Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The things that make you go hmm? (misconceptions thread)

1356713

Posts

  • Curly_BraceCurly_Brace Robot Girl Mimiga VillageRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Oh, god. What the general population doesn't know about transgenders could fill volumes.

    So very true... also I swear almost every transgender character I've ever seen on TV (har har again) is psycho or literally a serial killer... man talk about a bad rap! But I hear the new ABC drama "Dirty Sexy Money" is going to feature a relatively normal pre-operative female transsexual character... or at least The Advocate says so... though i doubt this is indeed the case.

    Curly_Brace on
    tom_sig2.jpgYKjfRSx.png
  • SnorkSnork Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I never really got the whole need for the separate words gay and lesbian.

    I've heard lesbians refer to themselves as 'gay women' plenty of times, but guys never get to call themselves lesbians.

    Is it just because gay is generally only an adjective and lesbian is a noun? Or what?

    Snork on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Oh, god. What the general population doesn't know about transgenders could fill volumes.

    So very true... also I swear almost every transgender character I've ever seen on TV (har har again) is psycho or literally a serial killer... man talk about a bad rap! But I hear the new ABC drama "Dirty Sexy Money" is going to feature a relatively normal pre-operative female transsexual character... or at least The Advocate says so... though i doubt this is indeed the case.

    Nip/Tuck did a good job with this in the first and second seasons. They had a number of MtF characters who were sympathetic without being perfect. They kind of fucked it up in season three, though.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • edited August 2007
    Snork wrote: »
    I never really got the whole need for the separate words gay and lesbian.

    I've heard lesbians refer to themselves as 'gay women' plenty of times, but guys never get to call themselves lesbians.

    Is it just because gay is generally only an adjective and lesbian is a noun? Or what?

    I've wondered that myself. I can't even recall ever using the term lesbian, or hearing homosexual friends use it either. Gay == homosexual, man or woman.

    Merovingi on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Snork wrote: »
    I never really got the whole need for the separate words gay and lesbian.

    I've heard lesbians refer to themselves as 'gay women' plenty of times, but guys never get to call themselves lesbians.

    Is it just because gay is generally only an adjective and lesbian is a noun? Or what?

    I thought pretty much everybody understood the origins of the word 'lesbian.'
    It comes from the (female) ancient Greek poet Sappho, who lived on the isle of Lesbos and wrote poems about her love of other women. So lesbian refers specifically to woman-woman love. (Although Sappho herself was probably bisexual, anyway.)

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • GenoForPrezGenoForPrez Registered User
    edited August 2007
    In reply to "how can people have morals without a belief in an afterlife":


    To the extent that a religion strives to promote ethical conduct, I support those efforts whole-heartedly. But too often, religions define morality more in terms of whether a person belongs to the "correct" religion, rather than in terms of whether an individual treats others fairly and compassionately.

    Rather than labeling actions as "right" or "wrong, I prefer to think of them as "considerate" or "inconsiderate" of someone else's rights.

    If an act deliberately and needlessly impinges upon someone else's rights, then I consider that act wrong and abstain from that activity. Murder, robbery, assault and battery---and almost all crimes---would fit into this category. These crimes are bad in themselves. Atheists and believers would no doubt have few, if any, disagreements about that.

    They probably would have issues, however, over issues that are bad only because they are prohibited. For example, they would probably disagree over the morality of certain types of sexual conduct and also masturbation. These are not inconsiderate acts, and they are victimless. They are bad according to religion simply because religion says so.

    Even those disputes aside, it's possible for someone who is completely atheist to lead a moral life by religious standards.

    You don't need religion to be moral, and if you're only moral because you hope to receive a reward or to avoid a punishment instead of simply being considerate for another human being, then I would say you're not being very moral at all.

