Thread: Anonymous Leaks Personal Details of Cop Who Pepper-Sprayed Well Street Protesters

Originally Posted by tommo

Fixed.

97% of Americans are literate meaning they can read and write.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

And even gamers have political beliefs. If you care about Sony's terms of sale then by all means engage in protest but don't try to restrict the ability of others to utilize that service if they do so voluntarily. Concerning the oil industry, you have legs do you not? You can buy a bike. Would it be tougher to get around? Perhaps but it shows your convinction that you do not want to engage in business with people you do not find in line with your beliefs. The impression I am receiving is that you want everyone else to enact your beliefs so you do not have to go through the trouble of living by them.

Yeah let me walk 50 miles to work so I can dig holes all day then walk 50 miles back. Or I can take the bus (a public utility because it can't support itself alone). You seem to have missed the point. You're acting like everyone who buys a PS3 wonders if it's right to support Sony's corrupt business practices. They want to play games. Not everyone who goes to the grocery store supports Monsanto, either, but farmers markets can be difficult to find. If Monsanto's business practices were fought against, we may have a chance.

Again, it goes back to ignorance, the people simply are not informed about the reality of the situation because they're caught up in supporting themselves and their family. Most people can't afford to vote with their wallet.

This is certainly self-righteous, I won't argue with you there. But when I see corruption, I fight it. I don't think, "meh, if it was really a problem the people wouldn't support it." Not only do most people not realize there's a problem, but they're stuck because they have to consume and alternate choices just aren't available.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

97% of Americans are literate meaning they can read and write.

There's no standard for the level of skill needed to be considered literate?
afaics a massive majority of people can no longer spell correctly, and have no idea about grammar whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Not only do most people not realize there's a problem, but they're stuck because they have to consume and alternate choices just aren't available.

I just want some organic oranges I went to three super markets including whole foods - nothing. I spoke with mom who is five hours away and asked her if she could find anything, and she told me, nothing, not even at sprouts which is supposed to be a healthy organic place

choices? I see monopolies

Originally Posted by juroara

I just want some organic oranges I went to three super markets including whole foods - nothing. I spoke with mom who is five hours away and asked her if she could find anything, and she told me, nothing, not even at sprouts which is supposed to be a healthy organic place

choices? I see monopolies

It's organic food is going to go under very fast. You can't feed the whole world with organic food. Depending on how you define it of course.

GM is the way of the future, and they only way. Unless you want to plant your own trees and plants for food. Which is the smart way to go about it.

I refuse to accept that. If that's truly the future, I'm turning to eco-terrorism. It's not organic for the sake of being organic, but for the sake of my health and the health of the environment.

But to get back on topic, apparently Anthony Bologna is going to lose ten vacation days for this violation

Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna faces losing 10 vacation days after the incident on 24 September incident near Union Square, shortly after the protests began in lower Manhattan, the source said.

Occupy Wall Street officer Anthony Bologna 'broke pepper-spray rules' | World news | guardian.co.uk

I'm glad his personal information is out if this is all the justice he's facing.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I refuse to accept that. If that's truly the future, I'm turning to eco-terrorism. It's not organic for the sake of being organic, but for the sake of my health and the health of the environment.

No, it is organic for the sake of it.
I have no doubt right now organic is better quality.
But when GM is ready, it will be much better.
All you have to do is look at what we have.
What we have right now is GM, it's just a less accurate and a slower way to go about it.

Eco-terrorism is what morons like Greenpeace do. They destroyed a wheat crop in Australia that was only in it's primary testing phase. That crop could have saved farmers from using 25% of their current level of nitrogen from fertilisers. Most of that fertiliser does not get used by the plant (about 50%) and just gets washed in to the ocean and other water sources, which promoted algal growth which further destroys the environment, sucking up oxygen and emitting carbon dioxide.

So basically they helped destroy the planet and probably will be the cause of the future deaths of tens of thousands of people who could have had that wheat a year earlier before they starved to death.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Occupy Wall Street officer Anthony Bologna 'broke pepper-spray rules' | World news | guardian.co.uk

I'm glad his personal information is out if this is all the justice he's facing.

