If you previously registered on VGF XenForo boards, you will need to use the forgot password feature in order to be able to post here. If you do not receive a password reset by e-mail, use the contact page or post in registration/login help.

What political views/opinions have you changed on, if any, and why?

Moderators: Deku Tree, I am nobody

User avatar
I am nobody
Moderator
Posts: 12149
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:26 pm
Location: -89.97814998,-42.2333493

Post by I am nobody » Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:15 pm

And I could dig up as many examples of things we thought were unhealthy that weren't, and even more things we were right about the first time. None of it would prove anything about GMOs or air pollution.

If you're worried about them, then great, stick to organic foods. They're not going anywhere. But until someone has hard evidence that the mountains of research supporting GMOs are flawed, banning or restricting them is paranoid and irresponsible.

User avatar
Sim Kid
Posts: 13222
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 1:00 am
Location: The state of Denial

Post by Sim Kid » Tue Nov 29, 2016 1:14 am

[QUOTE="I REALLY HATE PHASIANIDAE!, post: 1614695, member: 18119"]Not sure which technicality you're referring to regarding Egyptians but the "evrthign is a kemical" one doesn't go far at all. It's just pedantism.[/QUOTE]

Ever hear of a little crop called "Wheat"? Or perhaps a process called "Selective Breeding"?

User avatar
spooky scary bearatons
Posts: 6995
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Wales
Contact:

Post by spooky scary bearatons » Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:14 am

I suppose the biggest change for me is moving from the far left to a slight left leaning but heavy libertarian viewpoint. But I'm sort of at an impasse as of late, I'm not entirely sure if my shift is due to actual maturing and changing or as a knee jerk reaction to how utterly hypocritical some people on the left can be, and how intolerant some people on the left can be to people simply having different ideas. it's difficult to identify with a movement when a decent portion of that movement look to demonize anyone and everyone over differing ideas. (which is something I will admit i did a LOT before i started realising i wasnt really inspiring change, i was just being an *******.)

oh and i used to be proper into anarchy my god i hate teenaged me
"whether you have or have no wealth, the system might fail you, but don't fail yourself" -
GET BETTER - dan le sac Vs Scroobius Pip

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 27509
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:00 am

[QUOTE="Sim Kid, post: 1614720, member: 22276"]Ever hear of a little crop called "Wheat"? Or perhaps a process called "Selective Breeding"?[/QUOTE]

I've heard rumors of this "wheat" of which you speak, but I thought it was just legend.

Breeding for the best traits isn't the same as the unnatural scientific process of GMOs. https://www.greenlivingtips.com/article ... eding.html[DOUBLEPOST=1480939245,1480938932][/DOUBLEPOST][QUOTE="I am nobody, post: 1614706, member: 34539"]And I could dig up as many examples of things we thought were unhealthy that weren't, and even more things we were right about the first time. None of it would prove anything about GMOs or air pollution.[/quote]

That doesn't matter though. Even if you cited 1,000 examples of things for your argument it wouldn't discredit mine, even if there was only ever one example of such a case. It proves that we aren't all-knowing and we shouldn't trust so easily when it comes to important things like this.

[quote="I am nobody]If you're worried about them"]

The problem with "organic" is they charge more for it. In order to eat safer food you have to pay more, and that isn't fair. "Eat the poison or pay up." We shouldn't need "hard" evidence, mere doubt is plenty in this case, and many are arguing against it. "Prove I'm stabbing you in the back." Yeah, no thanks, just stop stabbing me in the back. GMOs should be relegated to feeding starving people until they're 100% proven to be completely safe.

User avatar
Random User
Posts: 12673
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:54 am
Location: SECRET BASE INSIDE SNAKE MOUNTAIN
Contact:

Post by Random User » Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:50 am

[QUOTE="I REALLY HATE PHASIANIDAE!, post: 1615220, member: 18119"]The problem with "organic" is they charge more for it.[/QUOTE]
Because organic food is more difficult to produce.

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 27509
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:21 pm

[QUOTE="SKELETOR, post: 1615225, member: 35827"]Because organic food is more difficult to produce.[/QUOTE]

People are greedy. Though there are excuses for why organic is more expensive, it's not only that their logic is basically "poisoning food is cheaper and easier," which is bad enough, but you can bet your butt the powers that be see a market for health conscious individuals and are jacking the prices up extra high just because they can.

