anyone a regular on the Ron Paul forums?

In My Humble Opinion (IMHO)
#1

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.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/

#2

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.

#3

so, I was forced to go read over there grump

a mix, is what I found.

there was a thread about the latest “organic doesn’t matter” story and I liked some of what I read.

it’s a different neighborhood, that’s for sure.

thread

#4

Actually, 1st post in that thread (OP) is exactly how I felt when I read NY Times piece.

That someone can write such a piece and have it published in NY Times is nothing short of shocking. But, yeah, it’s RP Forums so they must be on drugs or something. And this is NY Times.

I have yet to see “a serious” media outlet calling NY Times piece author on the things he wrote.

Otherwise, carry on…

#5

Just to add… I read some of the NY Times article comments and the criticism is exactly the same.

However, the image of “NY Times” and “Organic fable” are forever etched in the mind of the weak and nothing will take that back.

#6

The EnoughPaulSpam subreddit points to a lot of threads on active Ron Paul forums, describing them so you can get a flavor without actually reading the idiocy. Paul supporters can be a special bunch.

#7

Why? Do you think it’s factually incorrect?

#8

Facts have nothing to do with it.

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.

#9

And we’re done!

Thank you and goodnight, and don’t forget to tip your waitress.

#10

Wow… don’t you feel good winning an Internet discussion?

:rolleyes:

How’s this based on facts?

#11

That’s entirely based on facts. You just don’t like the phrasing.

Also: Organic has always claimed to be about health. Claiming otherwise is dishonestly shifting the goalposts.

#12

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.

#13

You want facts?

Well, the primary driver for organic food was ALWAYS and EVER use of pesticides.

That’s all there is to it. Stop right here. That’s all I’m interested in.

On one side very close to half and on another less than 10 percent.

And then someone writes an article interpreting results as a big “debunking” win against organic food. Nothing short of incredible!

However, I’ll leave to others to argue non-issues using fine elements of rhetoric in English

#14

Wow. Big claim without anything to back it up. I remain unsurprised. Also, no facts about whether any of the non-organic crops were actually harmful. Just fear-mongering.

Trinopus makes a good point about ‘organic’ being badly-defined and about the woo that attached to it.