I don’t care about anything you say anymore. You’ve shown that you aren’t willing to engage in good faith, and are more interested in insulting me instead. When I decided to stoop to your level of discourse (while still providing actually useful information) we both had several messages deleted from this thread.
Good day, sir.
I don’t think I said he was, nor did I participate in that conversation about precisely who hired him. I was very specific, as I try to be, about the question at hand. I never mentioned Jon Stewart or Fox news or practically any of the stuff @sfrazer accused me of before @falcor took repast. I am not the hive. Did you intend to reply to someone else?
I was responding to the idea that ambushing stupid corporate PR memes is in any way irresponsible. I’d also like journalists to be more scientifically literate than they tend to be. I would hope, however, that corporate shills would learn that dumb bullshit is a risky strategy.
That’s a fair point.
It seems like the exact moment where the interview became meaningless he-said-she-said (from where I sit) is also some sort of profound experience for people who enjoy this sort of thing, and, based on past experiences, I’ll never really grasp what they are getting from it.
You used the word “shill.” Shills are typically hired, or at least have some direct, but concealed link to their accomplice. Fine, you say he wasn’t hired. What’s the concealed link, then? This was my issue. A shill is not simply anyone who agrees with a particular point of view that benefits someone else. That makes a lot of people “shills” in a way that doesn’t fit the common understanding of that word. Maybe you didn’t intend to use it in quite that sense, but if you did, then you’re making a claim that needs some kind of evidence beyond spooky implication.
We are all the hive. 
It is. Because in case you haven’t noticed, this discussion isn’t centering around glyphosate safety, or lack thereof. It’s a dumb stunt, that can be misapplied to anything. What’s next? Going up to Neil DeGrasse Tyson in the winter and going, “If global warming is real, why not run outside naked?” Or for that matter, a multitude of chemicals in food that are safe, that really absolutely are safe to drink quarts of or pounds of without any exaggeration. No one should have to do that. Is this going to be the new way journalists verify these claims? Make people imbibe things to prove a point? I think most people stop doing that after high school.
Maybe he was just in the bathroom with the interviewer and noticed that he did not wash his hands before touching the glyphosate.
[quote=“PrestonSturges, post:118, topic:54445”]
Or he could have challenged the interviewer to consume an entire bottle of aspirin.
[/quote]Where did the interviewer say beforehand that it was completely safe to consume an entire bottle of aspirin? I must have missed that part.
The partial part ActionAbe quoted:
The rest ActionAbe tellingly left out:
Now, ActionAbe’s response:
Abandoning basic critical thinking skills is exactly what you’re doing, ActionAbe, by trying to have us all pretend with you that an obvious industry shill (with a solid history of industry shilling) is merely doing so now for another industry at random.
[quote=“ActionAbe, post:121, topic:54445”]
I hate to be overly logical here
[/quote]Good thing you weren’t then.
it doesn’t mean he’s wrong, or a liar.
Shills don’t often lie outright, they tend to carefully craft half-truths and/or partial truths. The lies are in the details they expertly leave out.
What was special about this liar shill was he flubbed up and said a complete lie that chugging down a bunch of glyphosate was harmless.
The interesting thing is that while Monsanto did later say they don’t (directly) pay this liar shill to shill for them, they did state that they do agree with him that glyphosate is harmless (and are back on track with usual partial truth mantras).
The whole truth is glyphosate isn’t used alone in the full truth real world. In the full truth real world, glyphosate reacts with other substances it comes in contact with when it’s utilized in the real world.
In the full truth real world, there are third party researchers that are attempting to research glyphosate as it’s applied in the real world beyond industry obstructionism. Within the real world they are finding disturbing clues that it just might cause cancer in humans and environmental issues as well.
This man never advocated people drink roundup.
Speaking of half-truth lies…
The whole truth is the man advocated that drinking an ounce of glyphosate is perfectly safe. The man is obviously trying to imply that an ingredient in Roundup is safe for humans to consume. The rather obvious overall intent is to spread a false message that Roundup, itself, is harmless by proxy.
Let’s not be obtuse here (purposefully or otherwise) and try to pretend he was simply attempting to extoll the virtues of guzzling down glyphosate and nothing else. That’s over-simplistic, disingenuous drivel.
