Tanzanian Farmers Face 12 Years In Prison For Selling Seeds As They've Done For Generations
from the why-not-adopt-big-ag's-patented-approach-instead? dept
Seeds might not seem to have much to do with digital technology, but the DNA that lies at their heart is in fact digital information, and thus many of the issues that concern Techdirt also apply here. One of the key battlegrounds for seeds and their ownership is Africa, as we discussed back in 2013. The Belgian site Mondiaal Nieuws has an update on what's happening in one of the poorest African countries, Tanzania. Things aren't looking good there following a change in the relevant law:
"If you buy seeds from Syngenta or Monsanto under the new legislation, they will retain the intellectual property rights. If you save seeds from your first harvest, you can use them only on your own piece of land for non-commercial purposes. You're not allowed to share them with your neighbors or with your sister-in-law in a different village, and you cannot sell them for sure. But that's the entire foundation of the seed system in Africa", says Michael Farrelly [from an organic farming movement in Tanzania].
The article indicates that "certified" in this context means patented. That's obviously a problem for small-scale farmers, since they would be unable to afford to go through the patenting process, even if that were even a realistic option. For multinationals like Syngenta or Monsanto, by contrast, patenting is as natural as breathing, and so the new system will strengthen their hand considerably.
Under the new law, Tanzanian farmers risk a prison sentence of at least 12 years or a fine of over €205,300 [about $213,000], or both, if they sell seeds that are not certified.
"That's an amount that a Tanzanian farmer cannot even start to imagine. The average wage is still less than 2 US dollars a day", says Janet Maro, head of Sustainable Agriculture Tanzania (SAT)."As a result, the farmers' seed system will collapse, because they can't sell their own seeds", according to Janet Maro. "Multinationals will provide our country with seeds and all the farmers will have to buy them from them. That means that we will lose biodiversity, because it is impossible for them to investigate and patent all the seeds we need. We're going to end up with fewer types of seeds."
Here's why this is all happening:
Tanzania applied the legislation concerning intellectual property rights on seeds as a condition for receiving development assistance through the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition (NAFSN). The NAFSN was launched in 2012 by the G8 with the goal to help 50 million people out of poverty and hunger in the ten African partner countries through a public-private partnership. The initiative receives the support of the EU, the US, the UK, the World Bank and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
What's particularly regrettable here is not just the loss of biodiversity, and the fact that African farmers will be beholden to Western corporations, but that the NAFSN program will achieve the opposite of its stated aims, and end up taking away what little independence Tanzanian farmers enjoyed under the traditional seed system. No wonder, then, that last year Members of the European Parliament called for the NAFSN to "radically alter its mission". Judging by what's happening in Tanzania, there's no sign of that happening.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: farming, jail, patents, seeds, tanzania
Companies: monsanto, syngenta
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
'Buy from us or go to jail, your choice'
So if they use the same seeds they always have, they face insane fines and jail time. Or they can buy from scum like Monsanto, every single year, if they want to be able to sell anything, which is going to take a hefty chunk out of any profits they might have been able to make, and give said scum huge 'negotiating' ability since the farmers either buy from them, buy from them, or buy from them.
Oh yeah, this is absolutely going to help the farmers... right into bankruptcy. That it came as a result of 'If you want help, you get it on our terms' that essentially handed over the farming industry to private companies just makes it even more disgusting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Buy from us or go to jail, your choice'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Buy from us or go to jail, your choice'
The issue with IP rights on seed is well covered in Agribusiness journals. Less well known is that the same thing is happening with chickens, hogs, and cattle. The packaging company specifies what stock to buy, what feed to use, where to get each, and frequently has a financial interest in all of it. The people that actually raise the stock see their profits turn to loss, and no real way to get out of the game other than going bankrupt and letting the multinational take over their land and operations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Buy from us or go to jail, your choice'
Now will somebody kindly tell that smug little git Brian Cox this? He's been on the BBC saying it's a Luddite fear of Frankenstein thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Buy from us or go to jail, your choice'
Your argument is a completely different thing, and something that Cox, as a particle physicist, is going to be even less equipped to address than the genetics side. He'll be on the BBC simply because he's considered the "friendly" face of science in the UK, and he's answering arguments about the science. You're arguing completely on the sociological and business side, which are arguments not addressed in that kind of discussion.
Perhaps instead of attacking him on blog comments he's never going to read, you can respond to him via the methods provided by the BBC? At least you're more likely to get a response, if not actually present an argument that he's not been responding to because he hasn't heard it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Buy from us or go to jail, your choice'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Buy from us or go to jail, your choice'
No, it's quite easy to discuss the actual science of GMOs without even mentioning the agricultural and other impacts. If you're only presented with the "Frankenstein food" argument and you're rebutting that, you have no need to even think about the other factors unless they're introduced. It just means you're considering the scientific facts, and not considering how the science is being applied.
It may be impossible to discuss the environmental, sociological, etc. aspects without discussing the science, but it's definitely possible to discuss the science itself without those other things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Buy from us or go to jail, your choice'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Buy from us or go to jail, your choice'
But the distinction is not trivial; it's incredibly important, because the legal mechanism for fighting a broken patent system is entirely different from the one for fighting a specific type of crop production. Yes, the two things are one and the same in this case, but you don't call the FDA to enforce patents.
It's not GM crops that are dangerous, it's GM patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Buy from us or go to jail, your choice'
Many more problems exist in agriculture but the giant corporations being allowed to ride rough shod over the unsuspecting population is disgusting. Greed knows no bounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Buy from us or go to jail, your choice'
Who is allowing them to "ride rough shod"? Corporations are going to do what they need to do to make money, that is what they do. They are like a giant virus, they only know one thing. As disgusting as that is, it is the truth. Thad was leading into a good point. When you need enforcement, you call the government. They are the ones that can prevent this but are failing to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Buy from us or go to jail, your choice'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Buy from us or go to jail, your choice'
I don't understand, do you have a citation for this statement? They were using seeds produced in Africa long before the western company can into play. I can't seem to find where they can't go back to using those seeds.