Me too.

There are methods of raising organic produce in a sustainable fashion. Don't get me wrong, I think it's wrong to use synthetic nitrogen, monocropping and most of the other practices used to cut costs. But plenty of farmers have managed successful, sustainable farms without synthetic nitrogen or any other additives.

But the funding isn't in that because you can't patent a method of farming. So they pursue what is profitable, even if it's destructive to the environment. Genetically modified food is as disastrous as introducing any other sort of foreign species to an environment. They take it over, and their competition goes extinct. And on top of that, GMs also produce health risks to the people that eat them.

And lastly, we have ten times more food than we need to feed everyone on the planet, the reason people starve is because food's value is based on scarcity. If we change the way the food market works, we could end hunger.

Rather than control the environment, let's learn how to work in harmony with it. For our sake.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

There are methods of raising organic produce in a sustainable fashion. Don't get me wrong, I think it's wrong to use synthetic nitrogen, monocropping and most of the other practices used to cut costs. But plenty of farmers have managed successful, sustainable farms without synthetic nitrogen or any other additives.

Synthetic or "natural" it doesn't matter. Nitrogen is nitrogen. Whether you get it from chook shit or make it in a lab. It's still harmful if it leaks in to the water.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Genetically modified food is as disastrous as introducing any other sort of foreign species to an environment. They take it over, and their competition goes extinct.

???? There is no competition in farming. It's vacant land with grass on it. Sometimes not even grass.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

And on top of that, GMs also produce health risks to the people that eat them.

No, they don't. They don't modify them to cause health issues. They modify them to produce more vitamins and minerals etc. So they are more healthy. They also modify them for better taste. Just like we've done with our current "organic" fruit's and vegetable's wild counterparts.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

And lastly, we have ten times more food than we need to feed everyone on the planet, the reason people starve is because food's value is based on scarcity. If we change the way the food market works, we could end hunger.

I haven't ever seen proof of this. But the main reason is that crops will not grow well in Africa for example. Genetic modification can help to find plants which will grow in those sorts of areas.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Rather than control the environment, let's learn how to work in harmony with it. For our sake.

This is fine. And I'm all for it. But the only way we can do this without killing millions of people through neglect, is by controlling the population.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

But to get back on topic, apparently Anthony Bologna is going to lose ten vacation days for this violation

.....I'm glad his personal information is out if this is all the justice he's facing.

Same here. Fuckin' shameful.

Originally Posted by tommo

Synthetic or "natural" it doesn't matter. Nitrogen is nitrogen. Whether you get it from chook shit or make it in a lab. It's still harmful if it leaks in to the water.


???? There is no competition in farming. It's vacant land with grass on it. Sometimes not even grass.


No, they don't. They don't modify them to cause health issues. They modify them to produce more vitamins and minerals etc. So they are more healthy. They also modify them for better taste. Just like we've done with our current "organic" fruit's and vegetable's wild counterparts.


I haven't ever seen proof of this. But the main reason is that crops will not grow well in Africa for example. Genetic modification can help to find plants which will grow in those sorts of areas.


This is fine. And I'm all for it. But the only way we can do this without killing millions of people through neglect, is by controlling the population.

1. Food shortage and overpopulation is a myth The Food Shortage Myth - Give it to me Raw

2. Crops are not containable in the farm itself. They contaminate the environment. Peopkle have gotten sued because GM crops contaminated their farms. And farms are usually apart of a larger ecosystem, even if it's a prairie ecosystem it's still dangerous to the life there. Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?

3. GMs are not healthier than their organic counterparts just because they're on steroids. Genetically modified (GM) foods are unhealthy and unsafe - Press-Release Centre for Foodsafety

4. You don't need ANY additives if you farm properly, synthetic or not.

Yeah I don't even feel the need to add Carrying Capacity to the argument considering the vast portions of our crops are used to feed livestock instead of people.

Yes, that. And I agree that starvation is a function of distribution. Our production and nutrition levels are more than adequate as they are, without GMOs.

