Consistency
Signtist @ Signtist @lemm.ee Posts 4Comments 783Joined 2 yr. ago
Signtist @ Signtist @lemm.ee
Posts
4
Comments
783
Joined
2 yr. ago
You're right, I'm not doing all I can to raise awareness of the ongoing tragedy. That's my bad side - feel free to complain about it. I should be doing more.
It's not an extreme obsession to think every day about an ongoing genocide. In fact, any less is unwarranted apathy. OP's other traits are less benevolent, but they aren't showcasing them here, so, again, they're irrelevant. If OP had mentioned even once that someone should vote for Trump in this thread, I'd agree with you, but you're the only one bringing it up here, so in this case, you're the problem.
I'm not ignoring it, it just doesn't make any sense to be annoyed that someone keeps bringing up the fact that people are dying every day for an unjust cause. It's why I accused you of wanting to ignore it - because that's the type of person that benefits from less reminders of the ongoing murders.
Yeah, my mom used to be upset that I didn't hold onto my old pokemon cards, but not only did I never have any rare ones that would be worth anything anyway, I used them how I wanted to when I wanted to, and when they stopped interesting me, I gave them to someone who was still interested. I don't regret that.
A post is separate from the user who posted it. This post is meant to point out the tragedy going on in Gaza. It doesn't matter if OP was the one who posted it, or anyone else. Hell, it's a clip from Twitter anyway; the words aren't OP's in any way - they're just sharing them.
My point is that if you want to get mad at someone's negative traits, that's fine, but this post in this context isn't negative. Your original complaint wasn't about OP's ragebaiting, or their habit of calling people Nazis for disagreeing with them, it was about their incessant posting about the ongoing genocide at Gaza, which - again - isn't a bad thing.
Everyone has good sides and bad sides, and you chose to complain about OP's good side, then attempted to justify your complaints by pointing out the fact that they have a bad side, which isn't showcased here, and is thus irrelevant.
I never once accused you of being a Nazi, nor did I allude to doing so. What I did accuse you of was being just like the German citizens during Nazi Germany, who closed their eyes and plugged their ears while their fellow human beings were being slaughtered.
You can admit to not having the power to stop a holocaust, but don't you dare think that you deserve the luxury of ignoring it. It needs to be on everyone's minds every day, if for no other reason than to be thankful that they were fortunate enough to not have been born into the group of people being arbitrarily culled.
The only reason you're not being murdered - wondering why nobody helped, nobody cared - is because you aren't among that group. The least you can do is continue to keep it in your mind while it's still happening.
Posting as much as you can about something that everyone needs to be acutely aware of, regardless of how "icky" it makes them feel is absolutely something to be lauded. I admit that I didn't know the other stuff about OP, but the fact of the matter is that you didn't complain about ragebaiting on a ragebaiting post, you complained about someone talking too much about an ongoing holocaust on a post that specifically focuses on the ongoing holocaust. If you want to complain about the other less-exemplary facets of this user, feel free to do so on a post that isn't pointedly focusing on the - and I repeat - ongoing holocaust.
Think of how much people talk about 9/11, then realize that well over 10 times as many people have been murdered so far in Gaza. OP is doing everything they can to draw awareness to a tragedy - that's a good thing.
Imagine if people had been more willing to call out the terrible practices of Nazi Germany, instead of just keeping their heads down and trying to convince themselves that it's someone else's problem that they have no need to concern themselves over.
Well, it is the next holocaust, so it makes sense that people are discussing it at length. It'll probably be one of the biggest topics future history lessons of this era will cover, which is saying something, considering how fucked up this era is.
Yup, I had one while working at FedEx. It was pretty neat - I would pretend it was a raygun when I didn't have any packages coming down the line.
My mom died of cancer a few months ago because she was convinced that a combination of sunlight's natural vibrational frequency and some expensive "medical" herbal teas would cure her. Placebos affect people, but if you let them believe that they're an alternative to actual science and medicine, then they'll use them as such.
Man, cartoonnetwork.com was the first website I ever frequented. When my family first got an internet connection, I didn't know about search engines, so I would just type things I liked into the url bar, put a ".com" at the end, and hope for the best. Speeds were super slow on our dialup connection, so I'd often have time to make and eat a sandwich while waiting for a flash game to load.
I started with 4e, so I have fond memories, but my friends and I also had no idea what we were doing and just made a bunch of stuff up, so that probably helped.
