eventguy

Man I hope voat stays this way. Having civilized conversations :-)

Peace to you too!

eventguy

I'm not accusing anyone in this post to have double agenda's. I'm accusing the reporter to have a double agenda.

Quick explanation: the reporter invites the evil guy for an interview about rice. He deliberately changes the subject to the glyphosate. He then offers the glyphosate to the evil guy, knowing what the reaction would be. He knew it would turn out this way and ambushed the evil guy.

I tried to explain it above, it's entirely possible that this is poison to everyone. But the reporter did this with an agenda. They didn't suddenly started talking about the glyphosate and they didn't suddenly have some in the back room... Which means double agenda (he's against Monsanto).

I'm glad that OP pointed this video out to me. The reaction of evil guy is interesting, but it doesn't prove anything.

Besided everyone has a double agenda in some way, because everyone has an opinion and can rarely behave in a way that is so objective that it won't reflect on its actions.

That's why I go with the double standard: I don't believe anything until I see reports from both side. I'll base my opinion on both reports, because I can't even trust my own objectivity (and neither should you).

eventguy

Not quite sure what you mean by 'shills', but I'm not nuancing Monsanto. I just try to explain that this is my way of thinking for most news items lately providing "proof". This could be a politician, a global news event or an evil company. I just learned that articles are often created in a way by some that puts another agenda in a good light....

Alias_Unknown

I'm glad to see some discussion in this thread and not the typical immediate anti Monsanto circle jerk.

4EnglandJames

In my experience, the most popular Monsanto related threads on Reddit turn into a pro -Monsanto circle jerk. Not that I necessarily believe they're all PR shills (though it would be naive to think that doesn't happen), but I do feel like it's popular defend anything "science-y" without question. It causes [some of] the same problems as religion

Alias_Unknown

Yeah I've seen those happen aswell. Your religion comment is very relevant. Believing anything without sufficient evidence just isn't productive.

Do I believe Monsanto is guilty of seriously questionable practices? Absolutely.

Will I immediately believe every claim that comes out regarding their shiftyness? Nope.

On a side note. I keep forgetting this is a conspiracy sub. There's way more logic and reasonable thinking taking place than I'm used.

eventguy

I hope it can stay this way... There is one thing Reddit taught me: be critical because most posts and most reactions are based on someone's agenda.

I'm not being conspiracy-ist, but experience on Reddit has shown me a strange world of fake accounts and sudden mass-opinions on strange news items.

Come to me with studies from both sides and the truth will probably be somewhere in the middle.

Figaro

I can take a whiff of gasoline and survive the experience, but you couldn't pay me enough to drink a glass of it

eventguy

Well this proves nothing actually... I know a kilo of glucose in liquid form won't kill me, but ask me to drink it and I'll respond exactly the same way as the monsanto guy...

I get it, Monsanto = Evil but don't be childish and try to 'trap' people with false interviews and logical reactions....

4EnglandJames

He did literally say, "You could drink a quart of it," and then back-tracked significantly when it became a possibility - "do you think I'm an idiot?!"

The interviewer didn't seem to antagonize him, and he could have made a rather powerful statement by agreeing to it (a la Bill Gates' poo water).