If he were here he'd ruin that common misconception.

I thought he ruined common misconceptions, not bat shit crazy stuff.

OK, sorry to spam here, but I found another relevant link:
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/12/14/gmo-patent-controversy-terminator-genes-seed-piracy-forcing-farmers-buy-seeds/

That confirms that "terminator seeds" are a technology that does exist -- in practice as well as theory -- but isn't commercially sold or otherwise available.

More importantly, it mentions that there is a legal sort of "license agreement" that farmers sign when they buy the GM seed stating that they won't replant harvested stuff in the future, and that they can inspect your storage areas etc. if they suspect you are doing so. That would explain why my family worked hard to clean out storage areas that had grain resulting from GM seed. I erroneously thought that was because that grain was sterile.

Those agreements are for a single crop / harvest, so it is definitely possible to use a GM seed one year and then go back to non-GM seed in other years, as my family does. I guess that we just have to keep good records to show that we're not holding any back for future planting / sale.

Sorry for the several LONG posts, and thanks to @Hastur for asking the question that got me to figure out the misconception I had!

Except it's not true (at least not in the way most people think it's true).

A neat property of science is that things are constantly disproved as we prove new things. I.e. most of the things we know now, and knew in the past, are wrong, it's just the closest we've gotten to the truth as we've overwritten old misconceptions (which we thought were the truth at the time). We may not ever get back to the same point if we were to start over (i.e. we may not get as close, or we may get closer to the truth - either way makes his statement incorrect).

If he reworded it a little it would be a good point.

The question isn't whether you can be good without God. Atheists and agnostics can do good works as much as anyone else can. They love, they have kindness and compassion, and so on.

Do you know that if, when I died, I arrived at Heavens gate and I met Jesus..and He asked me this question "Why should I let you into My Heaven?" and my answer was, "because of all of the good things I did", He wouldn't let me in?

Why is that? Atheists and most religious people actually have something in common; a fundamental misconception of what goodness is.

Most people have a list of certain crimes in their mind that, so long as they have not committed them, they consider themselves to be good people. They'll say to themselves "I'm a good person. I haven't killed anyone." "I may not be perfect but I am no Hitler or Stalin". Or, they think if their good deeds outweigh their bad deeds, they're good people. There are some religions like that.

It's a relative goodness. Most everyone will acknowledge that they've done some wrong, but most will tell you far more right than wrong.

The problem with a relative goodness is that is all it is; it is relatively good. It is only good some of time. That is how human beings are. Goodness in Gods eyes is not relatively good, it is perfectly good. That is why the bible says there is no one good except God. The reason why Jesus won't let me into Heaven based on my performance is because once I've sinned even once I have failed to meet Gods standard; moral perfection. That is the only thing God considers good. Once there is a fly in the ointment, it is ruined.

The inference here is, if that is true then no one can get into Heaven. That's the dilemma, and that is why God sent His Son to die for our sins on a cross. Jesus had met Gods moral standard, He had never sinned. He was Gods spotless lamb, qualified to be a sacrifice for our sins on our behalf, taking the punishment that we deserve. Because of sin we are disqualified but Jesus qualifies us, that is why we need Him, why He is the Messiah.

Because Jesus took the punishment for our sins, when we believe in Him as Lord and Savior, God can forgive our sins and impute the righteousness of Christ to us. God counts our faith in Jesus Christ as righteousness. Not because we ourselves are righteous, but because He is righteous and our faith is counted towards us as righteousness. It is a legal transaction, once we believe God can dismiss our case because justice has been done for our sins by the atoning death of Jesus Christ.

So, when Jesus asks me why I should be allowed in, the only possible answer is this: "I am not worthy to get in; it is your righteousness counted to me that will open these gates. You died for my sins and rose the third day; I believed your gospel and received you as my Lord and Savior."