10 days vacation for policy brutality? I hope the worrying about his safety and his family prevents him from doing it again, because that's bullshit. Police brutality should result in prison time.

Originally Posted by tommo

There's no standard for the level of skill needed to be considered literate?
afaics a massive majority of people can no longer spell correctly, and have no idea about grammar whatsoever.

The ability to read and write. That is what it means to be literate and 97% of Americans in 2002 (according to the CIA, which let us be honest, is good at spying on people) are literate.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Yeah let me walk 50 miles to work so I can dig holes all day then walk 50 miles back. Or I can take the bus (a public utility because it can't support itself alone). You seem to have missed the point. You're acting like everyone who buys a PS3 wonders if it's right to support Sony's corrupt business practices. They want to play games. Not everyone who goes to the grocery store supports Monsanto, either, but farmers markets can be difficult to find. If Monsanto's business practices were fought against, we may have a chance.

Again, it goes back to ignorance, the people simply are not informed about the reality of the situation because they're caught up in supporting themselves and their family. Most people can't afford to vote with their wallet.

This is certainly self-righteous, I won't argue with you there. But when I see corruption, I fight it. I don't think, "meh, if it was really a problem the people wouldn't support it." Not only do most people not realize there's a problem, but they're stuck because they have to consume and alternate choices just aren't available.

How badly do you wish to live by your convictions? You don't have to walk, you can bike, roller blade, hell skip for all I care. Just because something is more convenient does not mean you should live in contradiction. On the topic of everyone buying a PS3, yes everyone who does buy one agrees with the terms of sale. You cannot operate or even update your PS3 without accepting the terms. The continued use of a PS3 after this acceptance shows that you prefer using the system over not using the system.

On the topic of your alternative choices, if this was a government granted instance then I would totally disagree with it but it is not as if oil companies or big box grocery stores are fully subsidized by the government and there aren't smaller chains or stations around. I oppose corporate welfare when it does happen but just because you have to search a little harder to find a small grocery chain or perhaps pain a little extra for gas at a local station does not infer you are out of choices.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

The ability to read and write. That is what it means to be literate and 97% of Americans in 2002 (according to the CIA, which let us be honest, is good at spying on people) are literate.

Can you explain what this is pertaining to? Because if this is something about reading legal documents, then maybe 1% of the population understands them because it's legal jargon. If it's something else, 97% of Americans can read and write, but most things are written in english and if you get the number of people literate in english, it drops to about 90%.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

How badly do you wish to live by your convictions? You don't have to walk, you can bike, roller blade, hell skip for all I care. Just because something is more convenient does not mean you should live in contradiction. On the topic of everyone buying a PS3, yes everyone who does buy one agrees with the terms of sale. You cannot operate or even update your PS3 without accepting the terms. The continued use of a PS3 after this acceptance shows that you prefer using the system over not using the system.

On the topic of your alternative choices, if this was a government granted instance then I would totally disagree with it but it is not as if oil companies or big box grocery stores are fully subsidized by the government and there aren't smaller chains or stations around. I oppose corporate welfare when it does happen but just because you have to search a little harder to find a small grocery chain or perhaps pain a little extra for gas at a local station does not infer you are out of choices.

Dude... I moved across states to follow my convictions. I gave up a good job. Don't tell me I'm just lazy and being self-righteous cause I don't want to work a little harder to support the type of economy I want to live in. It simply isn't possible. There's one farmer's market that sells organic food in my area, and it's a 45 minute drive. I still shop there when I can afford the gas.

And biking to work means leaving at 5:30 AM and getting home at 7:30 PM. And I work as a landscaper. I tried it, by the time I got there I was too exhausted to do my job.

And I don't even have a family to support. What about the people with families? When it comes to choosing between their convictions and their family, what would most people choose?

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

I'm not sure if this was directed at me. But I completely understand that. I even mention it in my post up there. And I have written a post a while ago stating
pretty much exactly what he says in that video.

All I'm saying is that if we don't control our population, GM is the only way we can avoid starving to death.