The story says;
"If you buy seeds from Syngenta or Monsanto under the new legislation, they will retain the intellectual property rights."
So don't buy your seeds from these guys if you don't want to be beholden to their terms right? Buy the seeds the same way you were buying before. It seems to me that the farmers were agreeing to the terms, but then not honoring their end of the deal..
I feel like maybe I'm missing something here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Buy from us or go to jail, your choice'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Buy from us or go to jail, your choice'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And once again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Buy from us or go to jail, your choice'
These parts:
Under the new law, Tanzanian farmers risk a prison sentence of at least 12 years or a fine of over €205,300 [about $213,000], or both, if they sell seeds that are not certified.
The article indicates that "certified" in this context means patented. That's obviously a problem for small-scale farmers, since they would be unable to afford to go through the patenting process, even if that were even a realistic option.
Unless I'm reading that completely wrong, or Glyn wrote it up completely wrong, selling non-'certified', which is to say non-patented seeds means they risk ruinous fines and/or jail time. Since they're already getting very little for their produce the idea that they can just go out and patent the seeds they have always been using isn't exactly a feasible one, meaning they have to buy from the slime companies or risk losing their farm and/or jail time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Buy from us or go to jail, your choice'
Independent content creators being prohibited from selling their content without first being chained to the parasites just like famers not being allowed to use their own seeds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wait!
For shame...
Every Nation gets the government it deserves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wait!
Writing to reps to express our concerns would be a start. Don't forget to cite this article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wait!
Let me guess .... at the same time you probably speak against things like Occupy Wallstreet, Standing Rock and Black Lives Matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: wait!
Standing Rock, I do not keep up with them very much so I do not have too much of an opinion either way.
BLM... yea... a bunch of racists standing up for the right thing but ONLY for their own kind. I have no use for a group of WE SHOULD BE SPECIAL idiots but not anyone else. I was in more support of them at first because police brutality and tyranny is clearly a serious issue, but they are ruining the message by playing the race card. More whites are killed than blacks by cops but only the blacks matter? Yea, that is pretty fucking racist. That said, I am still happy that at least ONE group is saying something, even if they are doing about the worst job possible in the effort.
All lives matter! And until you show that, their message will be marginalized.
Everything matters, everything counts. I am one of the absolute few 'actual' pro constitution people left in this nation. Almost no citizens are left alive that support it. Everyone I run into is willing to sacrifice at least 1 thing in the constitution for their political sycophancy and due to its nature if you don't support it 100% you just don't support it at all!
The entire Constitution has been extensively trashed to the point if the founding fathers were present they would absolutely and unequivocally state that the states should call a convention and toss the entire lot of Central government out and start a new government and if any resistance were met in the process of it to form a militia per the 2nd Amendment and do it by force.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: wait!
Stereotyping is the easy way to sum up a situation, however it is most likely incorrect as a result of same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: wait!
And just because there are a few exceptions running around during OWS does not mean that the stereotype is somehow untrue. Everything has an exception, and they still do not disprove the rule.
You are so busy fighting over the usage of labels that you wind up doing your enemies work for them. Brilliant move Einstein!
Labels are useful and they are put on everything, get used to it because it is never going to change. I have found those arguing against labels are often the biggest hypocritical users of labels themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: wait!
Is there an exception here?
"You are so busy fighting over the usage of labels"
It's not my problem, it's yours. Use of stereotypical buckets in which to put everyone almost always means you are incorrect. Exceptions to the stereotype absolutely mean the stereotype is incorrect. Your logic twisting is impressive but meaningless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: wait!
"Labels are useful and they are put on everything, get used to it because it is never going to change. I have found those arguing against labels are often the biggest hypocritical users of labels themselves."
Wow, do you even read what you write?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: wait!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: wait!
Oh FFS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: wait!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wait!
This is precisely the type of clueless, bigoted ideas we don't need. If people had full control and the vote meant something then I could agree with you but elections are merely spectacles where the power (mainly the huge corporations and mega-rich people) pulls the strings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: wait!
All that is necessary for evil to prevail is to have a few crybabies like you that cannot take responsibility for their apathy.
If the voting process is not working for us, then we have to do something... sitting around and whining about it without our cheese is pointless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: wait!
Dude - you are in that same bucket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: wait!
Just like people in a therapy session, we have to first admit that we have a problem before we can start to understand how to solve it.
As a nation we have a problem... this includes ALL no one is an exception. It is my hope that you folks finally start understanding that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: wait!
only one?
and they have always been there
even if you were able to fix it, how long before someone simply changes it back to what they want?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: wait!
I don't recall saying we should not take responsibility. I'm doing what I can by supporting initiatives that aim to change this status quo. I'm doing what I can by spreading knowledge of these crony ways of our Governments.
"If the voting process is not working for us, then we have to do something... sitting around and whining about it without our cheese is pointless."
I'm all ears. Discussing, talking about it, "whining" if you will is part of what can be done to reach critical mass and change the tides. There are plenty of attempts all around from Greens to Pirates, from peaceful protests to full blown civil wars, from pure capitalist to hybrids that try to blend in what socialism has to offer without going full blown communism that has already failed even before capitalism showed it's heading to the same place. Saying every nation gets the govt it deserves is missing the point by light years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: wait!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill to Mellinda
Mellinda "Even if someone does, it won't be anyone who matters."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bill to Mellinda
They are exacting a terrible price for their philanthropy over there and many people are eating it up! It is so easy to purchase the adoration of people by shaking a few crumbs from your table.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Food as a weapon.
the CROP is Seeds converted to Flour for Food in your nation.
YOu have to BUY, and sell the WHOLE crop.
You can only reseed from what you save..
you can NOT SHARE and HELP OTHERS..
There can be NONE saved for the future.
ANYONE want to do that in the USA?? They already DO..
The old farmers HELD extra seed. HELPED other farmers if they failed. HAD enough for themselves and abit extra..ALWAYS.. THAT is what made FARMING worth the work. you didnt PAY for the SEED every year. Fertilizer was easy and cheap as you had Animals..
And you had BUILT IN WORKERS, they were called 'YOUR KIDS'.
