Wikileak: US Trade War on Europe Over GM Crops

Do you not think you have enough of these "natural laws"?
If not, which ones are missing (you don't have to name them all, just the major ones).

The English Legal System is founded on common law, which is law created by legal precedent.

Which "statutes" do you tell to go fuck of on a regular basis?

I thought we might run into difficulties.
It seems, basically, you are saying you should be free to do as you damn well please, including breaking laws.

 

Being cool will get you a thousand friends on Facebook that cheer you on to suicide. But being a militant bitch that uses every communication medium possible might wake up enough people to do something to fix the problems we all have.

So tell you what.
You worry about being cool. I'll worry about trying to prove to my neigbors that the forest was poisoned.

There are only 3 natural laws. 1) Do not hurt anyone (ie: Be peaceful) 2) Do not cause loss to another 3)Do not commit fraud.

Start with a good r read of Black's Law dictionary.
Natural Laws are laws that are self-evident. Any reasonably intelligent man or woman automatically knows these laws. They do not need to be taught or administered to them.

Common Laws are the written form of natural laws. They mirror in edict natural laws. Example, murder or assault or rape is causing harm. Therefore breaking the first natural law

Precedent law is not based on natural laws. It is based on case precedent in a judicial body. At some point the court ran into a problem and was forced to make a decision where no natural law or statute existed. It therefore rendred a decision and set precedent.

Future judges/administrators of legal proceedings decide similar cases on precedent where no statute of governance currently exists. It should be noted used in cival / dispute and not criminal.

Statute law is state created laws and they are given the force of law by the state. That means they will be treated by the state as having validity by nature of their ablility to impose them on all persons within their jurisdiction.

Taxes, drivers licence, walking naked in my backyard, etc.

Again the only laws that exist are natural laws. You are arguing the enforcement of statutes. And you do not have to obey statute laws.

Again, declare yourself as a peaceful man/woman and keep your word.
Anything that can not be linked to natural laws, is breakable. So you can smoke a joint in public and when a cop harrases you, as long as you know how to avoid playing "their game" it will go no where.

This is basic law and equity 101.

 

I understand.
We do differ vastly on our sense of freedom.
I hope you don't think I am a slave.

 

no, actually, it just makes people wish you would shut up and go away

especially when you're a "militant bitch" in a crowd of people who are mostly already awake

but you haven't bothered to find that out, have you?

 

Isn't the issue here the way we treat living ecologically significant organisms.
The tension here is around the idea that life forms can be patented and sold as products. The US regarding this as a trade issue and other countries viewing it as an environmental issue.

 

I suspect that L-L couldn't be less interested in finding anything out about Americans. there's something vaguely familiar about his(?) caustic attitude toward America... makes me think he is a Quebecquoise.

In any case- many types of protest would be counterproductive as you correctly suggest.

 

A squeaky wheel sometimes gets the grease but more often than not it is ignored or replaced and a wheel that works properly doesn't tend to squeak.
It is true that if you are complaining about the past, attention to the present is liable to be lax.

 

i've never been able to understand that either

or the idea that one plant or another - one living being or another - can be somehow "illegal"

my imagination has limits after all . . .

 

Yeah the jury is still out but the US doesn't recognize that I think and has solved the problem for itself by statute. Once you record something as legal that hasn't been properly investigated there is all kinds of room for detrimental excesses. The aberrations in the financial system happen because there is no law against them. Things like financial houses hedging on the likely failure of their clients.


I personally think that you cannot isolate biological material from ecological interaction. There are no discrete systems just imaginary barriers.

 

...or people from the UK?

 

I sensed a bit more of a conciliatory attitude with you that he seems unable to offer Americans- even those of us who agree with him... our words are just twisted to justify more insults. It's an accurate reflection of how much of the world sees us and is something we need to be more exposed to... it may be more effective than acts of vandalism in waking up the population... the key is to get more people to be exposed to it.

 

^^^ perhaps, but i recoil when i see phrases such as "natural laws"

 

I sensed that too.

Me too. But, I'm not too concerned unless he is forcing his opinion on others or thinking his POV is No. 1. Basically, if he retracts a few of his comments relating to others that do not share his opinion, I'll accept he isn't being an arrogant S.O.B.

 

Are you suggesting that the WHO looks out for you? It's just the UN's bitch branch, that tells the world how to surrender in the most painless way possible.

GM plants and animals scare the shit out of me. The last thing we need is these species mixing with, or outcompeting, wild ones. It could mean catastrophic famine, catastrophic extinction, catastrophic monopolies... What if they sold a suite of things that, intentionally or accadentally, made it impossible to grow food on the scale needed to feed the world, unless it was with supplies purchased from them? The possabilities are endless, and endlessly terrafying.

 

I am.
Unless you think WHO/UN are part of the N.W.O then there are plenty of studies relating to (and studies by) different countries (French scientists studying UK policy and affects for e.g) that show evidence to the contary of popular opinion here.