Well, the US and every other 1st world country. Nobody wants to be the guy without nuclear weapons when the nuclear war starts - the ones that can't defend themselves would be easy first targets. That's what the cold war was all about - 2 countries, each just waiting for the other to drop the bomb they're sure is coming eventually.
Eh, only slightly. The 1% just realized that rich people directly asking you to donate to a charity so they can get tax kickbacks doesn't go over well, so they get their cashiers to do it instead so people feel bad about getting mad at some random teenager. Don't harass the person asking, since it wasn't their choice to do so, but realize that it's better to donate to the charity of your choice - or directly give money to someone you see in need - without also putting money into the pocket of some rich business owner.
Again, selective breeding suffers from the same issue of introducing changes that can be detrimental to the organism itself and its place in the balance of the environment. Look at dog breeding as an example. Pugs were bred for a specific look, and that inadvertently caused them to have severe breathing issues. Dachshunds are another example, with many developing spinal issues over time. The difference, as I said before, is the speed; making a change causes unintended side effects - when you make a huge change quickly, it will produce more side effects than making a small change slowly will.
And... again... as I already said... there should be limitations to prevent rolling out new GMOs without specific testing for safety, both in a lab for potential problems to the organism or - in the event of an agricultural product - its consumers, as well as in the environment as a whole, to determine how it may affect the ecology if and when it is introduced. It may take decades to notice changes if the GMO is released immediately after being developed, but if testing protocols are made and followed, we should have no problem quickly spotting any issues before the organism is rolled out into the world.
Just like newly developed medicines need to go through rigorous testing to prevent things like the Thalidomide scandal that caused an immense amount of birth defects due to lax testing, new GMO's will need to be tested as well. But, just like you likely understand the benefits of medicine for helping people suffering from various diseases, GMO's can provide the same level of benefit to people suffering from malnutrition, among a wide range of other positive uses. The key is to study new developments to the point where we can spot and address issues. Throwing away the technology as a whole is not the answer.
GMO's trace back further than that - even when we're specifically talking about modern methods. The first Drosophila melanogaster fruit fly genetics experiments happened in 1910, though it took a while for us to begin actually creating GMO strains; the first study I know of that did so was in 1927 by Hermann J. Muller, using x-rays to purposefully induce mutations. But ultimately, it doesn't matter who was the first to purposefully modify the genetics of an organism, modern or otherwise.
The fact of the matter is that we can use, have used, and should use genetic modification for beneficial purposes. Again, GMO's are neutral; it just means an organism was purposefully modified on a genetic level by humans - it's the purpose itself that determines whether its good or bad. People will use it for bad reasons just like any technology, and we should stop them, but that doesn't mean we should shun the technology itself when genetic modifications have been used beneficially for millennia, and modern techniques are just as capable of producing incredibly beneficial changes as they are the detrimental ones everyone's scared of.
Monsanto creates GMOs based on nothing but greed - they have complete disregard for the environmental impact of the wanton use of pesticides that their resistant strains encourage. But that's just one GMO application - other crops use genetic modification to produce greater yields or better nutritional value.
Golden rice is a great GMO that can bring vitamin C and other essential nutrients to previously-deficient areas of the world, but it keeps getting delayed and disrupted by people who think that the reason Monsanto is terrible is because they make GMO's, rather than their sketchy business and science practices they use. GMO's as a whole are neutral, and there are amazing benefits we can get from them if we understand the difference between good and bad use of genetic modification.
OP's post points out that beneficial old-fashioned GMO creation through use of selective breeding has immensely improved agricultural yield from the original source - the process of using our own observations to modify organisms on a genetic level is not new, and without it, we wouldn't be where we are now as a species.
The speed is substantial, yes. That was my point. They are essentially the same; one simply uses the organism's own natural genetic variation mechanisms, while the other introduces new variations manually. Yes, that is a difference that requires separation of the two in certain circumstances, but not when it comes to whether or not we've genetically modified all strains of modern agricultural corn, GMO-labeled or not.
Claiming selective breeding is the same as producing a GMO is like saying an eagle and a Boeing 747 are both utilizing mechanisms that allow them to fly, which is true.
Reject bad behavior when you see it. That's all you can do. In the same way that we need to draw attention to the holocaust over and over even though we know it likely won't stop it, we need to point out bad behavior over and over again even if it doesn't stop it. But don't point out bad behavior when there's none to be seen - that just weakens your argument.