CANT DO IT ANYMORE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Food as a weapon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Food as a weapon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Percy Schmeiser
His case established in Canada that merely not dealing with Monsanto isn't enough. If their seed spreads onto yours - getting into your crop from another field or from passing grain trucks - your seed is now theirs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Everyone else sees it as the farmer's crops have been polluted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
or because you agree that it is totally cool to use gmo as a lever in the extraction of assets from the world?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is what greed does behind the vei
Self reliance of the people, apparently that's not a much of corporate interest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is what greed does behind the veil of patents
Self reliance of the people, apparently that's not a much of corporate interest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For a while. Percy Schmeiser in Canada chose not to buy Monsanto seeds. But his neighbors used Monsanto seeds, and eventually they contaminated his crop. At which point he lost the right to save a portion of his seeds for the next year's crop without paying Monsanto a licensing fee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Monsanto isn't a pristine company, but they're not a cackling evil villain that intentionally causes cross-contamination and sues the contaminated farms. They've sued people who try to get the advantages Monsanto seed provides without paying for those advantages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We had that in the West but growers just ignored the law and sold their own seed anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nature and not natural
Last year I realize 'intellectual privilege' is not natural. This is example excelenté. People share stuff for 100 000+ years for SURVIVAL, it is DNA. Reason why many people everywhere still share stuff and never stop sharing, even with tyrant IP laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solutions!
1. The farmers sue for their crops being infected.
2. the farmers ignore the problme d ignore foreigners wanting there land.
3. Farmers refuse to plant crops for two years or until the government allow them to continue as they have since crops were first planted millennia ago.
4. The government use the trade deals and laws that America has created and forced them to sign to establish that the farming industry is in turmoil and that they see losses for billions due to unethical practises, and are paid billions to fix the problem by developing or just licensing there own seeds dna.
One thing that confuses me is that if my crop is infested by my neighbours seeds that i am held responsible, if anything that crop should be destroyed and the people holding the dna sued to pay for that and other costs in the millions due to the hardship the farmer has to go through by destroying his crop.
This is not the farmers responsibility, a farmer cannot stop seeds blowing into his fields, that is something that the Monsanto of the world need to be held accountable for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Solutions!
1) You cannot sue for your neighbor's crop "infecting" yours. That's called wind, or run-off from rain, or a whole host of other things. This is the same as suing a platform for what someone posts.
2) In this case, them danged ferriners will have the law and the police/army on their side. It's called an honest politician. Once he's bought, he stays bought!
3) Possible, but then what are the farmers going to eat? If they plant anything, it will get taken from them by the above army
4) Yes, because suing the US for breaking a trade agreement that they were not coerced (they were bribed, but not coerced) into will work just about as well as the Apache Indians suing when the Whites wanted their land.
You can destroy your crop if it is "infested", but then what do you eat? Monsanto owns the seed IP, and are very strict about enforcing it. So much so that it can (and has) buy the courts and get the decisions that it wants. (Note, this is not even necessarily about GMO. You can get good seed without resorting to playing with the DNA, just "natural" breeding.) They have already done so by requiring all seed that is sold or shared by certified (patented) and putting in their TOS that you CANNOT share seed purchased from them, or from crops that were planted using their seed. Therefore, you are breaking the law, unless you manage to pay to get your seed (which has been handed down for the past 1000 years) patented. This would require all your seed to be the same (which it won't be) and have the seed analyzed and the DNA structure to be on file at the patent office, neither of which would be cheap.
I agree that the farmer cannot stop seeds blowing into his field, but neither can Monsanto stop it. Thanks to corrupt officials, however, they can profiteer from it. Personally, I think the farmers are screwed. They have a choice to be slaves/indentured servants to the corporations or have their own army shoot them for "revolting" by not providing food for sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Solutions!
and monsanto is doing their best to kill off all the bees, so that will fix everything huh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Horribly Misleading
Monsanto developed seeds that dramatically improve yields in a country with rough agricultural coonditions. Monsanto agrees to let these $2 per day dirt farmers buy their seeds likely at cost, or lower, on the condition that those farmers do not resell the super-seeds that result of the harvest.
How is that unfair? Monsanto are offering them a way to dramatically improve their life, as well as the lives of their family and community, on a condition they agreed to before they took the seeds.
There are no Tanzanians with patentable native seeds, the legislation is required because the Tanzanian farmers are not keeping their word, and are selling the superseeds that they bought from Monsanto. In order to combat the theft and wholesale distribution of their seeds going forward, any country who wants these superseeds has to agree to make violation of the agreements enforceable in that jurisdiction.
The seed companies have been distributing the seeds for years now, trying to get the farmers to comply with the agreements they make. They gave the farmers chance after chance after chance to do the right thing. So, in order to distribute these cheap superseeds to these subsistence farmers, the governments must make their farmers agree to honor their agreements, or the entire nation must stop taking these seeds through these special programss, and go back to their old seeds.
The author here went into contortions to try to portray a very nice thing done by these agricultural companies (getting superseeds as cheap as normal seeds) as some horrible exploitation.
I hope these companies decide to take you to court for deliberately misstating the facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Horribly Misleading
So IF they buy the seeds from these guys, they can't just harvest the new seeds and sell them, or reuse them on the next harvest? On top of that they are receiving developmental aid?
Is this a good summary?
"If you buy seeds from Syngenta or Monsanto"
This actually seems fair to me. If the farmers don't like it, they can continue to use the seeds they were using before these western companies showed up. They don't have to buy the seeds right? Or did I miss something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
After all, if there are "no Tanzanians with patentable native seeds", then that just means that the Tanzanians should suck it up and do anything those companies want them to do rather than accept that maybe there's a problem with that system in the first place. Or something...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
If they don't like the terms, then don't buy the seeds? If this company wants to do business, they would then need to come up with more favorable terms right? What am I missing here guys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
As mentioned elsewhere here, one issue is cross-contamination. If farmer A agrees to Monsanto's terms but farmer B doesn't, what happens when A's seeds end up in B's field anyway? Anything from adverse weather to birds can cause that. Not a problem if they're farming as they always have, but if the modified seeds are much better at growing, as they're claimed to be?