I have an idea for a stunt: Let’s feed it to animals and see what it does to them, and then collect data over the long term when humans are exposed to glyphosate under differing conditions. Not as flashy, I know, but it might actually prove something.
Monsanto loves drivel like this. Glyphosate should not be merely studied by itself. That’s the “partial truth” bullshit research we end up with from opaque industry funded (indirectly or otherwise) research. Glyphosate should also be studied as it’s actually used in the real world.
Please educate yourself in the real world beyond useful, partial truth lies:
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
This is a crap story. Starting to lose me, boingboing.
You then go on to post a crap response from a climate change denier crackpot.
Starting to lose me, dunufola.
I did not intend to say that glyphosate was “safe" to drink
He just vomited it out by accident.
I blew up at him because clearly only a fool would drink an unknown substance offered by a hostile stranger live on camera.
So… maybe next time he claims that guzzling an ounce of a substance is harmless, he should bring his own ounce of said substance to drink if he’s terribly afraid that journalists are out to harm or kill him with “unknown substances”.
For many years, my opponents have claimed that I am a paid lobbyist for GMO seed companies, in particular Monsanto. This is a technique used to avoid debating the science that proves Golden Rice and GM foods are safe. Monsanto has now issued a statement that I have never been employed by them (link 2 below) so I will no longer have to put up with that lie. Personally, I admire Monsanto’s leadership in improving many crop varieties, through both conventional breeding and transgenic breeding.
Is he indirectly paid by them? In other words, when he’s paid to shill by others, are they tied to Monsanto?
Also, really liked the extra shilling he threw in for Monsanto at the end there. Ya know, out of the goodness of his heart and all that…
My point was that in almost all cases it is non-lethal to drink in large quantities and therefore ‘safe’ in the manner that it is used in farming worldwide.
Then drink it, asshole.
And, I’d love to see him drink some of it as it’s actually used in the real world in farming worldwide.
"… 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
Are you going to pretend if they brought him fruit from a field treated with roundup he wouldn’t have eaten it? If not, then your point is effectively diluted. (Because that is how it works in the real world.)
I hate to break this to you, but people who work for industry think tanks occasionally believe what they’re saying. I happen to think that’s the case for other industries that don’t get half as much press, whether they’re manufacturing large quantities of aluminum and consuming high quantities of electricity to do so, or people in nuclear fields, who actually believe that it is the last best hope for clean energy. These people exist, you can’t wave their existence away, and the fact that they draw salaries from the fields they work in does not render them wrong.
I’m going to ignore where you’ve been substance-less and mildly insulting and focus on what you’re basically saying:
I’m wrong, despite the fact that you don’t have any concrete evidence of anything, and you went on mischaracterize my prevailing argument that of all the methods for testing glyphosate safety scientifically (including the ones you list) are better than ambushing someone with a beaker of weed-killer. The WHO study, by the way, has not demonstrated an increased cancer risk in people who consume foods from fields in which glyphosate was used. It looked at high level exposure over long periods of time. There are a lot of chemicals that do that, which people aren’t wetting their pants over. It is also one study. One study in scientific literature, however well done, is not enough. But you know, mere details, right?
I’ll leave all the pretending up to you.
you went on mischaracterize my prevailing argument that of all the methods for testing glyphosate safety scientifically (including the ones you list) are better than ambushing someone with a beaker of weed-killer.
Er, except I didn’t do that. But, if you want to continue to play “pretend”, that’s up to you.
I hate to break it to you, but people who work for industry think tanks occasionally believe what they’re saying
I did not know that. Thanks for “breaking that to me”. /s
Do you know about these kind of fallious arguments that people resort to when they know they’ve been whooped by good reasoning and evidence?
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#straw
Consider it broken to you.
you don’t have any concrete evidence of anything
Of anything? That’s very shrill and absolutist of you.
Also, nice usage of the weasel word “concrete”. Climate change deniers use that same tactic.
What others and myself have shown is good evidence to support our suppositions. You just want us to ignore that evidence and play “pretend”.
The WHO study, by the way, has not demonstrated an increased cancer risk in people who consume foods from fields in which glyphosate was used.
What’s your point? I never made any claims otherwise.
Do you know about these kind of fallious arguments that people resort to when they know they’ve been whooped by good reasoning and evidence?
