Political opinions: Conservatives, what lefty soy boy policies do you agree with. Progressives, what fascist pig dog oppressor opinions do you hold?

[Johnny Bananas]

Noone should be able to own a plant or a seed. Its like a.coloniql land grab (and that was by govt)

Point is no private company will invest in it if they can't extract large profits from it. That's why I want it run by the CSIRO or a national co-operative. In theory at least, they have an incentive to conduct GM research for the common good of Australians rather than for profit.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Point is no private company will invest in it if they can't extract large profits from it. That's why I want it run by the CSIRO or a national co-operative. In theory at least, they have an incentive to conduct GM research for the common good of Australians rather than for profit.

Garbage

This isn't primarily about research. Idiots are going into the Amazon, finding a new plant, and they are patenting them. No modification, they o n.it because they found it.

Why should the Australian govt own worldwide rights to a plant because they found it?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

This isn't primarily about research. Idiots are going into the Amazon, finding a new plant, and they are patenting them. No modification, they o n.it because they found it.

That's an entirely separate issue to GM then, and I don't understand why you're bringing it up.

Why should the Australian govt own worldwide rights to a plant because they found it?

Did I say that?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

That's an entirely separate issue to GM then, and I don't understand why you're bringing it up.


Did I say that?

The issue is one. Its the ability to take a patent out on DNA.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

I'm a left-leaning voter who does not have an economics degree. I think Australia should substantially cut temporary and permanent migration (compared to 2019 levels) because I believe excessive immigration depresses wages.

I believe would should dramatically increase our refugee intake though.

 

[Evolved1]

I believe if a guy gets a girl pregnant and opts for an abortion and she does not. He is under no obligation to help support that child.

I've had the same thought for a long time yet can't come up with a better alternative.

 

[Evolved1]

Point is no private company will invest in it if they can't extract large profits from it. That's why I want it run by the CSIRO or a national co-operative. In theory at least, they have an incentive to conduct GM research for the common good of Australians rather than for profit.

That's idealistic.

If private enterprise is removed from GM research, scientific progress will stall. I could make the same argument using Pfizer and the vaccine. Money drives scientific progress.

 

[Evolved1]

The issue is one. Its the ability to take a patent out on DNA.

Are you opposed to intellectual property rights in general?

 

[Rotayjay]

I believe would should dramatically increase our refugee intake though.

I think we should, and stop treating them with contempt (though that's a left policy).

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Are you opposed to intellectual property rights in general?

No, when there is genuine innovation.

Adding irrelevant ingredients to a pharma about to hit generic just to reset the clock is an example of the BS in current parent rights.

Also the idea that a farmer who buys a seed, grows a crop, but has no right to the seed that crop makes is crazy. This has caused issues in Africa because of this sick USA play:

1) country a says it's GMO free

2) USA advise that the only food aid they will supply is GMO.

3) country agrees to take it, because they just need aid

4) villages use some of the grain to grow crops because they want food for tomorrow too

5) USA jump in, declare GMO free is bust, and demand replanting claims for violation of Monsanto's rights

 

[kranky al]

I believe if a guy gets a girl pregnant and opts for an abortion and she does not. He is under no obligation to help support that child.

if thats discussed before hand yes.

If you are both say practising catholics and it can be construed that you are anti abortion and it hasnt been discussed then no.

 

[Pie eyed]

I’d assume they would want influence in ICAC if they paid for it ….

Don't ask. just make them all pay a "criminal institutions duty"

 

[Johnny Bananas]

That's idealistic.

Then I'm an idealist and proud of it.

If private enterprise is removed from GM research, scientific progress will stall.

The public sector conducts plenty of research through the CSIRO, universities and the military. Of course, the underfunding and corporatisation of our universities has meant that they too are focused on profiting from research, but I think this is at least partly reversible with adequate tertiary funding.

I could make the same argument using Pfizer and the vaccine. Money drives scientific progress.

You know CSL used to be a public company, right? They had research divisions even then.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

The issue is one. Its the ability to take a patent out on DNA.

Except you've mixed patents on plants that naturally grow with patents on genetic modified plants, the latter of which can be argued to be the sort of "genuine innovation" you mentioned later. But they are two different things. There are good arguments against GM patents, but if you're going to argue against them, stick to the topic instead of conflating them with patents on things found naturally growing.