There's also the age old problem of tradition vs. protectionism. If the RIAA can't prevent people from sharing their songs, how do GMO companies stop farmers from sharing the seeds like they always have?
That's the issue here - it's corporations trying to insert protectionist rules that are completely at odds with how things have always worked before they came along - and then imposing massive penalties for them doing things that way. As the article states, "that's the entire foundation of the seed system in Africa" - you don't change that overnight by demanding a contract with what may be relatively under-educated farmers. Who may only understand that they are being offered better seeds without understanding the other implications.
"If this company wants to do business, they would then need to come up with more favorable terms right? What am I missing here guys?"
You honestly believe that the average Tanzanian farmer has the ability to to battle out contracts with multinational corporations to get themselves favourable contract terms?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
That is an issue agreed, but short of not allowing the company to do seed business at all in that country(which I'm fine with), there is no way around it right? Do we have an instance where these companies are claiming that they are owed money or the cross contamination has caused sickness or injury? If so, isn't that something their local politicians should be handling?
"
There's also the age old problem of tradition vs. protectionism. If the RIAA can't prevent people from sharing their songs, how do GMO companies stop farmers from sharing the seeds like they always have?"
From what I've read, no one is saying they can't share seeds, just not the western companies seeds right? But then what about contaminated seeds. what happens when the genetically modified seeds get intermixed with the native seeds. I suppose if your using the modified seeds, then you would not be able to sell seeds. If you do not buy seeds from the western company, and your seeds become intermixed, then what footing would the western companies have? I would argue that the farmer has a case against the western company for his contaminated seed.
"That's the issue here - it's corporations trying to insert protectionist rules that are completely at odds with how things have always worked before they came along - and then imposing massive penalties for them doing things that way."
Then don't let them in!! The government of Tanzania didn't have to let them in. They didn't have to sign any deals. The companies are what they are. They will grab market share where ever possible, that is what they do. The governments are supposed to protect the people. I would argue this isn't a "western company" problem, this is a corrupt local government problem.
"You honestly believe that the average Tanzanian farmer has the ability to to battle out contracts with multinational corporations to get themselves favourable contract terms?"
Not at all. But I do expect their elected politicians, the ones making these one sided laws, to protect the people from these types of deals if they are indeed one sided.
This sounds like a corrupt government problem, not a "western corporation" problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
The problem, ultimately, is the concept of giving exclusive rights to genes.
"From what I've read, no one is saying they can't share seeds, just not the western companies seeds right? But then what about contaminated seeds. what happens when the genetically modified seeds get intermixed with the native seeds."
Exactly. Given that the whole concept of the new crops is that they can thrive better in certain conditions, then it stands to reason that older crops will be overpowered by the new ones. Then, given that you're separating crops by whether they contain the patented genes, you can charge everyone for using your crops whether they wanted to or not.
Depending on how conspiracy minded you are, this may or may not be a realistic representation of the current situation, but it's certainly one to be considered.
"I would argue that the farmer has a case against the western company for his contaminated seed."
Except, how do you prove that your crop was naturally contaminated, rather than you being contaminated by your neighbour illegally giving you seed? How do you defend yourself when the first you know of it is the attack from the corporation?
"But I do expect their elected politicians, the ones making these one sided laws, to protect the people from these types of deals if they are indeed one sided."
...and when they don't, because they're getting bribed by those corporations or they're otherwise influencing those decisions in their favour?
"This sounds like a corrupt government problem, not a "western corporation" problem."
Why not both?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
Because the company is doing what it does, trying to make money. Sure you can argue ethics, methods, etc etc. But the company is working within the confines of the laws that the politicians are making. The Tanzania Government could step in at any time and change/make a law more favorable for the farmers right?
I read the backstory on this company, it's not a very ethical or nice company, and the people that founded it don't seem to care who they step on. So I would put these guys in the dirt bag category no doubt. But I can't really blame them for doing what they do if they are doing so within the confines of the law.
The Government is supposed to protect the people, that is their job. They are allowing this to happen. IMO, they hold 100% of the blame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
Exactly! If you don't like the laws, go buy your own!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
...which in this case are new laws, which are being bought by the corporations. Why should they not be responsible for this? I'm not saying that they take 100% of the blame, but you seem to be saying they should be allowed to do so without consequences.
"But I can't really blame them for doing what they do if they are doing so within the confines of the law."
If the only limit to your morals is "is it legal", then I still consider you to be an immoral person. I hold myself to a higher standard than whether someone's thought to pass a law against my actions yet, and huge numbers of innocent people suffer when corporations are not challenged for doing the same.
"They are allowing this to happen. IMO, they hold 100% of the blame."
So, you shouldn't be held responsible for your own actions as long as you convince someone to let you do it? You don't think that's a problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
I think I see whats happening here. Your blaming the companies for the corruption of the politicians. The very Government that is supposed to be protecting the people, is making unfavorable deals with private corporations for some type of gain, and you think that is the fault of the corporations. Were just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I put the blame squarely on the politicians for that, not the corporations.
"
If the only limit to your morals is "is it legal", then I still consider you to be an immoral person. I hold myself to a higher standard than whether someone's thought to pass a law against my actions yet, and huge numbers of innocent people suffer when corporations are not challenged for doing the same."
Ahhh.. and now the meat of the problem. I don't think like you do, so you consider me immoral. I see things a little differently than you do so therefor I'm bad. No middle ground, no compromise, just immoral. I thought I was having an intelligent conversation with you for a minute there... my apologies for wasting your time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
So, you shouldn't be held responsible for your own actions as long as you convince someone to let you do it? You don't think that's a problem?"
That is why we have a legal system. People don't all think, have the same morals, or define "bad" the same. The legal system is supposed to take care of drawing the lines. If you want to hold yourself to a higher standard, then I applaud you for it. But don't expect everyone else to do the same, and when they don't, by no means climb up on a moral high horse as it makes you look pompous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
All co-conspirators (corporate officers and politicians) are to blame and all should be held accountable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
You're supporting immoral activities, such as placing poor farmers into a virtual slavery to a private corporation - and waving away responsibility by saying "well, there's no law against it" and blaming everyone but the corporation committing the action.