User avatar
Random User
Posts: 12673
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:54 am
Location: SECRET BASE INSIDE SNAKE MOUNTAIN
Contact:

Post by Random User » Mon Dec 05, 2016 2:49 pm

Or GMOs just make it massively easier to produce crops.

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 27509
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Mon Dec 05, 2016 3:24 pm

Or they do but not by enough to multiply the price several fold. If you want to believe greed isn't a factor you're welcome to, I can't prove it, but it's pretty obvious.

User avatar
I am nobody
Moderator
Posts: 12149
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:26 pm
Location: -89.97814998,-42.2333493

Post by I am nobody » Mon Dec 05, 2016 4:08 pm

I REALLY HATE PHASIANIDAE!, post: 1615220, member: 18119 wrote:
That doesn't matter though. Even if you cited 1,000 examples of things for your argument it wouldn't discredit mine, even if there was only ever one example of such a case. It proves that we aren't all-knowing and we shouldn't trust so easily when it comes to important things like this.
My point is that your logic works in reverse - it wouldn't prove anything about the current case if we were wrong or right about the safety of literally everything prior to this moment in time.

And I agree - we aren't all knowing. That's why responsible policies are based on hard evidence and not gut instinct.
The problem with "organic" is they charge more for it. In order to eat safer food you have to pay more, and that isn't fair.
Like RU said, "organic" foods cost more to produce, but people are also willing to pay more for them. That inevitably produces much higher prices in a free market. It may not be fair, but there's nothing inherent to GMOs or "organic" foods that causes it.
We shouldn't need "hard" evidence, mere doubt is plenty in this case, and many are arguing against it. "Prove I'm stabbing you in the back." Yeah, no thanks, just stop stabbing me in the back. GMOs should be relegated to feeding starving people until they're 100% proven to be completely safe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail ... acy_theory
Various versions of the chemtrail conspiracy theory have been propagated via the Internet and radio programs.[2] There are websites dedicated to the conspiracy theory, and it is particularly favored by right-wing groups because it fits well with deep suspicion of government.[3]

A 2014 paper presented results of reviewing 20 chemtrial websites found that believers appeal to science in some of their arguments, but don't believe what academic or government-employed scientists say;[29] scientists and federal agencies have consistently denied that chemtrails exist, explaining the sky tracks are simply persistent contrails.[2][10]

The 2014 paper also found that chemtrail believers generally hold that chemtrails are evidence of a global conspiracy; people who believe in the conspiracy allege various goals which include profit (for example, manipulating futures prices or making people sick to benefit drug companies), population control, or weapons testing (use of weather as a weapon, or testing bioweapons).[29][1] One of these ideas, is that clouds are being seeded with electrically conductive materials as part of a massive electromagnetic superweapons program based around the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP).[31]

Those who believe in the conspiracy say the chemtrails are toxic;[32] the 2014 review found that chemtrail believers generally hold that every person is under attack and found that believers often express fear, anxiety, sadness and anger about this.[29]

In a 2011 study of people from the US, Canada, and the UK, 2.6% of the sample entirely believed in the conspiracy theory, and 14% believed it partially
Per this study, approximately 60 million people in three countries at least partially believe that the trails naturally produced by aircraft wings are actually a government conspiracy to do whatever they're afraid of. There's absolutely zero evidence for this theory and near or actual universal scientific consensus against it, but "many" people nonetheless have doubts. Should we ban airplanes? It isn't possible to 100% prove contrails are completely safe without analyzing every molecule in every one of them, as well as the long and short term effects on every individual who has, does, or will ever live, after all, and nobody has time for that.

Nothing can ever be "100% proven to be completely safe", especially not in biology. All we can ever do is agree that there's no reason to think responsible usage of something (you can overdose on water if you want to) is dangerous, and that's where experts are on both contrails and GMOs.