I have already gone through this before in this thread.
If you have any specifics that would be helpful. Thanks.

 

If you can't go to a library. Can you please at least do a google search on the term? Even a half-assed attempt at a search would have given you the following.

Mostly awake? A crowd of awake people don't try to argue "coolness."

Tell that to the British and I'm sure they'll point a finger at Ghandi. He wouldn't shut up and he wouldn't go away and they were left no choice but to deal with him.

Hippies are a grass roots movement kind of people. Unfortunately, the hippies of today are not the hippies of yesterday. The hippies of the past took to the streets and went head to head with the government. Whereas the hippies of today appear to want to argue about "Facebook" friends.

So if you want me to go away and leave you personally alone. Post a photo of yourself erasing your Facebook account and then one of you standing on a street corner protesting. Or you can go hang out on Facebook because you know I'm not there.

(NB. Oh and here is some helpful advice. Please wear a mask or remove your head in any photo you post. Don't be stupid and post your face on the Internet. And I'm saying this because I actually do care.)

Point of View???
I'm stating the edicts of the basis of our laws. There is NOTHING subjective about it.

Black's Law Dictionary is the "defacto bible" of the British, American, Australian and Canadian legal systems. It is also a prefered definition guide in Germany, France and Sweeden and is embraced in the UN's commision on human rights.

Therefore the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 7th and 8th editions of Black's Law dictionary define "Freedom" as;

Freedom is not a point of view. You either have it or you don't. What you are trying to do is give the argument that all governments make. That is you are "sacrificing some of your freedom to enjoy the benefits of society."

And no matter how small it might seem to you, when sacrifice any part of your freedom, you are no longer are free but are now being governened and are being given "privilages" or otherwise stated are "allowed" to do certain things within the confines of the statutes of your society.

Holy persecution complex Batman.
The only reason I appear to have a concilatory attitude toward Oden is he did not try to argue "coolness."

American is the most corporate nation in the world and it is the source of the majority of the world's problems.
The "United States has been funding, manipulating and installing friendly or puppet governments all over the world so that it can "be the first among equals."

Our food is threatened, our water is threatened and even wildlife is now falling dead from the skys and washing up on our shores. The american thurst for technology has now furnished her with weapons that will soon make even throwing stones a futile action and it won't be long before manditory computer chips will be embeded in the skulls of all newborn babies. Unfortunately, the average american does not argue these fact but instead of doing something about them. He/she is content to simply sit in their living room "Dancing with Stars."

And herein lies the problem that all non-americans have. The only hope the rest of the world has lies in getting americans motivated to take action against the entities in their nation and therby putting an end to the madness.


But the difficulty lies in the fact that unless you're praising the United States, you are labled as being an american hater.
And when when you try to explain things in a "nice gentle pro-active kind of way"; the average amerian just smiles politely, agrees and goes back to "Dancing With Stars."

We only have a carrot and a stick. So like all other people of good conscience that care deeply about this world, whe are faced with the problem of using the stick when the carrot does not work.

So if there is a solution inbetween the extremes of being called a "american hater" or dealing with "Dancing for Stars." Please tell the rest of the world what it is. Because I know that I am just too fucking stupid think of one myself.

 

here i am, silly girl:



heh heh heh, i'm so dumb, i put my picture on the internets, i'm not smart or cool like no-laughter

so you can go away now? take your righteous anger somewhere else? where an entirely new group of people can think you're an asshole?

 

I think the real problem is most GM crops are grown either in the US or Canada, but neither country has any law saying they have to be marked as such. If both countries required said marking so people in fact know they're GM, there should be no problem with allowing their imports and letting customers decide for themselves, like organic foods now.

 

Seems you do that through chemical analysis not anecdote.

This is silly in it's arbitrariness. The author of harm has no face. Helpful is a matter of timing. What is harmful to one in one moment is not harmful to another in the same moment. The sense of loss as well is wholly subjective, and people misrepresent the facts all the time without intending to. This "formula of rightness" that you have presented is an excellent tool for claiming the moral high ground but it does not in fact support that claim in the eyes of opposing or differing opinion.

Your whole soliloquy about natural law is a theory falsely claiming of substance. The term may have a definition in law theory, I don't know. But your description does not have objective constituents in reality. In some societies it is good and useful to cut off the hands of the thief. In some societies it is good and useful to circumcise girls. In some societies it was a religious rite to eat human flesh, some societies find this revolting.

A more useful definition of a natural law in the way you would like to see such laws operate is, water runs downhill or E=MC2. A more useful way to use our powers of discrimination is to answer the question what is it for, is it true or false, is it the same or is it different.

That which is helpful then is related to function, does it serve it's purpose.
What is false is by definition not true and what is not true does not exist.
Does it maintain a consistent premise, if not it is self defeating.


This is basic law and equity 101, to coin a phrase.

 

Flannel is the best