Yes, I consider that immoral, and you immoral for holding that position. "Nobody's stopping me from exploiting the weak" is no excuse for doing so, never has been.
"I thought I was having an intelligent conversation"
You were until you decided to make such a dumb stance and then whine about being correctly called out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
This is why I rarely comment on this web site. You assume someone is trying to do something nefarious and refuse to see any side but your own. It's pathetic.
"
You were until you decided to make such a dumb stance and then whine about being correctly called out."
So insults and whining? That the best you got? You don't have an argument, so you resort to name calling? This place really has gone down hill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
Because the side you have presented is either "these corporations should be absolved of all culpability for what they are doing, and we should blame the lawmakers 100% (even though they were probably paid off by the corporations" - or alternatively "everything is OK as long as it's not specifically illegal".
Those are pretty nefarious stances. If I'm wrong, present your argument, otherwise I'm not seeing any middle ground between those horrific stances and what i consider right and moral.
"So insults and whining?"
Yes, that's exactly what I'm seeing from you.
"You don't have an argument, so you resort to name calling?"
I have an argument and I have presented it. You started whining instead of presenting a counter argument.
"This place really has gone down hill."
Yeah, you people really get tiresome by derailing arguments whenever people point out the obvious fallacies in your words. Good riddance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
Well, if you completely ignore what I actually said:
"I'm not saying that they take 100% of the blame, but you seem to be saying they should be allowed to do so without consequences"
But away with you, you obvious have no intelligent or moral stance upon which to base you opinions, and arguing with someone who thinks that anything is acceptable so long as nobody is actively stopping you is fairly pointless. Not when you pretend I've said something completely different in order to defend yourself against valid criticism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
I didn't "wave away" responsibility. You are putting the responsibility on the corporations, I am putting the responsibility on the politicians. You are changing my argument to mean what you want it to mean instead of reading what I wrote. I never said it was right and correct. I said I put the blame on the politicians. Reading comprehension isn't your strong point is it?
Somehow in your mind, you have determined that I somehow agree with all this. You are arguing a point that is not real. I don't agree with this. I think it's a horrible deal. What I do think, beside the fact that your pathetic for resorting to name calling, is that the politicians hold the blame. The corporations are like children, they will get away with what they can get away with. It's up to the parent (politicians) to write the laws that keep them in check. If they fail to do so, if they get in bed with these monsters, then yes; I blame the politicians. You are welcome to blame the corporations if it makes you feel better, I disagree. That makes me immoral, a whiner, and dumb? What happened to this place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
If you stopped whining and crying long enough to read my actual words, I am placing responsibility on BOTH. Is that really too hard for you to grasp?
"You are welcome to blame the corporations if it makes you feel better, I disagree."
You disagree that they should be blamed for their own actions, and you fail to see the problem with that. In fact, you attack me for stating that they should take some (and again NOT ALL) of the blame. Yet, you honestly can't see why that's a problem?
"What happened to this place?"
It started to attract people who enjoy attacking opinions other than the ones stated by the people they're whining about, apparently.
Now, try again, but attacking my actual stated opinions, preferably with an argument that doesn't depend on a false dichotomy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
I don't want to attack your opinions. I understand why you think they way you think. You are entitled to your opinions, and I don't consider you immoral because of them. I just don't agree with you.
Read what you wrote. You attacked me remember?
"then I still consider you to be an immoral person. "
You called me immoral because I believe something different than you do. I believe the government should shoulder 100% of the blame. That doesn't mean I think what the corporation is doing is right, just that they are doing what they do and if they government doesn't do their job and keep them in check, they should be held 100% responsible.
I blame the governments, you blame the corporations. You can't leave it at that can you? You have to insult people that don't agree with you. Your like a child that can't be wrong, and will post however many times you need to post to both get in the last word, and convince yourself that your in the right. It's really pathetic, and a little sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
I don't want to attack your opinions. I understand why you think they way you think. You are entitled to your opinions, and I don't consider you immoral because of them. I just don't agree with you.
Read what you wrote. You attacked me remember?
"then I still consider you to be an immoral person. "
You called me immoral because I believe something different than you do. I believe the government should shoulder 100% of the blame. That doesn't mean I think what the corporation is doing is right, just that they are doing what they do and if they government doesn't do their job and keep them in check, they should be held 100% responsible.
I blame the governments, you blame the corporations. You can't leave it at that can you? You have to insult people that don't agree with you. Your like a child that can't be wrong, and will post however many times you need to post to both get in the last word, and convince yourself that your in the right. It's really pathetic, and a little sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
Yes, I get that. That's why you started whining about me being mean to you the moment I addressed your assertions that corporations be allowed to ride roughshod over everybody's rights just because nobody's stopping them (a situation they most likely purchased to begin with).
I notice you've not made any defence of your assertions, addressed the reasons I've stated they're wrong, or even addressed the actual comments I've made about them *sharing* blame (you have to pretend I was absolving lawmakers instead).
Do you have any argument against my actual position, or are you content to whine like a baby because I dared question you?
"You called me immoral because I believe something different than you do"
No, I called you immoral because you stated an immoral position. If you had stated a position that was not immoral, I would not have reached that conclusion. It's a shame you're not honest enough to admit that and continue an adult debate rather than whine about me hurting your little feelings with that truth.
"if they government doesn't do their job and keep them in check, they should be held 100% responsible"
...and again this is wrong. Corporations should not be absolved of their actions just because nobody stopped them. By definition, placing 100% of the blame on lawmakers places 0% of the blame on the corporations. Which is wrong, and a great way to encourage further immoral actions by the corporations. We should blame both, as I stated repeatedly no matter how much you pretend I didn't.
"Your like a child that can't be wrong"
Everyone's like a child to you, huh? Corporations, people who disagree with your assertions. Yet, you can't participate in an argument without whining that the other person is being mean to you.
"It's really pathetic, and a little sad."