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 27509
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Mon Dec 05, 2016 5:59 pm

I am nobody, post: 1615246, member: 34539 wrote:My point is that your logic works in reverse - it wouldn't prove anything about the current case if we were wrong or right about the safety of literally everything prior to this moment in time.
The problem with your logic is that you think the two sides are even when they're not. My logic doesn't work in reverse because since we know we've been wrong about what was supposed to be healthy for us before, moving forward we "should" now know that in order to expose people to something it should be proven safe. We should be prudent. Under your argument we have to prove something isn't healthy while it's being crammed down out throats in order to put a stop to it. We can't turn everyone into guinea pigs.
I am nobody]And I agree - we aren't all knowing. That's why responsible policies are based on hard evidence and not gut instinct.[/quote] Except the hard evidence isn't really all that hard seeing as there's not only a lot of disagreement on the issue but there's a significant demand for organic food as well. If it's so safe then why the controversy wrote:Like RU said, "organic" foods cost more to produce, but people are also willing to pay more for them. That inevitably produces much higher prices in a free market. It may not be fair, but there's nothing inherent to GMOs or "organic" foods that causes it.
That is true, there's nothing special about food that causes this that, but it is still wrong to extort people under threat of potential harm. Organic is all there should be, and the price would naturally drop because it wouldn't be considered a premium anymore, and then poor people could afford to eat how they should be able to.
I am nobody][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory[/url] Per this study wrote:
45% of Americans seek organic. What is that, 145 million people, over twice as much as your number and in just one country? There's also lots and lots of arguments against GMOs, but since I ain't a scientist so who knows which side is actually right. All I know is there's more than enough doubt to where our food supply shouldn't be tainted like this without definitive proof of absolute safety. GMOs are banned in other countries as well to some degree, so it isn't just America either.
I am nobody]Nothing can ever be wrote:
Your example of water not being safe doesn't work because you're drinking it in excess, we can say without doubt that water is 100% completely safe.

User avatar
Bomby
Moderator
Posts: 22768
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 1:00 am
Location: Not sure
Contact:

Post by Bomby » Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:06 pm

Free Trade. While I wouldn't say I'm a supporter of it, per se, I'm no longer adamantly opposed to it. It has its pros and cons. I prefer Fair Trade, but at the end of the day, trade deals and globalization are generally mutually beneficial to the nations involved, they encourage a collaborative approach to solving issues, and they decrease the likelihood of wars breaking out.

In relation to that, I'm less inclined to see the US military presence worldwide as imperialistic lately. A lot of it deals with protecting our allies and de-escalating tensions.

User avatar
I am nobody
Moderator
Posts: 12149
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:26 pm
Location: -89.97814998,-42.2333493

Post by I am nobody » Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:50 pm

I REALLY HATE PHASIANIDAE!, post: 1615261, member: 18119 wrote:The problem with your logic is that you think the two sides are even when they're not. My logic doesn't work in reverse because since we know we've been wrong about what was supposed to be healthy for us before, moving forward we "should" now know that in order to expose people to something it should be proven safe. We should be prudent. Under your argument we have to prove something isn't healthy while it's being crammed down out throats in order to put a stop to it. We can't turn everyone into guinea pigs.
I never said you have to prove it's unhealthy - I said you have to come up with a reason why the decades of research and broad scientific consensus showing it is perfectly safe are flawed. We've already been prudent and reached agreement among the people with the credentials to do so - proponents have done their work and have plenty to back it up. The burden now falls on doubters to come up with something better than gut instinct to prove they have ground to stand on. That we've been wrong about foods before is not evidence against any new food, just as having never been wrong about foods before would not be evidence for a new one.
Except the hard evidence isn't really all that hard seeing as there's not only a lot of disagreement on the issue but there's a significant demand for organic food as well. If it's so safe then why the controversy, why are people going out of their way to eat organic? If people don't want this junk it shouldn't be forced on them regardless of the validity of doubt, it is unethical.
No one is forcing it on anyone, and there are no campaigns I'm aware of to ban or even limit organic food. Nothing is threatening your food choice except market pressure, and then your problem is with capitalism.

88% of scientists believe it is safe to eat GMOs. Would you trust 63% of random Joes over 88% of doctors on medical advice? Over lawyers on legal advice? Rocket scientists on how to get to the moon? Why is this different?
That is true, there's nothing special about food that causes this that, but it is still wrong to extort people under threat of potential harm. Organic is all there should be, and the price would naturally drop because it wouldn't be considered a premium anymore, and then poor people could afford to eat how they should be able to.
Arguable. If you ban GMOs, 100% of people are after organic food instead of the 45% you cite below, it's still more expensive to produce than GMOs were, and you just put a massive dent in food supplies and drought resilience. Prices would be extremely volatile short-term, and I don't pretend to know for sure what would happen long term.
45% of Americans seek organic. What is that, 145 million people, over twice as much as your number and in just one country? There's also lots and lots of arguments against GMOs, but since I ain't a scientist so who knows which side is actually right. All I know is there's more than enough doubt to where our food supply shouldn't be tainted like this without definitive proof of absolute safety. GMOs are banned in other countries as well to some degree, so it isn't just America either.
So we should ban planes if chemtrails convince another 30% of the country?
but since I ain't a scientist so who knows which side is actually right
Scientists, presumably.
Your example of water not being safe doesn't work because you're drinking it in excess, we can say without doubt that water is 100% completely safe.
Arsenic is safe (and even natural!) if you don't consume it "to excess." Something being "safe" just means that line is far enough beyond what people will reasonably consume that it isn't likely to cause harm.