Im gonna have to disagree with you there

There is scientific evidence that eating GM food can over time make you sick, just like eating small amounts of poison. Take for example: One reason why they GM seeds is so the plants can have a higher tolerance to pesticides, because pesticides can also kill plants. It works out great. They can use the most poisonous pesticides imaginable and the plants live. Problem is, the pesticide is technically inside the plants system - guess where it ends up - on your table. While the plant may have a higher tolerance to poisons, humans do not.

Now technically you can solve that problem by growing the GM seeds as organic. Because if there is no harmful pesticide, then how is the GM harmful?

That's what I thought for years, but it turns out the story is more complex is that.

There are two more problems to GM food that most people don't know about. The first is how you create a GM plant to begin with. There are different methods, but none of them are pretty. One method uses viruses. The virus infects the plant, and alters its DNA. They then clone the virus infested plant. You can still find the virus present in future generations of the plant. I dont remember what the virus, but last I checked it was compatible with human beings. This could even explain why so many harmless plants are making people sick.

I wouldn't believe the cover story of dirty animal poo-water as the explanation. Infected water SHOULD NOT infect the fleshy parts of the fruit. That's just now how it works (last I check in my hort. class, I could be wrong). Even if an animal were to crap right on top of a fruit bearing plant, the fruit is still not going to carry any diseases or viruses that were in the animal poo. The danger is in the outer layer of the fruit or vegetable skin. Traditionally, if its a fruit or vegetable that you peel - there is nothing to worry about.

If we start finding ANIMAL viruses inside the fleshy part of the fruit or vegetable, that is becuase of the GM.

Two: The next problem is, they have genetically modified certain plants to have a kill gene - I believe that's what they call it. Because Monsanto was going crazy suing innocent farmers for natural reproductive cycle of plants - they came up with another idea. They genetically modified plants to either only bear seeds once, or bear infertile seeds. It was something like that my memory is fuzzy. The idea was the farmer would be forced to buy from monsanto because the plants bear useless seeds anyways.

Okay thats crazy in itself.

But that's not the real issue. The real issue is you can't control plant reproduction, and once again this GM gene can enter the wilderness.

In Mexico its ILLEGAL to purchase GM seed. Mexico is very proud of its native and numerous species of corn. Even then, Monsantos GM genes have found their way to the indigenous corn species. They are taking this very seriously. If the kill switch gene makes it into those species, those species can go extinct.

So while you think GM will feed the world. Its quite the opposite. In the worst case scenario the kill switch gene will make all crops infertile. So how can we continue to grow crops if all the seeds are duds????

In the worst case scenario - all crop seeds have to be purchased through Monsanto. Poorer nations infected by the GM genes can starve.

Also, you don't need to genetically modify a plant to copyright its gene. The word is out, you can copyright any plant so long as no one else has. Monsanto and other companies are now going into seed banks and copyrighting all that they can. This is bad.

So, GM is a huge problem. It maybe have started off with noble intentions and may have been great in ending plant diseases, but now things have gotten out of hand and crazy.

Originally Posted by tommo

I'm not sure if this was directed at me. But I completely understand that. I even mention it in my post up there. And I have written a post a while ago stating
pretty much exactly what he says in that video.

All I'm saying is that if we don't control our population, GM is the only way we can avoid starving to death.

And what I'm saying is this is a myth. We produce ten times more food than we need to feed everyone on the planet as is. Of this, 70% goes to livestock and 10% is destroyed to keep the value of produce higher. Even then, we still produce twice as much food as the world needs but it doesn't circulate properly because of the way the market works. We don't need to produce more food, we need to change the way it's distributed.

Originally Posted by juroara

Im gonna have to disagree with you there

There is scientific evidence that eating GM food can over time make you sick, just like eating small amounts of poison. Take for example: One reason why they GM seeds is so the plants can have a higher tolerance to pesticides, because pesticides can also kill plants. It works out great. They can use the most poisonous pesticides imaginable and the plants live. Problem is, the pesticide is technically inside the plants system - guess where it ends up - on your table. While the plant may have a higher tolerance to poisons, humans do not.