    GenoForPrez on
  • Dead China DollDead China Doll Registered User
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    no, they're not feminist at all. As in, they're not arguing for an equal place in society, but some bizarre combination of private-sphere primacy and public-sphere... absence (except for them, because they're different). They're really basically women who make careers out of telling other women they shouldn't have careers, a la Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter. And wikipedia really isn't a great place to be reading about feminism, given that its largely written and edited by bitter techs.

    Second second, here here. Most people are quick to misinterpret them as feminist, but I think it has a great deal to do with misinformation and ignorance.

    I think the only reason why most feminists are currently 'angry' is because there are so many misconceptions about the definition of Feminism. The movement is only going backwards in some steps because it has garnered such a negative image by the misinformed. Most girls I know are scared to be labeled a Feminist because they are afraid it means ladies who don't wear makeup, bash men, and are snobby loathing people. On the contrary, I've met many vain feminists and quite a list of men who are feminists (Most men are, if you believe in public and private equality).

    Dead China Doll on
    thechicken.gif
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    zhen_rogue wrote: »
    Spoilers on civilian cars sold/touted as "performance" upgrades.
    One of my FAVORITE misconceptions.

    By "civilian" I'm assuming you mean not for racing purposes.

    Another misconception: that the terms "spoiler" and "wing" are interchangeable. Spoilers are used to interrupt or redirect flow, not generate downforce. In practice, they're often used on road cars to counteract the lifting or drag inducing effect of flow separation at the trailing edge of the car's roof, which can be helpful from a fuel efficiency or stability perspective at motorway speeds. That particular kind of spoiler is often very small and visually unassuming.

    Wings on the other hand, are used to generate downforce, and are generally pointless on a car unless you're travelling at speeds which are pretty much unattainable on public roads, unless you live near an autobahn or on the Isle of Man.

    japan on
  • Just Like ThatJust Like That Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Things that are "natural" are better for you.

    I could post a whole rant on that idea, but it would just make me more pissed off.

    Just Like That on
  • Dead China DollDead China Doll Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Tobasco wrote: »
    Things that are "natural" are better for you.

    I could post a whole rant on that idea, but it would just make me more pissed off.

    When you say natural, does it concern food ingredients?

    Dead China Doll on
    thechicken.gif
  • BroloBrolo Broseidon Lord of the BroceanRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Tobasco wrote: »
    Things that are "natural" are better for you.

    I could post a whole rant on that idea, but it would just make me more pissed off.

    opium is all natural shit son

    makes you stronger

    Brolo on
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Rolo wrote: »
    Tobasco wrote: »
    Things that are "natural" are better for you.

    I could post a whole rant on that idea, but it would just make me more pissed off.

    opium is all natural shit son

    makes you stronger

    It also makes you immune to time.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • SnorkSnork Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Snork wrote: »
    I never really got the whole need for the separate words gay and lesbian.

    I've heard lesbians refer to themselves as 'gay women' plenty of times, but guys never get to call themselves lesbians.

    Is it just because gay is generally only an adjective and lesbian is a noun? Or what?

    I thought pretty much everybody understood the origins of the word 'lesbian.'
    It comes from the (female) ancient Greek poet Sappho, who lived on the isle of Lesbos and wrote poems about her love of other women. So lesbian refers specifically to woman-woman love. (Although Sappho herself was probably bisexual, anyway.)
    no, i know the etymology, i just don't think there's really a need for it to be the general term when we already have one. oh well, the english language is anything but efficient.
    In reply to "how can people have morals without a belief in an afterlife":


    To the extent that a religion strives to promote ethical conduct, I support those efforts whole-heartedly. But too often, religions define morality more in terms of whether a person belongs to the "correct" religion, rather than in terms of whether an individual treats others fairly and compassionately.

    Rather than labeling actions as "right" or "wrong, I prefer to think of them as "considerate" or "inconsiderate" of someone else's rights.

    If an act deliberately and needlessly impinges upon someone else's rights, then I consider that act wrong and abstain from that activity. Murder, robbery, assault and battery---and almost all crimes---would fit into this category. These crimes are bad in themselves. Atheists and believers would no doubt have few, if any, disagreements about that.