You truly are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
Yet, not a word in defence of your despicable immoral point of view. Only attempts to attack a point of view I never stated for myself, followed by you jettisoning even the pretence of wanting to act like a mature adult. All while pretend you're somehow the adult in the room, of course.
You are truly pathetic, sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
No, because I only started doing that in your deranged imagination. I merely stated my opinion of what you said. You're free to disagree all you want, but you've ignored that option for some reason.
You could have opted to disagree in a mature manner, explain why your stated position was not immoral or even taken the high road and ignored the word and continued the discussion. You chose a different path, and it's not a flattering one for you.
Yet, you can't get over the use of a single word to correctly describe what you said. Now, you're having a complete meltdown because I used other accurate adjectives.
"You deem something immoral so everyone else is a whiner and child"
You are demonstrably whining, and you're the one who started calling others children. I'm sorry if accurate descriptions cause you mental anguish, but that doesn't invalidate them.
"You are a pathetic excuse for a person."
...and that's a mirror you're ranting into now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
"
If the only limit to your morals is "is it legal", then I still consider you to be an immoral person. I hold myself to a higher standard than whether someone's thought to pass a law against my actions yet, and huge numbers of innocent people suffer when corporations are not challenged for doing the same."
You are holding yourself to a higher standard than the law, and calling people immoral for not agreeing with you. It's that simple. If I don't agree with your views I'm bad. Your passing judgement like you are the standard. The hubris is so plain I honestly can't believe you don't see it. Actually; I'm willing to bet you do, you just can't admit it. So pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
No, you stated an immoral position, whined when I called it immoral and then refused my invitation to attack the statement rather than me personally. Rather than address the position, you claimed I said something different to what I'd actually said, then refused to explain why your position was not in fact immoral. Now you're even refusing to address the subject of the article because hurt your delicate feelings with a mean word. Poor baby.
"You can't even come to terms with what you wrote?"
I know what I wrote, and you have not supplied a single reason why I'm wrong other than that you automatically throw a fit over the use of one of those words.
"You are holding yourself to a higher standard than the law, and calling people immoral for not agreeing with you."
Yes, I consider it immoral to exploit poor people just because the law doesn't specifically say I shouldn't. You may disagree, but you haven't made a single argument as to why I shouldn't consider it immoral. I may have backed down, I may have been willing to redefine it (I could consider it amoral, rather than immoral, for example). Any adult debate would have been welcome.
But, you chose the toddler tantrum route instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
O wait, I think its already happened!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
Also your political thrashing is hilarious. Let me guess - you're completely incapable of addressing a person's actual political beliefs and so have to label them one part of a false dichotomy. You have to attack a label, because real world issues are too complicated - probably because you go off the rails when someone correctly described your own positions. I'd love to know what you hallucinate my political beliefs as being. Other than my now well-documented dislike of people who support corporations exploiting Tanzanian farmers for profit without consequence, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
Yes, you stated an immoral position, and I said that's how I saw it. Then, even though you now admit that morality is completely subjective, you chose not to discuss my view of your despicable views. You've chosen instead to whine like a little girl because I hurt your tiny little feelings.
You are easily the most pathetic human being I've had the misfortune of addressing here, and I've addressed some whiny little shits in my time.
"I read once were you told a guy that if anyone didn't believe in the Left's "ideals" they were scum"
Citation please. I know it pains you to be faced with the reality of your horrible personal views, but you don't get to invent shit about me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
I other words, you admit I said no such thing. I remember most of my comments here, but there's a lot of them and I may have said something I didn't mean or regret. Or, you could be making the whole thing up. I know which is more likely, sadly. A lack of honesty does tie into the whole lack of morals you display, so no surprise there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
You can't hide what you wrote. It's right there. I don't think as you do so I'm Immoral. I have a complete lack of morals because I hold a position on a single subject that doesn't agree with yours. It's childish and pathetic and is a blatant example of your conceit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
I disagree. this tantrum is because you can't discuss that difference of opinion for some reason.
"I have a complete lack of morals because I hold a position on a single subject that doesn't agree with yours"
Don't worry, I started by thinking of you as merely lacking in morals. I've picked up a number of other adjectives to describe you in the course of this display.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
What is there to discuss? You think I completely lack morals because of my position on a single issue. I think your bat-shit crazy single/simple minded and can't think past your own hubris. I think were pretty clear on our positions and have basically just resorted to name calling at this point. I've probably already let it go on for too long, but it both humors me, and ques my morbid curiosity of the lengths the wing-nut left will go to prove a point. You honestly cant stop, it's fascinating.
I'm reading some of your other posts you know. You really are bat-shit crazy. Your so anti-right pro-left you've forgotten how to think for yourself. I'm reading the comments on this story about Trump where some retard blames the left for "Birthers" and you bite hook-line-sinker going on an anti right tirade. Your like an extreme Right trolls dream. Here I'll link it since I'm in it. I'm not sure how to link to a specific point in an article, but you wrote it, you'll find it.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170110/10214436454/trump-not-even-waiting-to-get-into-office- before-threatening-first-amendment-press-freedoms.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
Subjective opinions, and the subject in hand. You have proven unwilling to do either.
"You think I completely lack morals because of my position on a single issue"
No, I believe you hold an extremely immoral position in one area, and that reflects badly on you. I don't know you, you insist on staying anonymous so I don't have prior posts outside of your toddler tantrum here to judge you by.
You could be a wholly moral and mature person outside of this thread, but I can only go on what's been presented. If you had not pitched a fit the second I used a word you didn't like, your other stances could have been discussed. But you threw your dummy out instead.
"You honestly cant stop, it's fascinating.
I'm reading some of your other posts you know."
Absolutely hilarious! You're literally obsessing not only over the words I've written in response to you, but years of comments I've left on other articles and subjects. Yet, I'm the one with the problem? How deluded can you really get?
"I'm not sure how to link to a specific point in an article, but you wrote it, you'll find it."
So, you're too dumb to work out how to copy the "link to this" link which is present on every comment? How much easier do you need it?
