Conspiracy Theories: WaPo Quiz

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is presumed that Trump’s interpreter from the meeting would have been debriefed after that meeting between Trump and Putin. The one leaves looking exhausted and put out and Putin smiling like it was Xmas.

 

[Swammerdami]

From a 2019 article:

As a result, U.S. officials said there is no detailed record, even in classified files, of Trump’s face-to-face interactions with the Russian leader at five locations over the past two years. Such a gap would be unusual in any presidency, let alone one that Russia sought to install through what U.S. intelligence agencies have described as an unprecedented campaign of election interference.

It is presumed that Trump’s interpreter from the meeting would have been debriefed after that meeting between Trump and Putin. The one leaves looking exhausted and put out and Putin smiling like it was Xmas.

Trump was the only American present at one meeting, with Putin's interpreter doing the Russian-to-English. There was an American interpreter present at most of the meetings, but not at one. An article on the Helsinki meeting mentions another meeting in Osaka:

Similar questions were raised after the disclosure of an unplanned conversation with Putin during a G-20 dinner in Osaka, Japan, in June 2019 during which Trump was not accompanied by an interpreter.

He had told reporters beforehand that his private discussions with Putin were "none of your business."

That meeting is also mentioned by Vox:

This isn’t the first time Trump has done this. During the G20 meeting in Germany in July 2017, he got up from his seat during a dinner in order to sit next to Putin, who did have his translator to help. That meeting, which the White House didn’t initially reveal, came just hours after Trump bought Putin’s denial that Russia didn’t intervene in the 2016 presidential election.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

3. Genetically-modified food dangers hidden (45%)

Yes, ecological damage is a serious danger. It wouldn't be "hidden" except for the concerted efforts, by both the left and the right, to suppress discussion of such dangers

Strawman. Ecological damage is a serious issue. That doesn't mean GMOs are.

 

[ZiprHead]

I heard a hilarious one last week by a Qdpie. The reason Trump was hanging around with Epstein and Maxwell was to get close to investigate their pedophelia.

 

[Swammerdami]

3. Genetically-modified food dangers hidden (45%)

Yes, ecological damage is a serious danger. It wouldn't be "hidden" except for the concerted efforts, by both the left and the right, to suppress discussion of such dangers

Strawman. Ecological damage is a serious issue. That doesn't mean GMOs are.

About 100% of all relevant scientists do understand that GMO's pose ecological risk. A question is whether the benefits of GMO outweigh the risks, but that question is not the topic of this sub-debate. (The answer to the question "Can guns kill?" is Yes, even if a father intelligently decides he wants his son to go hunting with him.)

And even if only 30% (instead of 100%) of relevant scientists thought there were ecological risks, they wouldn't constitute a "conspiracy theory" unless proven wrong.

There's zillions of webpages to help. Here's the first Google hit:

A perspective on ecological consequences of GM crops – Ecotone | News and Views on Ecological Science

www.esa.org

 

[Loren Pechtel]

3. Genetically-modified food dangers hidden (45%)

Yes, ecological damage is a serious danger. It wouldn't be "hidden" except for the concerted efforts, by both the left and the right, to suppress discussion of such dangers

Strawman. Ecological damage is a serious issue. That doesn't mean GMOs are.

About 100% of all relevant scientists do understand that GMO's pose ecological risk. A question is whether the benefits of GMO outweigh the risks, but that question is not the topic of this sub-debate. (The answer to the question "Can guns kill?" is Yes, even if a father intelligently decides he wants his son to go hunting with him.)

And even if only 30% (instead of 100%) of relevant scientists thought there were ecological risks, they wouldn't constitute a "conspiracy theory" unless proven wrong.

There's zillions of webpages to help. Here's the first Google hit:

A perspective on ecological consequences of GM crops – Ecotone | News and Views on Ecological Science

www.esa.org

Let's look at your source.

In attacking GMOs I note the case of the Indiana farmer being presented when supposedly talking about ecological danger. Sorry, but that case is purely about economics. You don't trot out obviously invalid arguments when you have good ones.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

 

[Swammerdami]

3. Genetically-modified food dangers hidden (45%)

Yes, ecological damage is a serious danger. It wouldn't be "hidden" except for the concerted efforts, by both the left and the right, to suppress discussion of such dangers

Strawman. Ecological damage is a serious issue. That doesn't mean GMOs are.

About 100% of all relevant scientists do understand that GMO's pose ecological risk. A question is whether the benefits of GMO outweigh the risks, but that question is not the topic of this sub-debate. (The answer to the question "Can guns kill?" is Yes, even if a father intelligently decides he wants his son to go hunting with him.)

And even if only 30% (instead of 100%) of relevant scientists thought there were ecological risks, they wouldn't constitute a "conspiracy theory" unless proven wrong.

There's zillions of webpages to help. Here's the first Google hit:

A perspective on ecological consequences of GM crops – Ecotone | News and Views on Ecological Science

www.esa.org

Let's look at your source.

In attacking GMOs I note the case of the Indiana farmer being presented when supposedly talking about ecological danger. Sorry, but that case is purely about economics. You don't trot out obviously invalid arguments when you have good ones.

As I say, that article was just the first Google hit. If we have a serious debate on this topic in another thread. expect better articles. (Or find them yourself with Google.)

But even from this article, YOU cherry-picked an example you found refutable.
From the very same article:

The worst-case scenario sometimes portrayed is that such genes could escape into plants outside cultivation, creating super weeds (weeds resistant to herbicides) or otherwise altering a plant’s ecosystem role or relative fitness (as shown in squash) due to toxicity, growth habits, or nutrient value, with cascading ecosystem effects and potential agricultural problems.
...
If the ["Terminator"] gene enters a population of an endangered species, it would likely increase extinction risk. This example in particular stresses that a single GM trait can have varied effects, some of which extend beyond ecology and health, and affect the viability and sustainability of GMO and non-GMO farmers.

This article may not be particularly doom-and-gloom — add "doom and gloom" to the Google search terms if needed — but I think it confirms that GMO's do pose some ecological risk.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If birds aren't real how can they lie?