|HOME > Tanoro's Blog >|
It is time for another round of "Tanoro analyzing dishonest propaganda." Today's piece of claptrap is this little gem making its way around Facebook.
I saw this discussion and the person who made this graphic is either a lying douche, didn't watch the same discussion that I did, or watched it through a bias thicker than coke bottle glasses.
While Kevin O'Leary was, at times, noticeably speaking as though he were talking to a child, he asked some basic and very reasonable questions about the extent to which Rachel objects to GMO products. Rachel Parent, on the other hand, did ok. However, she didn't do what the hype is implying. There was nothing that even remotely resembled bullying or an annihilation on either side of this discussion -- not a damned thing. Overly-zealous anti-GMO extremists, who one could say have been "bullied" by previous statements made by Kevin O'Leary, are holding this girl up as some kind of champion when she actually didn't do anything except clear some air for the moderate GMO activists. In the end, both Kevin and Rachel agreed that so long as the science of GMO products is transparent and safe, there is no reason to object to their use, though Rachel did specify that she still would not use them herself. Whatever floats your boat, girl.
Whether or not the GMO business is transparent enough is another debate. When it comes to GMO labeling, I agree with Rachel Parent and so does Kevin O'Leary. GMO products need to be labeled so that consumers can decide if they want it or not. All three of us are moderates! This takes nearly all of the wind out of Rachel's sails for me, meaning that there appeared to be no substantial conflict between their views. As a GMO activist, Rachel is a moderate based on some debatable premises, but it took so long to get this out of her!
An absurd length of this discussion was dedicated to Kevin O'Leary attempting to sort Rachel into which kind of GMO activist she is so that he could respond properly. Some GMO activists only want more transparency (i.e. moderates) while others are extreme anti-science, "no tampering with nature," nimrods who don't give a damn that people in this world are starving. They deserve every criticism they get. It is the latter group that Kevin criticizes, perhaps, too harshly by suggesting they "stop eating," but I criticize them at every encounter as well and will continue to do so.
Rachel noticeably avoided this sorting process several times, which is why Kevin was forced to keep asking the same questions. This left me disappointed by her performance. She gets something of a pass for being a child who may not know any better, but this is certainly not adequate performance worthy of the hype -- far less than hype from the extremists who are hyping it most of all and whose views are, in fact, not represented by the views presented by Rachel. An honest activist with good information doesn't need to be this slippery in a debate. The extremists are grasping at straws and it is making them look even less credible than they already do.
This blog is an editorial and contains only the opinions of the author. The author claims no expertise on most topics of discussion and this blog is not to be cited as an alternative for properly vetted journalism or scientific sources.comments powered by Disqus