Re: [pf] Greenpeace wins key GM case

At 10:49 21/9/2000 -0700, Tom Wheeler, via altpr.org, sent:
>>> Greenpeace wins key GM case
>>> Not guilty: Protesters who destroyed crops are cleared
>>>http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,371076,00.html
>>
At 09:48 21/9/2000 -0700, David Appell wrote:
>> I really find this puzzling, and also a little scary. Does this verdict
>> now mean that one could set Greenpeace's offices ablaze if you don't
>> agree with their politics or their science?
>
>David,
>    It means nothing of the kind.  Greenpeace was attempting to stop
>contamination of other crops in the area. ... If you had read the 
>portion of the article [which she quotes], it would be very clear to you 
>where the line is drawn, why this particular case is legal, and what 
>is at stake.  I am always willing to dialogue with you, but when you 
>purposely make statements made to inflame, ignoring the entire picture, 
>it wears thin.
>                    Jill
> ...

**  There /is/ a case to be made in defense of the status quo, the
"conservative" case, i.e. being critical of all and any changes,
particularly fundamental ones.
    New ideas /need/ a baptism by fire, need to prove themselves.

**  As I see it, the new ideas here are the various uses of genetic
engineering, and there hasn't been anything like enough attack on those
ideas, they haven't had to thoroughly defend themselves yet. Especially in
the USA.

**  But David Appell's constant defense of the status quo, IMO from the
stance: "we live in (nearly) the best possible world, don't knock it", not
only wears thin with me, it has turned me off reading anything he posts to
this list.

**  It's worse than that. I'm generalising, but he is usually defending
something he calls scientific, though I would regard it usually as a
product of technology. {Here: mapping the genes, and investigating how they
work, is scientific; creating a product or service from that knowledge, is
technology.} And as a scientist I object to almost all of the statements he
has made in the name of science. The one exception that comes to mind is
when he has requested that the speaker supply some convincing evidence.

**  Lastly, and the reason I'm sticking my nose into this exchange: "when
he purposely makes statements made to inflame, ignoring the entire picture"
as Jill rightly said IMO, I find it my responsibility to object, with the
aim of having that kind of statement reduced or hopefully eliminated, in
favour of a plain statement of the writer's opinion.

**  Instead of the apocalyptic: "one could set Greenpeace's offices ablaze
if you don't agree with their politics or their science?"; if I understand
David Appell's view aright he could (and IMO should) have said: 
"one can rip-off someone else's crops or goods with impunity?"
  Yes there is a question of private property rights here, the defense of
that right being supplied by the state. But excessive statements like his
have no place in reasonable discussion.

David.
(David MacClement) davd@ihug.co.nz 
http://www.emucities.com.au/member/davd/index.html#top
******************************************************

___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A  The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics