These people arguing about a troll, do they think what i said was trolling?Garsh, if i want to have somefun next time i guess ill put my fun and my serious answer together.

that would have been better. instead of putting them as 2 separate posts. I mean humor can be included in your post, but it still has to follow forum guidelines.

which is why I was a little angry, no well more disappointed really. because I figured you knew what to say for real, but chose not to just to ***** with everyone.

anyway questions update weekly-biweekly.

constructive criticism NOT TOLERATED
why? because Im not looking for god ***n criticism. if I did then I would ask for it or post this in the AMW section.

314d1, I know you're reading this because Im talking about you

orly?

Ah crap, I was going to say something about your post, and then I got sidetracked by BlackIce's post, and you both got included into the same thing, sorry about that.

recently read an article on monsanto's patenting of crops. basically they can sue the crap out of you if you can't pay for the yearly renewing license.

let me demonstrate.

a truck driving monsanto seeds that have been genetically enhanced to withstand pesticides. now these seeds blow off into YOUR fields and grow some of the best **** crops. now monsanto comes along and sues you and you lose, and you have to burn all your seed crops

(what monsanto does in a day takes farmers years to make their own crops that either grow better or yields more crops. basically monsanto is ordering you to kill you children)

Now do you think this is ethical? to patent seeds/crops? I mean I hate plagiarism/theft but I also think this crosses the line a little bit.

but many farmers usually cannot afford to pay the steep intellectual property taxes that monsanto imposes on them

is this ethically correct to impose a patent on biologically living things? (cars and guns and chairs I understand but plants? sure it makes monsanto filthy rich and all of it's shareholders (me) but at what cost is this money "clean")

That's a very interesting concept. i like this question. idk anything about this news but, there's plenty of factors that would take part in my personal decision, i don't think i could make a decision one way or the other with what's there.

for me, if i were the farmer, it'd depend on questions such as:

"exactly how much of the land did this occupy?"

"Who was aware and when?"

"did the seeds kill what had already been sown, or is the land fallow?"

"could it be taken to a higher court?"

"did the farmer invest anything for that crop to yield?"

Basically, i wouldn't argue their patent rights on the plant, afterall, it really is intellectual property manifested into a physical investment. I mean, genetics and breeding too is work afterall.

But if i were the farmer...I would argue my liability, and try to settle outside of court...but if not, take to the court the chance to sell my monsanto yield back to them at the very least or even counter-sue depending on the full answers of above questions.

I believe they should be patented, but the fees should be paid by, various companies hoping to sell the product, instead of the farmer. I'm not sure if that makes sense to you guys? But the way I see it, that eliminates the need for farmers to pay a price they don't have, and at the same time, increases the availability of the product.

for me, if i were the farmer, it'd depend on questions such as:

"exactly how much of the land did this occupy?"

"Who was aware and when?"

"did the seeds kill what had already been sown, or is the land fallow?"

"could it be taken to a higher court?"

"did the farmer invest anything for that crop to yield?"

well see monsanto does these random sweeps, they take seeds (unknowing to their owners) and scan em for their little DNA strands, if they have the special monsanto patented strands then they order all the crops be burned and all the seeds be burned because it could have cross bred.

I mean for a farmer you crops are ALL of your investments

the seeds themselves do not "kill" any of the other plants more like they just interbreed with the plants.
Monsanto themselves do not care about plants, more just that selective strand of DNA that is in the plants (which makes them resistant to the "roundup" pesticides)

At that point that's some serious bull****; as far as I'm concerned they have no right to do that.

At that point that's some serious bull****; as far as I'm concerned they have no right to do that.

exactly man, that's what I feel like is UNethical, because the farmer had no prior knowledge that monsanto sneakily tests their crops. it's pretty insidious.