Date: 2014-08-03 05:40 pm (UTC)
There is nothing novel about pointing out that seedless watermelons are by definition not GMO because they cannot be patented.

Who else is expressing this point of view?

More to the point, when the patent expires, are they no longer GMOs? It's an amazingly weird argument.

Therefore, your mentioning something that can't be patented and claiming this is genetic modification is trolling, ie. bringing up irrelevant data points that do not in any way refer to the argument at hand in order to clutter the relevant discussion and scuttle discourse. It's the monkey dance, pure and simple.

So, by your definition, mentioning patents as being a defining characteristic of GMOs, with no support or reasoning behind it, is "trolling."

You're better off just engaging the argument as opposed to really poorly derailing it. It's one thing to have you go off on the corporate media nonsense, but it's another to make it personal while coming out of left field with something like this.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

Political Cartoons

March 2023

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
121314151617 18
19202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 14th, 2025 10:12 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios