[wfunction]

> the ones confusing technology with science, and insisting that GMOs must be perfectly safe

I don't know if I fall in that group (I don't think I confuse the two and I don't really talk about GMO much) but my prior belief would be that GMO products are probably safe, through some kind of hand-wavy mathematical argument: it's like modifying a program to do what you want; chances are if you mess up, it'll crash quickly and won't work rather than working almost-as-intended while injecting nefarious input into the next program.

Would LOVE to read evidence to the contrary though. So please share your citations.

[coldtea]

>Would LOVE to read evidence to the contrary though. So please share your citations.

Perhaps you've missed my whole initial argument?

[sakagami0]

lmao idk where u come from but no evidence means no ground for argument. even if you made a point that you cant find evidence. If you accept that lack of evidence is evidence, then a i have a proposal for you that begins with r and ends with eligion.

[coldtea]

>even if you made a point that you cant find evidence.

No, I made a point about the burden of proof. But of course that takes actually reading what has been written to tell.