[[Ross, do you have a financial interest in ignoring the body of scientific evidence documenting the dangers of GMOs?]]
There is none.
[[I can't believe you're simply unaware of it.]]
What I am aware of is the CLAIMS of dangers that have not been sustained.
I consider this to be another entry into the "vaccine-autism" hysteria.
[[Whatever the case it obviously maddens you to no end that intelligent people who you can only stupidly insult are making conscious choices to avoid the kind of nightmare scenarios that could emerge from massive crop contamination, in favor of developing agriculture in alignment with the intelligence and integrity of nature that we have learned is far more mysteriously brilliant, interconnectedly magical, and tenuously, preciously balanced than we have grasped.]]
I've read this sentence repeatedly and it is meaningless - apart from you "stupidly insulting" someone far more intelligent than you.
[[Your anger is not only glaringly ugly on this lovely website as big fat wart on your face]]
I have not the slightest bit of "anger"; I have correctness which you INTERPRET as anger, because it allows you to feign a moral superiority that you do not otherwise possess.
[[but it also does not the slightest bit of good for your cause.]]
And what is "my cause"? You are chock full of assumptions about me that because I dare - DARE, I tellz ya - to be correct in a field of ideological nitwits that I am therefore part of some conspiratorial antithesis to your "interconnectedly magical" fantasy world you've constructed, but that is not now, nor will it ever be, the case.
[[...attempt to use facts alone. If the truth is indeed on your side, you have nothing to lose.]]
Good advice. Why don't you try that?
[[you are just like so many who came before you, who rage into the night that the risks, dangers, and life destroying horrors of much of technology are a small price to pay for your concept of progress]]
Want "facts alone" on the "life destroying horrors" of technology?
Pre-industrial revolution: life expectancy was 45, and women - mostly from childbirthing issues - was lower than men.
Post-industrial revolution: life-expectancy in societies swamped by the "life destroying horrors" of technology has risen rapidly to ~75 - a two-thirds increase in roughly two centuries.
...you were saying...?