But, no I don't remember everything I wrote in years of commenting on this site. I did look and searched for what you claim I said, but ctrl+f scum shows zero results. Either you're paraphrasing (which is rather dishonest when you're attacking something specific I'm meant to have said), you're too incompetent to link the correct article or you're outright lying. Which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
"No, I believe you hold an extremely immoral position in one area, and that reflects badly on you. "
You can't even keep up with your own lies. Bat shit crazy! You called me immoral. You didn't say that my opinion was an immoral stance on a specific issue, you said you considered me an immoral person you lying schmuck.
Change your story if you want, I expect that from the left. You are now, and will always be a pathetic leftist who can't see past their own hypocritical one sided morality. I'm going to enjoy listening to the militant left cry for the next 4 to 8 years of Trump, almost as much as I've enjoyed listening to the militant Right cry about Obama.
I'm going to take great pleasure in reminding the Left about their failures. SCOTUS, both houses of Congress, the Presidency, and almost 1k state seats. REJECTED! LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
Sadly, you're not intelligent enough to grasp this, but that's not a contradiction. You had presented one stance at that point, and I considered that immoral, therefore I consider you an immoral person. Absent knowledge of your stance on other issues, that's the take I have to have. You may have other moral standpoints that are better, but I don't know them yet. If I witness you stealing, I will consider you a thief, even if I later see you use your stolen goods to feed starving children and thus no longer consider you a criminal.
I now consider you an obsessive whiny little lying shit as well, but that doesn't change my stance on your morality.
"You are now, and will always be a pathetic leftist"
A partisan idiot as well.
"I'm going to take great pleasure in reminding the Left about their failures. SCOTUS, both houses of Congress, the Presidency, and almost 1k state seats. REJECTED! LOL"
...and unable to understand that the fact that I'm neither American nor resident in the US makes this a really, really stupid thing to be bringing up in relation to me. You really are dense, aren't you?
Oh, and I notice you still don't provide citations for your lies about me either. What a sad little person you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
I disagree that it's a stupid thing to be bringing up. You spew your far left propaganda on this site every time you get the chance. Your a hypocritical leftist who can't even remember what he wrote in the same string.
"Oh, and I notice you still don't provide citations for your lies about me either. What a sad little person you are."
I gave you plenty of citations, I just don't give enough of a shit about you to post the hard to find ones. As a matter of fact, I'm just posting now to see how bat shit crazy you really are. It amuses me that you can't stop responding to me. Your like a child who's toy is just out of reach and who knows it, but won't stop jumping. Its funny, in a sad kinda way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
They were also rejected in North Korea, which is just as irrelevant.
You see, this is why partisan politics is idiotic. You're not addressing any of my actual positions, you've just assigned me a "team" and you're trying to gloat because a country 3,000 miles away had an election where the "team" you imagine I'm on lost an election. You're probably stupid enough to think that American Democrats are on the same point of the political spectrum as any "leftist" party in Europe too, aren't you?
I hope anyone still reading your drivel understands how utterly moronic this is, because your capacity for thought has clearly been exhausted.
"I disagree that it's a stupid thing to be bringing up."
Then why are you repeatedly doing it, given that all you're doing is illustrating your stupidity?
"You spew your far left propaganda on this site every time you get the chance"
I state my opinion, which any adult is able to refute using facts and real-life logic, not the hallucinatory toddler tantrum you're attempting. When you're not busy lying about what I supposedly think, anyway.
"I gave you plenty of citations"
Where? I see exactly one, which has absolutely nothing to do with the claim I asked a citation for. Stay off the drugs, or get on them, whichever one gets you dealing with the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
"Yes, I consider that immoral, and you immoral for holding that position."
Your hubris is sickening. We both think its wrong, but because I believe the blame falls with the government and not the corporations, I am Immoral. Your pathetic, your passing judgement is pathetic, your politics are pathetic, and I'm glad all of them have been rejected in this country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
Facts do tend not to change when repeated, so I can see how it would get boring to someone who repeatedly lives in a fantasy world of his own choosing.
"I don't care what your political view point is called in Spain, or the U.K., or wherever you are, it's called liberal left here"
...and I don't give 2 shits what it's called in the US. So what?
I can however notice - no attempt to talk like an adult. Just whining about how a truthful statement offended you. No attempt to even state what the hell you are blathering on about, no citations for anything you claim about me and at least one outright lie. You are as dishonest as you are immature. You've not even attempted to discuss what I said truthfully about you, and abandoned polite discourse the second I criticised you. You've since gone on an endless stupid rant on a simple-minded reductionist version of politics that apparently confuses people who reject complexities in favour of a team game.
You are the most pathetic human being I've ever had the misfortune to communicate with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
Yes, and I stated my subjective opinion about your lack of morals. Instead of debating them like an adult, you when on a toddler tantrum.
All you've done is make me note a total lack of emotional maturity to your exhibited lack of moral compass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
The Militant Left in this country, who thinks exactly like you, got soundly rejected and had their cause set back for generations because of that same hubris. I bring that up not because it has any direct association with you being a pathetic child, but so you can see how many other Americans think like I do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
I did, and according to my personal subjective view of morality, that's exactly what you are. You can either accept that's what you are in my eyes or try to argue why I'm wrong. You've decided to cry about it instead, over and over and over. What a waste of skin you are.
Let me restate for the hard of thinking - I didn't say you have to think like me. In fact, I wouldn't want someone like you on my "side" even if I were dumb enough to think that politics is a team game. But your stunning lack of maturity and self control is entertaining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
There it is. That's probably as close as I'm ever going to get to you admitting your a pathetic conceded child who thinks he's better than every one else. It's not much, but I'll take it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
Is the truth really so painful to you that it causes you to have this kind of mental breakdown in public through the mere accurate use of a single word? Get help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
You, and the leftist extremists like you, are pathetic. The moral and political views you so forcefully try to cram down peoples throat have been categorically rejected In the U.S.
I assure you, there is no breakdown. I'm enjoying the shit out of this. You can't let go, you can't stop posting, and you damn sure can't stop trying to force your morality onto other people. You absolutely hate the Right. I've read your posts, and I won't cite them as I'm way to lazy, where you accuse the Right (rightfully so) of shoving their gun toting, Bible Thumping, Right to life morals down everyone's throat, and here you are doing the exact same thing. It's pathetic, and somewhat comical at this point.
