he dealt a hand he thought was strong enough to play and then had no response in reserve in case his ace was trumped. he knew it was a game before he got played and it’s hard to feel much sympathy for his plight.
5 Likes
The handy answer is “it tastes awful”.
4 Likes
Now you’re taking me too literally, or at least being overly pedantic.
All you said was the man exaggerated and the reporter took him literally. I don’t agree with you that the reporter took him too literally in any context. Disagreeing with you isn’t being pedantic.
The point is that just because drinking a significant quantity won’t kill you, it doesn’t make it pleasant.
If one listens to the video, you hear the man exaggerate:
“You can drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you.”
The reporter merely asked him to drink from a glass of it if that was the case. Surely, if it was merely “unpleasant” (as you say) and doesn’t hurt anyone (as the Monsanto lackey says), it wouldn’t be a big deal for said lackey to merely drink a glass of it or just take a few sips to prove a point. After all, it doesn’t hurt, so what’s the problem?
So, again, if the reporter took him literally, he would have asked him to drink a whole quart, but that didn’t happen.
Instead, we have a lackey who had to eat his words instead of drinking any Glyphosate and a reporter who did his job quite well, in my opinion.
3 Likes
There are several examples in this very thread of people not defining toxicity by dosage.
And you conveniently ignored my second point which echoes other commenters here:
Something can be completely safe to drink and you might still not want to drink it for a variety of reasons.
Yeah, dude responded to the challenge poorly, but it still says absolutely nothing about the relative toxicity of a glass of glyphosate.
And as the update to the original post notes, this guy isn’t a lobbyist or employee of Monsanto. And he doesn’t have to be, because Glyphosate is off patent and freely clonable since 2000. It’s used in over 400 products made by more than 34 companies.
None of which he provided. Which, given the context, reinforced the impression that he thought it would be “stupid” to do so because it was unsafe.
3 Likes
[quote=“sfrazer, post:64, topic:54445”]
dude responded to the challenge poorly, but it still says absolutely nothing about the relative toxicity of a glass of glyphosate.
[/quote]Absolutely nothing? I think it says something that a Monsanto lackey wouldn’t even take a few sips of it from a glass just to prove a point. I mean, the vapid shill was basically being paid by Monsatno to drink a few sips and he still wouldn’t do it despite the obvious potential for bad PR for Monsanto and hit to his own career.
2 Likes
PR people aren’t paid to accept random bets on camera, especially those that are likely to result in easy-to-spin footage.
As bad as his response was, it wasn’t as bad as a grimace while drinking the stuff or on-camera vomit (and that still wouldn’t have said a thing about toxicity, but I’m sure the reporter would have been on top of the world to have footage like that).
My eco-friendly 100% organic (both chemically, and by whatever wishy-washy definition Trader Joe’s and the like use) all-around wonder-cleaner tastes just fine.
3 Likes
But he didn’t say it’s safe as a fertiliser. He said its safe to drink a quart of it.
The interviewer’s response was obvious and less irresponsible than the original statement.
He would be stupid to do it, at least in part because he is talking shite, and obvious shite.
If he meant what he said the correct response should be that he would indeed, but that he would want a trusted source of this tasty and nutritious additive.
5 Likes
Your problem, in a nutshell, was a reporter satirically pointing out the patent nonsense of a paid shill? That’s a really poor point. I wouldn’t crack that she’ll to bring it out into the air again in a hurry.
2 Likes
“He is not and never has been a paid lobbyist for or employee at Monsanto.”
I’m sure plenty of people are paid by Monsanto who are neither lobbyists nor employees. Monsanto never said they didn’t compensate him. I challenge him to disclose and give back whatever Monsanto gave him, but I’m sure he’d find that incredibly rude.
5 Likes
Glyphosate is not safe to drink. Plenty of people have died from drinking a glass of glyphosate.
That said, Glyphosate is less dangerous than the molecules it replaced.
e.g. Taking a teaspoon of 1960’s brand-name herbicide paraquat guarentees an agonising death, even with the best medical treatment, because the molecule bio-accumilates in the lungs.
What the shill on TV meant to say was: “A teaspoon of glyphosate / RoundUp will cause sickness but might not actually cause death, especially if doctors can intervene to manage the symptoms … and yet that’s still an improvement”
6 Likes
[quote=“Nonentity, post:67, topic:54445”]
PR people aren’t paid to accept random bets on camera, especially those that are likely to result in easy-to-spin footage.
