You haven't been able to explain how you determine some science is "bad science" - it just is and if someone doesn't agree, you call them names.
You can't describe what you think is wrong with genetically modified food. To questions about what your opinions are based on, you can only reply with personal insults.
That doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look like a confused thinker.
Here are some other questions you've shown you can't answer:
Is it wrong for a drug company to patent a drug (say an antibiotic) even though that antibiotic may exist in nature (ie some ant or plant produces it)? (Like penicillin)
Or consider chemicals, say that are used in plastics production, if such chemicals may exist in nature - is a patent there wrong?
Or an industrial designer, say another Buckminster Fuller, who develops designs for use in architecture or manufacturing that are like designs in nature, where the design has another function - is that wrong?
What if a drug company develops a vaccine for HIV thats based on something that gives apes immunity to HIV/SIV - is a patent on that wrong?
To issues like this, you don't know what you think. If you think anything, you can't describe or explain it. Questions about your opinions bother you. If your beliefs were logically based and well thought out, that wouldn't be. |