Atheists can be good without God, so can hindus, buddhists and even Christians. The trouble isn't whether they can be good, the trouble is that it isn't good enough.

yeah..i held the misconception for years until i actually was shown the full story...

and it was a fucking horror show.just the pics alone of that poor womans groin and the burn damage../cringes
if you did not have a compassionate reaction or an empathetic response.

you are a sociopath.

not to mention mcdonalds response.which was so drenched in inhuman corporate speak,that it just left me cold,and dead inside...or maybe that was just the mcdonalds representative which basically admitted that the company was playing the ratios.they KNEW how hot the coffee was,because they set the standard.

they just viewed the small percentage of customers that DID burn themselves as acceptable losses,and they used a tried and true tactic of ignoring the complaints,which usually led to people giving up.

so the jurors damage was less about the actual burns,but more about mcdonalds knowing how hot the coffee was,because they set the temperature,and the negligence on how they responded.

so while mcdonalds did settle without actual admission of guilt,they lowered the temperature by 20 degrees.

@nanrod you should check out the video here on the sift regarding this lawsuit.i am sure you will change your attitude.

hold on..lemme go find it for ya.

Yeah, how is this incorrect, @nanrod? The only thing I noticed was that woman "reenacting" the presumed sequence of events didn't match my misconceptions.

It's pretty hard to have a sense of humor about this subject matter after you've seen a dog moving around right after it got skinned alive so that some douche nugget Kanye wannabe can wear a fur coat.

This whole video seems to fall under the misconception that vegans are vegan because they don't like meat. When the reality is that it's from an ethical stand point. Otherwise you aren't vegan, you're just eating a plant based diet. People are vegan for all of the same reasons you guys aren't eating dogs and cats.

You really do have to have a disconnect once you realise that people love eating a creature that has the intelligence of a 3 year old child, has it's testicles ripped out, tail chopped off, and teeth pulled out all without anesthetic. Lives a tortured life for about 6 months in a small cage with a concrete floor where it hasn't got enough room to turn around, until it finally gets either forcibly impregnated, to keep the cycle going or just killed, so someone can eat smoked bits of it's flesh. Because apparently they've never heard of smoked paprika powder.

It does get pretty tiresome when you can speak pure logic and reason, and people brush it off with something like "bacon tho". Especially when they're otherwise intelligent people. But when it comes to this issue, they throw up a wall, because years of advertising has done it's job very well.

It's now proven fact that bacon gives people cancer. Yet people are still eating it. I have a feeling people would still eat bacon if it made their dicks fly off.

I take these "everything you thought you knew is wrong" presentations for the fluff-pieces that they are, Slate.com is full of them. This guy is just as glib and vague as any myth that people may be spouting. You want to dispel some misconceptions then do the research, like they did in the Wild West.

I don't think it's supposed to be taken in a general way and applied to "gay" people, but rather telling the story that isn't very often heard about those people who don't identify as either gay or straight, or who fall into the bisexual, asexual or questioning (gay/bi/trans curious) categories of the LGBT[QIA].

The truth is, we want to believe SO BADLY as a society that we are either gay or straight. And then we want to label ourselves to find community and identity SO BADLY, that some people get caught in the middle of two (or more!) different worlds, and that neither normative communities quite describe their sexuality. Hence the final comparison with the romantic comedy Sliding Doors. Also, that's why these crazy parties exist in the first place. (You're NOT invited.)

Let's see, there's:

L is for Lesbian, which is women's special gay letter. Technically you could just call LGBT, GBT, as some women identify as gay but not lesbian, or vice versa, or both. But women are special because of feminism, so they get L and G but men only get G.

Don't get on my ass because I speak the truth. I attend plenty enough GBT events to know the fluctuating social stigmas within the group, as well as the bitter rivalries between different letters of the acronym (or those who want to lengthen or shorten the representative letters). It's confusing to people who have this misconception that all stories of gay or lesbian people apply to all gay or lesbian people. It's so diverse, what's even the point of labels any more?

Anyway, moving on.

G is for Gay, which is women or men, but in common usage was (or is, depending on your perspective) for men. Yet as time goes on and the information age fills in our social gaps, women have begun to identify as gay. In fact, I have a genderfluid friend who was born female, but often identifies as a gay male, and has even been accepted into the ranks of the the Gay Men's Chorus. Take that label obsessed society!!

B is for Bisexual, which is a broad category that I'd say more aptly covers this situation, but even more so I think the Q (Questioning) with a little or a lot of A (Asexual) of the greater acronym LGBTQ or LGBTQIA is an even better term for these two star crossed lovers.

T is for Transgender, which is another broad category but with very specific splinter factions of crossdressers, transexuals, transvestites, genderfluid, etc. etc. Some of these terms, depending on the context are either outdated, have new or older and more specific defining characteristics, or even more often, people define themselves as the umbrella term itself, transgender, because the feelings of one or the other specifics oscillates and changes as transgender people (male and female) age. I know trans people of all ages and wow, the perspectives are vast, and are rarely consistent throughout the years. (You just DON'T know how you'll identify at the age of 65+.)

Q is for Questioning, which is for people who just don't know what they are. This one is really an open ended letter and often isn't included because it represents an ignorance of the self. Maybe you figure out your sexuality or gender specifics right away or maybe it takes you years of experimentation to find your niche. Or maybe you transcend the boundaries forever, always changing and never staying the same throughout the years. The main thing here is that you don't know. Maybe you have a gay romance and then you're like, "Damn, I'm definitely straight" and now you're not even part of LGBT. Q is like the gateway letter. lol

I is for Intersex, which is for people who have genitalia or other gender defining anatomy which is different, not entirely present, is equally both, or more of one than the other. Look it up, because I'm the least familiar with this one, though I do have friends who are intersex. I just haven't asked them enough specifics out of respect. Also, recent research into genetics has shown that you could have a portion of your body that isn't gender defining, but which is made up of the opposite sex's genetic code. I've heard of people who have had their toe or their heart identified as male, but the rest of their body is female. Some people will never even know they're intersex, and depending on what part of their body is intersex, may not experience any feelings other than their body's dominant sex. (I don't have a scientific link, but it was part of a topic that I attended at PRIDE.

A is for Asexual, which is for people who don't have sexual feelings, or who don't act on sexual feelings for any number of reasons intellectual, physical, or both. I don't know how broad this category is but I myself go through periods (sometimes years) of asexuality. A defining characteristic for some people who have misidentified as gay or bi. For example, my parents thought I was gay and I had friends who would openly call me gay, despite me not showing ANY sexual emotions towards either sex. Though I did have both guys and girls who would hit on me or have sex (oral or otherwise) with me on the down low, despite my half interest in both! People are curious and when you can't figure out someone's sexual identity, some people will lay it on so thick, it could be seen as sexual harassment. I knew several girls that just wanted to have sex with me so bad to figure out if I was gay or straight. I just didn't care about either sexes at the time, though I was pleasantly stimulated to varied effects.

I think this is the story that isn't told. If you're asexual or going through an asexual period, that doesn't make you gay!

There could be more movies or shorts out there telling this story, but this is the first honest look into the Q and A of LGBT that I've ever seen. Shit, and I thought when I published my book I'd be the first. Damn. heh

White Fragility as it's finest.

These aren't even jokes.

They're just misconception from a scared old white dude.

Here's one:

What's the difference between a Neo-Con and a normal, well-adjusted person.

Us normal folks can think critically and admit when we're wrong! HAH.

See.. it's funny cause it's true.

You clearly have a misconception of the theories being discussed here.
Not being rude or anything

Even the Matrix was a continuously running program, that only crashed & rebooted occasionally.

So don't think it the theory as a videogame with logins and save states..

It's more like.. popping in a dvd and watching until the end.

The big bang is when you pressed play.

So while, I guess, you could pause without anything knowing the simulation was paused..

If you stopped and started, that would create an entire collapse of the universe and another big bang..


So yeah, not World of Warcraft.