Now technically you can solve that problem by growing the GM seeds as organic. Because if there is no harmful pesticide, then how is the GM harmful?

That's what I thought for years, but it turns out the story is more complex is that.

There are two more problems to GM food that most people don't know about. The first is how you create a GM plant to begin with. There are different methods, but none of them are pretty. One method uses viruses. The virus infects the plant, and alters its DNA. They then clone the virus infested plant. You can still find the virus present in future generations of the plant. I dont remember what the virus, but last I checked it was compatible with human beings. This could even explain why so many harmless plants are making people sick.

I wouldn't believe the cover story of dirty animal poo-water as the explanation. Infected water SHOULD NOT infect the fleshy parts of the fruit. That's just now how it works (last I check in my hort. class, I could be wrong). Even if an animal were to crap right on top of a fruit bearing plant, the fruit is still not going to carry any diseases or viruses that were in the animal poo. The danger is in the outer layer of the fruit or vegetable skin. Traditionally, if its a fruit or vegetable that you peel - there is nothing to worry about.

If we start finding ANIMAL viruses inside the fleshy part of the fruit or vegetable, that is becuase of the GM.

Two: The next problem is, they have genetically modified certain plants to have a kill gene - I believe that's what they call it. Because Monsanto was going crazy suing innocent farmers for natural reproductive cycle of plants - they came up with another idea. They genetically modified plants to either only bear seeds once, or bear infertile seeds. It was something like that my memory is fuzzy. The idea was the farmer would be forced to buy from monsanto because the plants bear useless seeds anyways.

Okay thats crazy in itself.

But that's not the real issue. The real issue is you can't control plant reproduction, and once again this GM gene can enter the wilderness.

In Mexico its ILLEGAL to purchase GM seed. Mexico is very proud of its native and numerous species of corn. Even then, Monsantos GM genes have found their way to the indigenous corn species. They are taking this very seriously. If the kill switch gene makes it into those species, those species can go extinct.

So while you think GM will feed the world. Its quite the opposite. In the worst case scenario the kill switch gene will make all crops infertile. So how can we continue to grow crops if all the seeds are duds????

In the worst case scenario - all crop seeds have to be purchased through Monsanto. Poorer nations infected by the GM genes can starve.

Also, you don't need to genetically modify a plant to copyright its gene. The word is out, you can copyright any plant so long as no one else has. Monsanto and other companies are now going into seed banks and copyrighting all that they can. This is bad.

So, GM is a huge problem. It maybe have started off with noble intentions and may have been great in ending plant diseases, but now things have gotten out of hand and crazy.

I agree with some of what you have said.

That is not the GM that I condone however.
What I'm talking about is creating plants that use less nitrogen (which is BAD for the oceans, and therefore the whole world, as I previously stated), or plants that produce more beneficial vitamins and minerals, or just more edible matter.

These are not bad things, and there's no reason it would mutate and harm us, any more than the plants we have now would. Because you're changing the same thing we have been since we started selecting the best plants' seeds to propagate, just faster.

I definitely agree that they should not be copyrightable, or even sold to companies at all. And therefore that there would be no reason to make them not produce fertile seeds.

BTW, the seed thing doesn't really work very well. They've been doing it just through selection (slow GM, really) for years now. Yet you can still throw an apple in the garden and grow an apple tree.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

And what I'm saying is this is a myth. We produce ten times more food than we need to feed everyone on the planet as is. Of this, 70% goes to livestock and 10% is destroyed to keep the value of produce higher. Even then, we still produce twice as much food as the world needs but it doesn't circulate properly because of the way the market works. We don't need to produce more food, we need to change the way it's distributed.

I haven't seen any credible sources for this. And anyway, good luck growing our current plants in poorer nations with drought.
Even in Australia, bananas go up in price dramatically every few years basically. It is because of floods which destroy the farms. Not false scarcity.
And drought here affects food supply in the worst times as well.

Again, that's a market problem, the whole world is not undergoing a drought every time there's one in Australia.

It's about power.