link and many more that show where Monsanto has sued hundreds of small farmers for cross pollination/piracy issues. Not to mention suing farmers who harvest heritage seeds etc.

Of course now that the wheat board is gone in Canada it also opens that mess up in the praries as well as it was previously protected. So read on, enjoy

http://www.nelsonfarm.net/issue.htm


The article (from a notably bias source) alleges a farm is being sued for saving seeds, not cross pollination. Can you provide a link to the suit that is alleged?

http://www.sourcewat...against_Farmers


You don't trust wikipedia, yet you link to a wikipedia rip-off site called 'sourcewatch' that is clearly a sham? This link is an embarrassment to all academia.

The inability to re-use seeds is common place in the industry, it's not Monsanto centric nor is it invented by them. It's governed by the law.

Mr. Schmeiser broke the law. The summary on this link is atrocious, it is not a statement of fact from the case, it's an editorial shill piece. Feel free to read the real source on how the SUPREME COURT of Canada ruled against Mr. Schmeiser.

http://scc.lexum.org...m/2147/index.do


http://www.nelsonfarm.net/


...what exactly are you linking this for? Another interest group webpage not based on fact.

http://www.redorbit...._piracy_issues/


"Saving Monsanto’s seeds, genetically engineered to kill bugs and resist weed sprays, violates provisions of the company’s contracts with farmers"

Don't buy Monsanto seeds and enter into contract with them if you don't agree with the contract agreement. The farmer admits to re-using seed that he agreed not to by entering into contract. I don't see a case of cross pollination here, just a farmer breaking a legal contract.

Piracy is illegal.

http://www.theguardi...rs-seed-patents


This article simply states that Monsanto is suing to protect its patents. Patent law requires you to do this or your patent risks being dissolved.

Again, nothing to do with cross pollination. If you disagree with the patent system, go after the respective countries and their governing bodies. It's unfair to single out Monsanto, companies in every single industry file suits to protect their patents or else, as stated previous, you can risk losing your patent.

http://www.bing.com/...tion&FORM=QSRE1


None of those links contain evidence of Monsanto suing a farmer for cross pollination.


Again, show me a farmer sued by Monsanto for cross pollination.

Edited by Johnny Debt, 21 September 2013 - 04:12 PM.

  • 0
Oh, I'll break them down, no mercy shown
Heaven knows, it's got to be this time
Watching her, these things she said
The times she cried
Too frail to wake this time

#18 Warhippy

Warhippy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,706 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 13

Posted 21 September 2013 - 04:20 PM

I used Wikipedia to quote the most common, universal, well known principle of arguments.



The article (from a notably bias source) alleges a farm is being sued for saving seeds, not cross pollination. Can you provide a link to the suit that is alleged?



You don't trust wikipedia, yet you link to a wikipedia rip-off site called 'sourcewatch' that is clearly a sham? This link is an embarrassment to all academia.

The inability to re-use seeds is common place in the industry, it's not Monsanto centric nor is it invented by them. It's governed by the law.

Mr. Schmeiser broke the law. The summary on this link is atrocious, it is not a statement of fact from the case, it's an editorial shill piece. Feel free to read the real source on how the SUPREME COURT of Canada ruled against Mr. Schmeiser.

http://scc.lexum.org...m/2147/index.do




...what exactly are you linking this for? Another interest group webpage not based on fact.



"Saving Monsanto’s seeds, genetically engineered to kill bugs and resist weed sprays, violates provisions of the company’s contracts with farmers"

Don't buy Monsanto seeds and enter into contract with them if you don't agree with the contract agreement. The farmer admits to re-using seed that he agreed not to by entering into contract. I don't see a case of cross pollination here, just a farmer breaking a legal contract.

Piracy is illegal.



This article simply states that Monsanto is suing to protect its patents. Patent law requires you to do this or your patent risks being dissolved.

Again, nothing to do with cross pollination. If you disagree with the patent system, go after the respective countries and their governing bodies. It's unfair to single out Monsanto, companies in every single industry file suits to protect their patents or else, as stated previous, you can risk losing your patent.



None of those links contain evidence of Monsanto suing a farmer for cross pollination.


Again, show me a farmer sued by Monsanto for cross pollination.

I just gave you MULTIPLE examples.

I am sorry, you're one of those people who will take what he asked for call it biased and then demand more. And I for one refuse to continue engaging with this nonsense. You want something, you got it, take it and run as there is a dozen examples right there.

The "piracy" quoted is that cross pollination has lead to crops containing a Monsanto owned blueprint. It is right here but you call it biased so it's not going to matter what I post because it won't be good enough for you.

Edited by Warhippy, 21 September 2013 - 04:20 PM.

  • 0
CIaude Giroux Posted 27 June 2014 - 04:15 PM


He's out for 6 months (which will hinder his development) and he really needs that development. There's already worries that he won't translate to the NHL and he'll end up a huge ass bust.

 

 


#19 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,834 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 21 September 2013 - 04:22 PM

Yes I can prove it. Unfortunately due to legal restrictions details are not being released.

But again watch Food Inc. A small farmer surrounded by Monsanto soy and grain had his fields tested by Monsanto, they claimed he was using THEIR seed because his crops now had the blueprint of Monsanto seed due to pollination from neighbouring farms. He was in danger of losing his farm via legal fees and Monsanto's basic carte blanche in the USA to appropriate crops and land found using their "product" without contract or payment.

The Onus is NOT on me to prove anything, if you're curious it is on YOU to see if what people are saying is true or not. I tend to try posting things based on fact or what I have seen and observed. People who want to learn will find basis in fact via research. People who want to argue will ask for proof via links and then back up their own claims with Wikipedia.

There is a reason whole countries are boycotting companies like Monsanto up to and including farmers in Hungary burning their fields because Monsanto tried to appropriate land in the same manner.

Also, I provided links, I provided a basis of fact, it is up to you to dispute.

The end result and bottom line as per the OP is that corporations have indeed made TED Talks a little less credible

I am a farmer and I find this horrifying , if this happened to me I would go to ANY lengths to fight them.
  • 0

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#20 Johnny Debt

Johnny Debt

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,707 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 21 September 2013 - 04:55 PM

I just gave you MULTIPLE examples.

I am sorry, you're one of those people who will take what he asked for call it biased and then demand more. And I for one refuse to continue engaging with this nonsense. You want something, you got it, take it and run as there is a dozen examples right there.

The "piracy" quoted is that cross pollination has lead to crops containing a Monsanto owned blueprint. It is right here but you call it biased so it's not going to matter what I post because it won't be good enough for you.


LOL :rolleyes:

Even if I consider those sources legitimate, all of those examples are of patent issues arising from farmers RE-USING SEEDS. This does not support your argument. Please do some real research and get back to me.

All I'm asking for is a link to a court case (direct source, see http://www.canlii.org/en/ or http://www.uscourts....urtRecords.aspx) in which Monsanto sued a farmer for cross pollination. Provide me one with one case of record.

Edited by Johnny Debt, 21 September 2013 - 04:58 PM.

  • 0
Oh, I'll break them down, no mercy shown
Heaven knows, it's got to be this time
Watching her, these things she said
The times she cried
Too frail to wake this time

#21 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,657 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 21 September 2013 - 05:49 PM

Subsidize organic farming, so we can have sustainable agriculture for generations to come.

Screw Cargill and Monsanto and their money grubbing ways.
  • 1
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#22 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,901 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 21 September 2013 - 07:40 PM

TED isn't a forum for your anti GMO conspirCy propaganda. It's a forum for NEW ideas and technology.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.