    They probably would have issues, however, over issues that are bad only because they are prohibited. For example, they would probably disagree over the morality of certain types of sexual conduct and also masturbation. These are not inconsiderate acts, and they are victimless. They are bad according to religion simply because religion says so.

    Even those disputes aside, it's possible for someone who is completely atheist to lead a moral life by religious standards.

    You don't need religion to be moral, and if you're only moral because you hope to receive a reward or to avoid a punishment instead of simply being considerate for another human being, then I would say you're not being very moral at all.
    THANK YOU.
    Someone else gets this.

    Also, masturbation being immoral is the biggest crime of religion ever, except maybe the crusades.

    Snork on
  • Just Like ThatJust Like That Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Tobasco wrote: »
    Things that are "natural" are better for you.

    I could post a whole rant on that idea, but it would just make me more pissed off.

    When you say natural, does it concern food ingredients?

    Yes, insofar as artificial flavoring and genetically modified foods. Just because a molecule that doesn't appear in some plant somewhere is in your food doesn't mean it is unsafe or unhealthy. I won't go so far as to say that "organic" foods are not better for you than foods from animals that took antibiotics/plants sprayed with pesticide, but I will say that most "organic = healthier" propaganda is bullshit and the difference is negligible (in some cases, the "organic" method of preparing foods involves a higher risk of bacterial infection. The most recent meat recall is for "natural" and "organic" meat.). They make organic Oreos now, for example.... what the fuck does that mean? What was wrong with regular Oreos?
    Rolo wrote: »
    opium is all natural shit son

    makes you stronger

    Not to mention sweet, delicious deadly nightshade.

    Just Like That on
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Assault rifles are deadlier than other guns. (The difference is primarily cosmetic.)

    using the bullshit assault weapons ban definition in country where fully automatic weapons are functionally illegal anyway, yes. That is a true statement.

    given the totally retarded choice of no assault rifles or all assault rifles, and have to go with none. but, it's pointless because that isn't how reality works. Like, someone flipping out with something like a g11 would not be exactly keen.

    a lot of money is spent making assault rifles more deadly. Aside from the swiss, they are not generally handed out willy nilly to civilians.


    Opium smells awesome.

    redx on
    This machine kills threads.
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Rolo wrote: »
    Beer before liquor, never been sicker. Liquor before beer, you're in the clear.

    And pretty much everything else about alcohol. Hangover remedies. The factors that influence tolerance. Ways to tell if you're 'too drunk to drive'. The above one I got taught my first night drinking in university, and I'm still following it some six years later simply because it rhymes. I certainly don't understand the science behind it: I always figured the total amount of alcohol in the bloodstream is the important part, not the order it entered the body in.

    I don't understand either, but I can speak from experience that it's true. Also, wine hangovers are the worst ever, and if you can get a beer that has no preservatives, you will have no hangover at all the next morning no matter how much you have. <3 Hofbrauhaus. If you're ever in Cincinnatti, pay for a cab for your friends and just go nuts. No one will be in shape to drive.

    Jragghen on
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Don't despair. Not even over the fact that you don't despair.Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Tobasco wrote: »
    Tobasco wrote: »
    Things that are "natural" are better for you.

    I could post a whole rant on that idea, but it would just make me more pissed off.

    When you say natural, does it concern food ingredients?

    Yes, insofar as artificial flavoring and genetically modified foods. Just because a molecule that doesn't appear in some plant somewhere is in your food doesn't mean it is unsafe or unhealthy. I won't go so far as to say that "organic" foods are not better for you than foods from animals that took antibiotics/plants sprayed with pesticide, but I will say that most "organic = healthier" propaganda is bullshit and the difference is negligible (in some cases, the "organic" method of preparing foods involves a higher risk of bacterial infection. The most recent meat recall is for "natural" and "organic" meat.). They make organic Oreos now, for example.... what the fuck does that mean? What was wrong with regular Oreos?
    Rolo wrote: »
    opium is all natural shit son

    makes you stronger

    Not to mention sweet, delicious deadly nightshade.