I'm going to split this off into a new thread if you want to continue this discussion. Starting to head towards a derail here.

User avatar
Puddin
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 2:00 am

Post by Puddin » Sat Dec 10, 2016 10:56 pm

I switch my positions so often it's pathetic. I'm also pretty insecure so I'm afraid of standing up for my beliefs if it means losing friends. Honestly I just wish I could erase all political knowledge I've gained over the past 12 years from my mind. It offers me nothing but internal torment.

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 27509
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:31 pm

^ I think those types of concerns influence a lot of people, I wouldn't say it's pathetic. Just stick to your guns and your real friends will respect that.

User avatar
Sim Kid
Posts: 13222
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 1:00 am
Location: The state of Denial

Post by Sim Kid » Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:00 pm

One thing I've changed my stance on?

If it's okay to say, get a job handling legal benefits of marriage and refuse to say, give our marriage licenses to gay people cause it's against your religion.... then it should also be okay for me to do the same for divorced people. MY religion says you can't get divorced. If this is the land of equality, then MY religion should have the law bend over to accommodate it just as much as it does YOUR religion

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 27509
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:35 pm

Anyone getting a job where they need to sacrifice morality to keep their position can't have their cake and eat it too. They need to do their job or quit. Of course that's a slippery slope, as wedding cakes have taught us.

User avatar
Bad Dragonite
Posts: 8649
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:24 pm
Location: Hetalia

Post by Bad Dragonite » Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:02 am

The last one I can really think of would probably be abortion or weed, a few years ago I decided "NO ABORTION NO HOW " is bad because there are legitimate health concerns at times.

I still think abortion is awful and shouldn't be allowed after a certain amount of time unless one of the aforementioned health concerns comes up. I also still think late term abortion is murder especially if the baby could still survive without the mother and that more emphasis should be put on personal responsibility. I also DO NOT want taxpayer funded abortions- UNLESS a doctor states that one of the aforementioned health concerns is present.

And I used to be on the fence on weed some time back but I generally think it should be legal now with similar restrictions to alcohol.

Oh also gay marriage, nowadays I don't care what you do, it should be legally allowed, and you do you
just don't force small PRIVATE businesses to do something they find morally wrong and we good.
-Bow Chika Bow Wow
-Your offense only makes me stronger.

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 27509
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Wed Jan 25, 2017 6:22 am

^ I flipflop on weed a lot. One part of me says it should be legal because muh freedom, but the other says "but its bad mmkay."

I pretty much agree with you on abortion but not gay marriage.

User avatar
Bomby
Moderator
Posts: 22768
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 1:00 am
Location: Not sure
Contact:

Post by Bomby » Sat Jan 28, 2017 5:23 pm

It's a real shame the TPP fell through. I was against it before, but when I looked more into it, it truly was the "gold standard" of trade deals that Clinton said it was before she unfortunately turned against it. It had requirements on human rights, labor regulations, and environmental standards that had great potential to improve the lives of the citizens of all participating countries. That's not to say it was a perfect deal; I still had qualms about the intellectual property clauses, especially in regards to pharmaceuticals, and while I do believe it would have benefited the people involved from the poorest on up, the wealthiest would still have the largest benefits though. (Of course, I'm also in favor of raising taxes on the rich to reduce income inequality, but that's beside the point)

Now that I'm planning to take an active role in the Democratic Party, I look forward to healthy discussions with my fellow party members on free trade (which most of them appear to be against). It's kind of interesting to find myself in agreement on a major issue like trade with one of my libertarian friends, whose economic views would mostly be the exact opposite of mine otherwise.

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 27509
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Sat Jan 28, 2017 5:28 pm

[Quote=Bomby]I'm also in favor of raising taxes on the rich to reduce income inequality.[/quote]

In what way? Like expanding welfare programs?

Post Reply

Return to “Politics, Philosophy, and Religion”