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#straw
I read the WHO study, by the way. So, by the way, you should probably focus more on educating yourself instead of me.
There are a lot of chemicals that do that, which people aren’t wetting their pants over.
Nice diversionary tactic. But, sorry, I have critical thinking skills and I’m going to force you back into context.
Name the chemicals that are used in the same manner and scale that Roundup is used within our food supply and general environment as well.
Oh, and the shrill, pompous “wetting pants” thing was a nice, obtuse addition to your previous, straw man arguments. Nice touch.
Wevs, man.
I didn’t say that, either. He seems to have hired himself, possibly, as a quid-pro-quo for one of his regular clients. Historically, shills are never hired, they just get tipped out when the con-artist gets a payday. The way media and PR actually work seems to escape people’s notice. Opacity is the rule, and renumeration tends to accrue in the form of favors as often as it does, cash-wise.
But again, I’m sumply pointing out that the journo wasn’t the instigator and I’m flabbered by the piling on and tribal bullshit going on to defend the PR nutcase.
Again, I’m seeing the argument that it’s only tribal bullshit if it happens to fall out of line with your conception of events. Isn’t that convenient? You’re the critical thinker, I’m a citizen of the nation of the sheeple. That’s the primary mode of analysis going on here. At that point I just have to shrug and say, whatever helps you feel better about yourself.
The funny part is that at no point in this discussion did I think this guy was a hero, or even someone I’d get a drink with. The guy is a global warming denier, for cripes sake. But, that doesn’t make him disingenuous. This, to me, is the single weakest link in any chain of arguments that inevitably arise when it comes to industry and science. I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the two interact, and affect each other. Among the numerous misconceptions is the idea that the people who work for this industry, or that think tank, is the manifestly problematic idea that they are cartoons. Caricatures that enjoy swimming pools of money. This is what this whole brouhaha is about, ultimately. People seem to think that this is demonstrative of that level of cartoonish evil. That’s simply not always true. This case in particular is bad attempt at proving the flawed premise.
I actually think it’s a demonstration of why its important to parse your words carefully in an interview, in case your interrogator intends on being dishonest. If he is a shill, as you say, he probably would have agreed to discuss glyphosate had they asked. They didn’t. They didn’t intend to ask. They didn’t intend to take what he said with any hint of seriousness. They had some roundup in the back, burning a hole in their journalistic integrity that they were desperate to use. I’m sorry, but that’s the whole story.
I see where you’re coming from, I won’t do a point by point rebuttal of your point of view, instead I’ll tell you mine.
I don’t have a position on Glyphosate as a carcinogen. I don’t. I have no beef with you on this point. I do believe this is the reason the reporter brough it up, but we are only seeing a small clip. You do well pointting this out.
I also don’t believe he is a paid Monsanto Shill, I read this story after the update was posted that Monsanto cleared that up. I haven’t ruled out there’s a tie but I’ve made no comment on it either way.
What I do understand from what I saw in the clip is that Dr. Moore says he believes that Glyphosate does not play a role in increased incidences of cancer in Argentina. Let me stop here.
The language he uses makes my spidey sense tingle, that is, when somebody takes the time to answer as very specifically as Dr. Moore does here he also evades the larger question. for it may well be true that even if Glyphosate is a carcinogen, it may not actually play a role in increasing cancer incidences in Argentina, at the very least, even if there is good evidence that it does, he qualifies his answer by saying he does not believe ti to be true.
But when he then goes on to say that you can drink a quart of it, in this context, well… I felt a disturance in the force. As if millions of voices were suddenly stunned into silence! (Including mine)
Context is king, and the context of the conversation is glyphosate as a carcinogen.
I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t actually have a reasonable expectation that any of the ingredients of weed killer are safe for people to drink, even in small quantities. What to make of this claim then?
Well, you could say as you do, that he was very stupid for making that claim, but its easy to say that in hindsight, I think he made such a bold exageration hoping he wouldn’t be called out on it.
It was a calculated risk. Hell, the reporter probably didn’t actually have a glass of Glyphosate with him, he certainly didn’t produce it.
So as I suspected, we do have different opinions on what Dr Moore was attempting to achieve with his statement. The funny thing is you believe he can be excused because he was dumb, while I think he should be held accountable for what he said because he was trying to be clever.