More like Cookie Clicker
..with browser cookies disabled..
close the window and you'll have to start from scratch.

the common misconception by our lantern is that because we become outraged and incensed over the actions of bad cops being..well..bad,we do not have the capacity to understand that there are far more GOOD cops performing their duties with honor and conviction.

this is not only insulting and offensive....it is dishonest.

while i can understand lanterns desire to defend his chosen profession,being motivated by his own,personal understandings.i cannot understand his almost knee-jerk reactions to criticisms when they are warranted and that somehow all of us harbor this incredibly small and narrow view of police officers.that we do not have the capacity to realize that not all cops are bad,violent,thuggish brutes.

what lantern fails to realize,possibly because he is so close to the situation,is WHY we become so outraged.
police wield immense power over ordinary citizens.they hold in their pocket the power and authority of the state.most cops are aware of this and act accordingly,with honor and integrity,the statistics bear this out.

so when a cop over-reaches said authority,or performs acts of violence against an unarmed citizen,or lies about his actions to avoid the consequences (be they malicious or accidental).

it really pisses us off.

the argument is still:power vs powerlessness.
or in many cases with police over-reach:power vs the vulnerable.

think about it this way lantern:
if a grown man abuses or molests a child,that man is vilified and condemned by society.hell,they KILL men like that in prison!

why?

because it is a total abuse of power and authority,perpetrated upon the innocent and vulnerable.this act is viewed by society as to be so venal and grotesque as to warrant the most harshest of punishments.

that young child trusted the adult to protect them.to keep them from harm.that adult betrayed that trust.

we even,in this society,blame the other adults in the situation for not interceding,because we view the protection of the vulnerable as everyones duty,and to abdicate that duty makes you complicit and henceforth....guilty.

now i am not saying that police are child molesters.
what i AM saying is that to abuse the power and authority of your station upon the innocent and vulnerable is the exact same betrayal of trust.

which is why we become outraged.

you also seem to miss why we become outraged at the supposed good cops looking the other way when bad cops break the law.basically you are the complicit housewife who allowed her baby to be molested.you share in the guilt,even though you did not perpetrate the offense,you allowed it to go unpunished.

choices have consequences and standing up and taking responsibility for those choices is the cornerstone of not only being a man but a decent human being.yet time and time again we see bad cops lying,creating false evidence,even having other cops as co-conspirators in their fabrications,all to avoid the consequences of their actions.

this is NOT what men do.
this is what children do and it is up to the parent to correct this devious,weak and irresponsible behavior.a parents job is to teach their offspring accountability.that their actions will have consequences...sometimes dire..and to accept those consequences like a man.

so when we see bad cops being irresponsible and suffering zero consequences..

it pisses us off.

and when we see you defend these bad cops.trying to perform mental gymnastics to abdicate bad policing,we take you to task.

yes yes...
we all know good cops can make a mistake.
that there are mitigating circumstances and that we were not there.some cops become so distraught over a single mistake that they may leave the force,or tragically,take their own life.

we all understand this and it is not we take issue with.
we take issue with the coward who will not take responsibility.
we take issue with the lying.
we take issue with the systematic refusal of a "justice" system which allows these bad cops to abuse their authority with impunity.
we take issue with the brutish and thuggish behavior.
we take issue with the unnecessary violence.

we are full aware that there are some fantastic cops out there,but we call out the bad cops for being bad.

and you should as well.
because they besmirch the very profession you are employed in and their behavior tarnishes the reputation of the job you perform with honor and integrity.

all good cops should be calling to the carpet every cop that over-steps his authority,abuses his power,perpetrates violence for no other reason than to be violent.if you guys did that we would have far less youtube videos revealing the subtle rot in your institution.(not so subtle anymore,thank you camera phones!).

we realize that these bad cops do not represent you lantern,so do not feel the urge to defend every single cop video.those bad cops can own their actions...if they had any balls,which they do not.

stop defending these pussies.
they are performing their duties poorly.they are making your job not only harder but less safe and they leave a stain on the job you love (at least i think you love it).

so,
just stop.
and realize we totally understand and that we wont stop calling bad cops out for being bad.

/end rant

*doublepromote

Common misconception.

Pro tip: it's not aboot, it's abote.

This is how you educate people. He still makes a strong, verbal argument against peoples misconceptions, but he does it using knowledge and evidence to support his point of view, rather than insults or dismissive attitudes.