    I'm not an organic nut, but it's definately better for the environment. I'm not afraid of artificial food components - except for like, doritos, which have a horrifying number of ingredients.

    Casual Eddy on
    Elki wrote: »

    Casual Eddy: best poster 2014.
    tyrannus wrote: »
    Casual Eddy: best poster of 2015

    gotta update that stuff man
  • NarianNarian Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Assault rifles are deadlier than other guns. (The difference is primarily cosmetic.)

    What do you mean?

    Narian on
    Narian.gif
  • Just Like ThatJust Like That Registered User
    edited August 2007
    I'm not an organic nut, but it's definately better for the environment.

    Yes, this is true in some cases. Its actually a better argument in favor of organic foods than the health argument, I would say.

    Just Like That on
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Don't despair. Not even over the fact that you don't despair.Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Although we get milk from a farm that's free of growth hormone and preservatives

    And it it's delicious. But that's more "locally grown" than organic.

    Casual Eddy on
    Elki wrote: »

    Casual Eddy: best poster 2014.
    tyrannus wrote: »
    Casual Eddy: best poster of 2015

    gotta update that stuff man
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Pretty much all acronym based epidemiology’s of words. Fuck coming from Fornication under something of King, that sort of thing.

    Leitner on
  • WerewulfyWerewulfy Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    "Forbidden Use of Carnal Knowledge"

    It may be wrong, but it cracks me up.

    Werewulfy on
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Richard Dawkins is an asshole. I've never encountered someone who believes this who has actually read Dawkins. He's not an asshole, but chances are that you are.

    Also: Fucking Sniperguy. I suggest you try your very hardest to read a paper by Thomas Nagel called The Absurd. It's more about the meaning of life, rather than morality without an afterlife, but the arguments are somewhat interchangeable in this case.

    Apothe0sis on
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
  • Dead China DollDead China Doll Registered User
    edited September 2007
    I still harbor a fear for GMO's.

    They say they are healthy.
    They say they are perfectly fine.

    But I'm convinced the research being produced on GMO's are predominately funded and carefully controlled by the companies endorsing them.

    I prefer my food organic. I like to know that I'm eating something that was grown about fifty miles away compared to something imported from thousands of miles. GMO's aside, with the past scares concerning petfood and spinach among other things, of course there is more of an emphasis on organic foods.

    However, going to a Safeway and being organic food is not necessarily organic. Going to your local farmer's market, inquiring about the origins of your food, and making a happy purchase is organic.

    I'm all about supporting small community farms compared to the larger picture.

    Dead China Doll on
    thechicken.gif
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2007
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Richard Dawkins is an asshole. I've never encountered someone who believes this who has actually read Dawkins. He's not an asshole, but chances are that you are.

    Word. He's a nice, if forthright feller in interviews. Not at all assholish.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    I do so love that limey tang.

    Apothe0sis on
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
  • edited September 2007
    In reply to "how can people have morals without a belief in an afterlife":
    You don't need religion to be moral, and if you're only moral because you hope to receive a reward or to avoid a punishment instead of simply being considerate for another human being, then I would say you're not being very moral at all.
    Couldn't have said it any better myself.

    Merovingi on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Mithrandir86Mithrandir86 Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Tobasco wrote: »
    I'm not an organic nut, but it's definately better for the environment.

    Yes, this is true in some cases. Its actually a better argument in favor of organic foods than the health argument, I would say.

    Well, not completely.

    Organic crops have a lower food yield/acre, so they require more land (ie forests and other natural habit) to be converted into farmland to feed the same amount of people.

    Mithrandir86 on
    MKR wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    Sausage and pancake on a stick is actually pretty good. And it's convenient if you need to go out early in the morning and don't want to be half-dead from lack of sustenance by 10.