But that’s the way I believe you need to understand the world and the people in it. Take them at their word that they know what theyre talking about or don’t listen to them at all.
But anyway, @nixiebunny wins the thread:
The only problem I have with this is that Glyphosate may actually be very toxic and still not cause cancer. If Dr. Moore said its safe to drink a quart of it, he might as well be saying that its safe to smoke a carton of cigarretes in order to discredit that smoking causes cancer.
So I think you’re right in saying that this would prove nothing except that his assertion doesn’t actually address the issue at all, instead it derails from it. It’s a persuassive argument, not a logical one because its actaully a non-sequitur.
My thinking is that the reporter did a good job of addressing such an argument in a ridiculous manner. I mean, if the reporter thought he was going to die from drinking glyphosate would he really offer it. he knew he was being played and answered in kind. Dr Moore only lost because he blinked.
Let’s see. I addressed a fairly narrow point with sfrazer, and because I stayed focused and didn’t play the political game he expected, it devolved. You, however, have taken on the task of educating me more gently… by also grouping me in with some collective of who isn’t on your team. You aren’t taking on my points, but merely assuming my points for me in response to your need to continue discussions you were having (Monsanto/Not-Monsanto) with other people. This is similar to what happened with sfrazer, but you don’t seem to be so frustrated about the fact that I have an independent point of view. Kudos.
So who’s really doing the in-group/out-group thing? You seem to be trying to get me to admit that it’s all subjective and that I’m just as guilty as you, but I really do think I have been objectively more focused in addressing my points, especially with you. As far as interpreting my comments about PR as tribal, that would be a bit of a reach. It isn’t political, it isn’t capitalism versus journalism, it’s the fact that PR people are paid to lie. If they weren’t actually trying to persuade us about the fine, untrue details, they would be artists and we could analyze the level of honesty in their lies (or ridicule their clunkers) without so much vitriol being directed our way for the respect we have or don’t for decorum or some abstract ideal of scientific discourse. That point is a total non-sequitur. If subjectivity is a continuum, I’m doing pretty well on minimizing my score on that scale, not making too many assumptions that aren’t based on experience and the explicitly stated motivations of the person in question.
So, to reiterate: my initial comments were a full-throated acceptance of the (well-researched) snappy comeback as a valuable response to an argument that’s so cynical and dumbed down (as only a PR shill can do with a straight face) as to invite the kind of ambush referenced in the article. I really haven’t seen much in this thread that addresses that point very directly. If there is some, I apologize for not reading much past the statements that attempt to turn me into a team sportballer.
As far as what your team or tribe is, that’s not my concern. What I’ve seen, however, is an explicitly in-group/out-group (semi-friendly) targeting of me with opaque ideation on your part about what I’m supposedly thinking. You are larnin’ me in response to that ideation and honestly just wasting your time. This thread of your comments doesn’t have much to do with me or my participation in this thread. But for as long as the thread is open and random people decide to yell at me, I will, with increasing patience, restate and rephrase my simple snarky point which is: PR bullshit doesn’t require respect from anyone. It doesn’t require involved discussion of motivations when the motivations and paper trail are opaque to everyone as journalistic fact; yet are a siren wail of naked greed, self-promotion, and political team sports to everyone who watch PR shills and lobbyists at their work within media.
I get that you would rather be watching the long debates, but theater that includes jokes has value too. Especially jokes at the expense of someone who chose a profession that is explicitly unethical in its practice, subject to no standards or licensing, and is exposed over and over as having good incentives for doing bad things, no matter the explicit relations between their clients and their clients’ industries. Cynical, dumbed-down PR shilling bullshit isn’t always destroyed by merely setting it up for a train wreck, but sometimes that’s all that’s necessary.
There should a kind of Darwin Awards for the media world that expresses public schadenfreude when someone in the public sphere buys the farm in a smoking crater of hypocrisy. The Mencken Award? The Colbert? Simply piling on any disgrace regardless of whether someone had it coming would be something like the Leno. This is not a Leno Award kind of incident.
You addressed not a single point I raised and you purposefully misread every comment I posted. Quit lying.
If this were real life my face would be covered with frothy spittle right now.
Frankly, your comments weren’t relevant to mine.
I purposely didn’t @t you so you wouldn’t be triggered to begin the froth again. Mind the subsonic flap of great dragon wings.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