Still waiting to hear where I said "the Australian government should own worldwide rights to a plant because they found it". You've done that thing again where you misunderstand what someone has said, attack what you think they said, and when they explain that they made a different argument, you go silent.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Except you've mixed patents on plants that naturally grow with patents on genetic modified plants, the latter of which can be argued to be the sort of "genuine innovation" you mentioned later. But they are two different things. There are good arguments against GM patents, but if you're going to argue against them, stick to the topic instead of conflating them with patents on things found naturally growing.

Still waiting to hear where I said "the Australian government should own worldwide rights to a plant because they found it". You've done that thing again where you misunderstand what someone has said, attack what you think they said, and when they explain that they made a different argument, you go silent.

Its the same argument. People are arguing you can own DNA. As kranky al said it's a land grab. It's nothing to do with innovation. Your plan just moves the land grab into the hands of govt, with govts competing for who owns what DNA

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Its the same argument. People are arguing you can own DNA. As kranky al said it's a land grab. It's nothing to do with innovation. Your plan just moves the land grab into the hands of govt, with govts competing for who owns what DNA

I didn't say any such thing, you claimed worldwide rights when I didn't mention it in any way. Are you arguing that genetic modification is not innovation?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I didn't say any such thing, you claimed worldwide rights when I didn't mention it in any way. Are you arguing that genetic modification is not innovation?

Not if it's so minor it makes no change to the original

A lot of the changes being made in things like seeds are not to improve the product, but to extend the exclusively window

 

[Gralin]

The idea that only capitalism leads to innovation lol yeah

Patenting naturally occurring plants if ******* diabolical

Patenting genetically modified plants and destroying lives like Mosanto did with government support is why I think capitalism is out of control

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Not if it's so minor it makes no change to the original

So you concede it can be considered innovation, which you've previously said is worthy of patenting. Doesn't that put a qualifier on your previous statement that nobody should be able to own a plant or a seed, and doing so is akin to a colonial land grab?

By the way, since you didn't ask, a big reason why I want GM in the hands of a government research body or a national farmer co-operative is that I want it to be freely available to all Australian farmers precisely so that patent lawsuits aren't filed against Australian farmers for GM seeds blowing onto their land. I am aware of the issues and I don't want Australian farmers facing them. After that's established, then I'd start considering what the ethical course of action is for worldwide rights.

A lot of the changes being made in things like seeds are not to improve the product, but to extend the exclusively window

And I agree those shouldn't be allowed patents.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

So you concede it can be considered innovation, which you've previously said is worthy of patenting. Doesn't that put a qualifier on your previous statement that nobody should be able to own a plant or a seed, and doing so is akin to a colonial land grab?

By the way, since you didn't ask, a big reason why I want GM in the hands of a government research body or a national farmer co-operative is that I want it to be freely available to all farmers precisely so that patent lawsuits aren't filed against Australian farmers for GM seeds blowing onto their land. I am aware of the issues and I don't want Australian farmers facing them.


And I agree those shouldn't be allowed patents.

I already said further up I have no issue with genuine innovation being protected. This isn't what's happening though

And you are deluded if you think farmer coops work for the greater good. Read up on AWB and the USA coops

 

[Johnny Bananas]

And you are deluded if you think farmer coops work for the greater good. Read up on AWB and the USA coops

Have you ever considered just explaining things in a neutral manner instead of injecting snark into everything you possibly can?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Have you ever considered just explaining things in a neutral manner instead of injecting snark into everything you possibly can?

Unlike you, I've worked with coops for the past 25 years. They are not angelic as you think they are.

They are some of the biggest food groups on the planet, and rarely give two shits about farmers these days (the collapse of Murray Goulburn and Bonlac before it are both good examples)

 

[sdfc]

In the culture war sense I feel they could be seen as right wing. Perhaps not the abortion one but I would certainly be a small minority.

Maybe I'm wrong, as I feel for the most part that the culture war is just a distraction.

The "culture war" is all about division, so people are too busy arguing among themselves to notice the concentration of wealth and corruption of the political class.

 

[sdfc]

I think the issue isn't the movement of money, but the lack of risk.

Stop bail outs. If you make a bad call and you go bust, tough sh*t.

So you want banks to go bust. Are you familiar with US monetary history in the early 1930s?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

So you want banks to go bust. Are you familiar with US monetary history in the early 1930s?

Yes, because bad economic decisions should not be rewarded.

And the issue with 29 wasn't the banks. It was the reaction to the downturn by going full blown protectionist.

And btw you are aware the USA banks are already repeating the same mistakes of the GFC (just relabeling their tools under different names)