    That's why god invented the bagel and gave it to his chosen people.

    Bagels do not sate me because I am not a heathen.
  • Just Like ThatJust Like That Registered User
    edited September 2007
    I still harbor a fear for GMO's.

    What are you afraid of? They are simply existing foods with modified DNA to make them more nutritional or to protect them from pests/disease. Organisms have been modifying their own DNA for as long as they have existed (evolution), and it is no different when we do it. The only way that it could possibly pose a health risk is if a mistake was made in the DNA modification process that results in the organism producing unhealthy compounds, which could easily be detected. The DNA itself could not possibly affect you in any way. Its not like the scary, "mutant" GMO DNA is going to somehow get into your DNA and mutate it, or something ridiculous like that.

    Just Like That on
  • GenoForPrezGenoForPrez Registered User
    edited September 2007
    Calling Richard Dawkins an asshole wasn't so much to imply that he's a terrible, bitter person or anything like that. I like a lot of the things that he says.

    And actually, if you've ever visited TED.com, he gave what are probably my favorite lectures on the entire site.

    I just don't like that he seems to encourage atheists to contest Christians.

    GenoForPrez on
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    That doesn't make him an asshole.

    And I fail to see the problem with such encouragement..

    Apothe0sis on
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
  • SnorkSnork Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    I actually kind of like that he's doing it, in a backwards kind of way. I'm not normally one to subscribe to the 'eye for and eye' school of thought, but I think it's interesting that he's 'evangelising' atheism to the evangelisers.
    Not to say that all Christians are in-your-face here-take-this-scripture-book-as-a-get-well-soon-gift type, but you know.

    Snork on
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    But the catholic church doesn't get anything out of praying to Mary. Hell, I agree with the logic behind it. I mean, whoa, miraculous conception? That's pretty badass. You're the mom of our lord and savior and at one point you two shared a body? That's kinda, uh, kickass. Go you. I fail to see the harm in throwing up a high five to that.


    edit: I also really did not mean to turn this into a religion thread.

    I think you'll find it's the immaculate conception, not the miraculous conception which Catholics really care about.

    And to clue you in, it is not the Virgin Birth that this refers to.

    Apothe0sis on
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
  • MrMisterMrMister A pup must first get in the water to be successful as a seal!Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Jragghen wrote: »
    Also, wine hangovers are the worst ever, and if you can get a beer that has no preservatives, you will have no hangover at all the next morning no matter how much you have. <3 Hofbrauhaus.

    Hangovers are largely caused by dehydration and poor sleep. Anything with alcohol in it will do that to you if you have enough, no matter how organic hippy trippy it is. The active ingredient is giving you the hangover.

    MrMister on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    If a cop pulls you over for speeding, he has to show you a radar gun. A cop can't search your car without your permission. If you ask someone if they're a cop--and they are--they have to tell you. Cops are heroes.

    America is not a democracy, it's a republic (this one makes me want to stab people). Just because you're anti-gay-marriage doesn't mean you're anti-gay.

    Thanatos on
  • Dead China DollDead China Doll Registered User
    edited September 2007
    Tobasco wrote: »
    I still harbor a fear for GMO's.

    What are you afraid of? They are simply existing foods with modified DNA to make them more nutritional or to protect them from pests/disease. Organisms have been modifying their own DNA for as long as they have existed (evolution), and it is no different when we do it. The only way that it could possibly pose a health risk is if a mistake was made in the DNA modification process that results in the organism producing unhealthy compounds, which could easily be detected. The DNA itself could not possibly affect you in any way. Its not like the scary, "mutant" GMO DNA is going to somehow get into your DNA and mutate it, or something ridiculous like that.

    It's just something that bothers me. Such as if a plant with GMO's is produced in such a way that is unhealthy for us, or is perhaps a factor in America's growing obesity (among a whole playing field of other things). We have a better grasp on genetics now, but I feel uncomfortable consuming foods that are - in all ways - unnatural.