You are the worst kind of hypocrite. One that knows they are a hypocrite, but who's hubris won't allow them to admit it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
No, I'm posting on an international forum that happens to have a US IP address, and on a story that's about Africa to boot. It's open to every country. Plus, by your logic I shouldn't post on a UK site either since I don't live there. Intelligent and consistent thinking is demonstrably not your strong suit.
I will continue to post on websites all over the world that interest me, because this is the *world wide* web, not the closed-off hovel you apparently wish it were. I suggest you remove yourself from international discussions if you're so mindlessly territorial.
"You can't let go, you can't stop posting"
Every post I make is in response to something new you've posted. I can't let it go because the stream of ignorance and immature behaviour hasn't stopped yet. I'll stop when you grow up, get bored or I finish my work shift, whichever comes first
"somewhat comical at this point"
Now, this is indeed the truest thing you've said since you started your meltdown. A shame you can't apply accuracy to anything else you're saying.
"I won't cite them as I'm way to lazy"
Clearly. I just have to accept your word, but you lose your shit because I correctly define something. But, I'm the hypocritical one? A shame you're too lazy to use a dictionary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horribly Misleading
The bottom line is; You think that because I believe in the letter of the law, that I am completely immoral. That is your stated position. I think you are childish, and simple minded for thinking that way and gain great pleasure of reminding you of that opinion.
I cannot even explain to you, the "thrill running up my leg -Chris Mathews" when I think about the sound rejection delivered to the left because of this very lack of tolerance. You are what we rejected, and for good reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Horribly Misleading
This claim has been disputed, care to address that issue?
Is there a real need for increased wield?
(greed is not a real need)
These civilizations were doing just fine till some foreigners started hawking their snake oil, bribing politicians and generally shitting all over the place. You can't just leave them alone huh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Horribly Misleading
Their next step in genetic engineering will be to prevent the production of seeds in their 'patented' grown in nature plants, this will stop any farmers from trying to make a living from their own farming...
All your farms are belonging to us... eventually, we are planting the seeds now... hahahaha I just can't help myself... I'll be here all week
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The gmo contaminates the native seed and then the corporate goons sneak onto the farmers land to take a sample for use in court where they demand ownership of the farmer's land in retribution for "stealing" their gmo bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
None of the Tanzanian farmers that have been doing this for the past several generations have "certified" (patented) their seed. This means, if they want to sell seeds, or trade them, or use them for anything other than personal food, they have to get their seed from Monsanto or Syngenta. They've essentially outlawed "open source" seed.
Tanzania isn't like rural Connecticut. You can't be a "gentleman farmer" and have any other job. There isn't another job in the area that you can drive (assuming you have a car) to, work in the office for 8 hours, and go home to tend your crops. Their entire existence is invested in that farm. If it fails, their lives could be in jeopardy, as I doubt the government there provides a welfare safety hammock like they do in the more developed countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
“The government is working on a revision of the seed legislation. We hope that they will add an exception for small-scale farmers and will expand the Quality Declared Seed System,” says Michael Farrelly."
Looks like they are working on a revision of the law that may help. I hope it does. I'm not suggesting this is a good or bad deal. I also can't pretend that in 20 minutes of research, I could really know whats going on. Based on what I'm reading, it looks like they are in a trial and error phase and they will be reviewing the program in a few years. Not sure if that is good or not, just what I'm reading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No really, at some point the bill is going to come down and we will make the companies pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sure I'm being baited, but I'll bite. What do you mean pay? These guys developed a superior seed, and want to be paid for their product. No one is forcing anyone to buy their seeds. If you don't like the deal, buy your seeds somewhere else. Not one of these stories has anywhere in it where they are being FORCED to buy their seeds from these companies. These farmers were getting seeds long before this western company came into play, why not just go back to using those seeds? I'm really trying to wrap my head around the "evil western company" part of this and cant seem to find it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now that all the farmers have this "superseed" Monsanto, and others, who have benefited for a limited time, have incentive to develop an even better seed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they want the increased yield and pest resistance of Monsanto or Syngenta products, they should pay for them. If they don't want to pay for them, they're perfectly free to plant the same seeds their ancestors did. Nobody is stealing the bread from their children's mouths.
What's next? They're going to demand free tractors and fuel? They rightfully deserve those as much as genetically modified seeds, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This claim has been disputed.
But I'm a corporation and the world owes me a living.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That just means it is mathematical doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tanzanian farmers
This is ridiculous! How dare conglomerates and big business try to muscle in on the Tanzanian farmers for their own greed! Leave them alone and let them do what they have always done! Time for a revolt, and for the farmers to start using organic methods of farming again, as they have always done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monsan who???
Try to enforce this law. Monsanto is trying to re-colonize Africa - Tanzania in this instance - through the Tanzanian Legal System, and because Tanzanian Villagers have lived this Seed Co-operative existence for so, so many generations, you might just see revolution in some degree, if a Farmer is ever charged with an offense.
I'm just saying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spill your seed, go to jail
It's only a matter of time before the gene patent trolls come after you for passing on patented genes while making babies the old-fashioned way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turn it around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seeds and First Sale
I don't understand how a patent can apply to prevent seeds that have been created by the plant. The seeds are not a derivative work and the farmer did not "create" the seed as a copy. How can infringement occur? If Monsanto did not prevent the 1st generation plant from producing seeds that could germinate that seems to be its own decision not to interfere with the natural reproduction system of the plant.
There must be a contractual obligation created in the purchase agreement for the underlying seeds. However, as a contract it would be subject to the laws of the various jurisdictions (or the jurisdiction specified in the contract). It would be interesting to see if the underlying agreement clearly specifies this AND whether is properly presented so as to be enforceable against farmers who I (ignorantly) presume to be illiterate.
How would this stand up with other genetic uses? For example, I sell you genetically altered sperm for a bull and you use it to artificially insimonate a cow. How does this restrict the use of any offspring of the 1st calf who was given birth by natural processes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]