[/quote]This pawn lackey shill was paid to present the company’s product well and he failed miserably at that task. After backing himself into a corner, he should have put his money where his fat mouth was and drank the shit.
Instead of drinking a few sips of this so-called “harmless” stuff, he put his company in a worse light (if that was possible) and put his job in jeopardy. He is not paid to do that, he’s paid to do the opposite.
it wasn’t as bad as a grimace while drinking the stuff or on-camera vomit (and that still wouldn’t have said a thing about toxicity
You’ve got it backwards, it would have said a lot about the toxicity if he drank it. Instead the shill acted fearful and attacked the reporter like a belligerent asshole. No one expects it to taste well. If he had drank the shit, it would have a least shown that he was willing to back up the company line he was spewing.
I’m sure the reporter would have been on top of the world to have footage like that
What’s up with the backhanded attacks on the reporter? Unlike Monsanto and their lackeys, he did nothing unethical. He did good reporting and took a bullshitting lackey to task. I wish we had more journalists like him.
I’d also like to see that idiot take a sip or two from glyphosate as it is implemented with the real world instead of in bullshit isolation (as Monsanto simply loves to study it in). He’d shit himself literally and figuratively.
More: (emphasis mine)
"… Most US research on glyphosate, Benbrook added, has focused on the chemical in isolation. But in the real world, glyphosate is mixed with other chemicals, called surfactants and adjuvants, that enhance their weed-slaying power. Importantly, some of the research used in the WHO assessment came from outside the US and looked at real-world herbicide formulations. … "
– source
I’d then welcome this lackey to the real world instead of this delusional world he’s within.
5 Likes
So we’re all just ignoring the fact that Monsanto says they haven’t paid him? I mean, it’s in the original post.
1 Like
Right, right… he’s just and avid, unpaid, uncompensated “advocate” for them and their safety claims. I’m sure he does it all out of the “goodness” of his twisted, black heart.
Sorry, but when known, compulsive liars like Monsanto say they don’t pay him, it usually just means they do it indirectly through shell games.
3 Likes
I’m sorry, but if you don’t have a source to back it up, you should probably retract it.
Looking over the guy’s articles he’s definitely a mixture of right (golden rice is a good thing) and wrong (tap the tar sands for all they’re worth, climate change isn’t man-made)
But this article says absolutely jack-shit about the relative safety of the chemical in question. It’s a political sound-bite devoid of useful data. Danegeld gives far more useful information than the journalist in the clip.
2 Likes
sigh… I really don’t think it’s much of a stretch to think that a reporter who’s trying to catch someone with “I’ve got some right here, you’ll drink it, right?” would love to have footage of a reaction from doing so.
As I’ve already said, I would have been far more impressed if he’d actually brought out facts to attack the statement (that you can drink it with no harm) rather than the stunt that doesn’t say anything (or, at the very least, rather than just that stunt). If you want to read that as an “attack” on the reporter, so be it.
… is that he did not accomplish what chenille was talking about, which I would have loved to have seen.
Awesome, thanks for finding that information. I kept finding dead links while looking.
[quote=“sfrazer, post:76, topic:54445”]
I’m sorry, but if you don’t have a source to back it up, you should probably retract it.
[/quote]Yes, I’m sure Monsanto will be forthcoming on how they indirectly pay this lackey to promote and advocate their products.
Anyway… back to the real world.
But this article says absolutely jack-shit about the relative safety of the chemical in question.
The pile of shit lackey’s reaction of fear and obtuse belligerence towards merely taking a sip of a product he says is safe for human consumption does say something about its safety whether you’d like to stick your fingers in your ears or not.
And, again…
Speaking of the real world…
I’d also like to see that idiot take a sip or two from glyphosate as it is implemented within the real world instead of in bullshit isolation (as Monsanto and lackey researchers simply love to study it within their bullshit “research”). He’d shit himself literally and figuratively.
More: (emphasis mine)
"… Most US research on glyphosate, Benbrook added, has focused on the chemical in isolation. But in the real world, glyphosate is mixed with other chemicals, called surfactants and adjuvants, that enhance their weed-slaying power. Importantly, some of the research used in the WHO assessment came from outside the US and looked at real-world herbicide formulations. … "
– source
I’d then welcome this lackey to the real world instead of this delusional world he’s within.
2 Likes
When the stupidity of the lobbyist’s message is so stoning, such ridicule is the only thing left.
6 Likes