    It is frankenstein food.

    Dead China Doll on
    thechicken.gif
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Tobasco wrote: »
    I still harbor a fear for GMO's.

    What are you afraid of? They are simply existing foods with modified DNA to make them more nutritional or to protect them from pests/disease. Organisms have been modifying their own DNA for as long as they have existed (evolution), and it is no different when we do it. The only way that it could possibly pose a health risk is if a mistake was made in the DNA modification process that results in the organism producing unhealthy compounds, which could easily be detected. The DNA itself could not possibly affect you in any way. Its not like the scary, "mutant" GMO DNA is going to somehow get into your DNA and mutate it, or something ridiculous like that.

    It's just something that bothers me. Such as if a plant with GMO's is produced in such a way that is unhealthy for us, or is perhaps a factor in America's growing obesity (among a whole playing field of other things). We have a better grasp on genetics now, but I feel uncomfortable consuming foods that are - in all ways - unnatural.

    It is frankenstein food.

    Pretty much all of our food is unnatural. You think that corn you are eating isn't the result of thousands of years of selective breeding?

    Couscous on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Tobasco wrote: »
    I still harbor a fear for GMO's.

    What are you afraid of? They are simply existing foods with modified DNA to make them more nutritional or to protect them from pests/disease. Organisms have been modifying their own DNA for as long as they have existed (evolution), and it is no different when we do it. The only way that it could possibly pose a health risk is if a mistake was made in the DNA modification process that results in the organism producing unhealthy compounds, which could easily be detected. The DNA itself could not possibly affect you in any way. Its not like the scary, "mutant" GMO DNA is going to somehow get into your DNA and mutate it, or something ridiculous like that.

    It's just something that bothers me. Such as if a plant with GMO's is produced in such a way that is unhealthy for us, or is perhaps a factor in America's growing obesity (among a whole playing field of other things). We have a better grasp on genetics now, but I feel uncomfortable consuming foods that are - in all ways - unnatural.

    It is frankenstein food.

    Pretty much all of our food is unnatural. You think that corn you are eating isn't the result of thousands of years of selective breeding?
    And oh Jesus bananas? Talk about Frankenfood.

    Thanatos on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Tobasco wrote: »
    I still harbor a fear for GMO's.

    What are you afraid of? They are simply existing foods with modified DNA to make them more nutritional or to protect them from pests/disease. Organisms have been modifying their own DNA for as long as they have existed (evolution), and it is no different when we do it. The only way that it could possibly pose a health risk is if a mistake was made in the DNA modification process that results in the organism producing unhealthy compounds, which could easily be detected. The DNA itself could not possibly affect you in any way. Its not like the scary, "mutant" GMO DNA is going to somehow get into your DNA and mutate it, or something ridiculous like that.

    It's just something that bothers me. Such as if a plant with GMO's is produced in such a way that is unhealthy for us, or is perhaps a factor in America's growing obesity (among a whole playing field of other things). We have a better grasp on genetics now, but I feel uncomfortable consuming foods that are - in all ways - unnatural.

    It is frankenstein food.

    Pretty much all of our food is unnatural. You think that corn you are eating isn't the result of thousands of years of selective breeding?
    And oh Jesus bananas? Talk about Frankenfood.

    I forgot about seedless watermelon.

    Couscous on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Tobasco wrote: »
    I still harbor a fear for GMO's.

    What are you afraid of? They are simply existing foods with modified DNA to make them more nutritional or to protect them from pests/disease.

    Modified DNA means they express modified or different proteins. If a given food is modified to express a given protein, that protein's effects on the human body (and the environment) should be thoroughly tested before it's allowed to be sold for human consumption. It should be treated as an artificial food additive* and it's not. That's the problem.

    * - I don't think artificial food additives are tested thoroughly enough in the US, either, but at least they undergo more testing than GMOs.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Sign In or Register to comment.