I’m wondering what the Ron Paul forum is like - but not enough to actually read there. :o
seriously, if all it’s going to do is raise my blood pressure I’d rather skip it. but I know a woman who is there regularly and has been for years now. so if it’s worth reading - can I learn something? is there actual debate like here? whats the moderation like? - I’d like to know.
I’m starting on the assumption that I disagree with RP himself over a lot of things but not necessarily everything, for what that’s worth.
Whenever a Google search (on a variety of topics) has pointed me towards something posted in a Ron Paul forum, it’s been something in the loony denialist/conspiracy line (antivax sentiments, the Deadly Aspartame Plot etc.). So I have zero desire ever to participate.
It has to do with the way Stanford meta-research is presented in the media and this NY Times column being a typical representative of how to misdirect and misrepresent.
If you bothered to read OP from externally linked thread you would not ask a question like that. Just one simple thing - organic food movement WAS NEVER about being more nutritional but that is the most prominent “debunking” that according to NY Times is a result of Stanford meta-research.
Sure…but there’s nothing wrong with changing a viewpoint and going forward with it. Trying to change the past, that’s dishonest. But if they say, “Oh, also, we’ve discovered these additional benefits,” that isn’t changing the goalposts, that’s just progress.
If “organic” agriculture were, somehow, shown to increase yields, offering hope for starving populations, that’d be nice. We know already that yields can be increased by switching from beef production to pork or chicken production; reduces water consumption too.
I’m very dubious, because I think the term “organic” isn’t sufficiently well defined. Some people mean it to involve no fertilizer; others interpret it differently. Some people take it to mean no pesticides; others differ. And some say that it is absolutely inconsistent with genetically modified crops, while others disagree completely. (Why should GM plants not be “organic?” They’re plants, aren’t they?)
If they really want to talk science, that’s great. Far as I’ve ever seen, the “organic” movement was made up of large chunks of wet woo.