Oakland california sues monsanto Videos

Who's arguing? If I really needed your comments I would ask for it. Hahaha threats yea ok big guy

+MLordandGod:)

+EndlessWonder Amen.

+My Pirate Radio //videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?Live=17471&bhcp=1PK

+Yadira Esparza ... then show me your data 

+dsndicmsa just because someone is athiest doesn't mean they have to fully support science. I'm also athiest and against Monsanto, it doesn't take much research to know the harm that Monsanto is causing to our health and our planet.

+Wolfgrin just try thinking then look at the argument you are using 

+dsndicmsa Do the world a favor and remove yourself from the gene pool.

+Wolfgrin was it your mumma that told you thems the devil 

+dsndicmsa Why? If the devil had existed Monsanto pretty much fits his style. More like you are the idiot or only christian can talk about the devil? what a smeaghead you are.

+Wolfgrin lol then your comment makes no sense moron 

+dsndicmsa Haha no, im a atheist you smeaghead.

+Wolfgrin let me guess you're a religious nut job

+Jason Gregg lol ok then

+dsndicmsathat comment proves you dont know what "ad hominem" means. LMAOnot to mention the fact hat there are no ad hominem attacks in any of my comments.this is entertaining watching you fail miserably as a paid monsanto shill. as mentioned, keep it going so everyone knows how you guys operate.

+Jason Gregg lok ok the it not like all your comments have unfounded deluded paranoid ad hominem accusations

+dsndicmsanot a single fallacy in my comments. i really dont think you know what youre talking about.doesnt matter anyway, arguing with a paid shill for monsanto is like arguing with a defender of hitler.thats why i find it humorous. so im just going to keep going and going and going so everyone knows how paid shills operate.

+Jason Gregg all you've done is shout fallacy while using them yourself and not explaining how you think i am in such a question 

+dsndicmsai answered that same question several times. or are you just going to continue to ignore that FACT like a typical paid troll.looks like when youre losing an argument, you resort to personal attacks and name calling. right from the paid shill playbook.your comments are irrelevant anyway. you literally have zero credibility as a paid shill. keep posting though. so everyone else knows how you guys operate.

+Jason Gregg ok then hypocrite don't acknowledge a simple question and keep replying with deluded paranoid unfounded and pointless accusations,if someone dumps oil into the ocean when the effects are known who is responsible, those doing hte dumping or those manifacturing it,if third parties dump pcbs when their effects are known and published in open science who is responsible those doing the dumping or those who manufactured it 

how many different ways are you going to ask the same question. and how many times am i going to answer it with the exact same response.AGAIN. why are you still commenting. youre a known monsanto shill account.+dsndicmsa

+Jason Gregg so is monsanto responsible for others dumping toxins

+dsndicmsahow many different ways are you going to ask the same question. and how many times am i going to answer it with the exact same response.AGAIN. why are you still commenting. youre a known monsanto shill account.

+Jason Gregg so they are responsible for the dumping by others 

+dsndicmsano, my argument is we will wait and see. monsanto has lost numerous law suits for illegal dumping. and given monsantos track record for concealing the toxicity of their products, their illegal dumping practices and their flat out lying. its obvious they cant be trusted.ill ask you again. why are you still commenting. its well known now that youre a paid monsanto troll.

+Jason Gregg so your argument is that monsanto is guilty for others dumping a toxic substance because they are monsanto 

+dsndicmsawrong again. there is no distraction. my message has been consistent from comment one. your however, wow. i haven seen this many logical fallacies used since debate class in high school.just admit youre a low level monsanto troll and give up.you literally have no credibility. we all know your account is a monsanto sock puppet account.youve been outed a long time ago. in fact, the more you reply, the more you affirm the fact that your defence of monsanto is a paid agenda.

+Jason Gregg no you never directly stated it you just implied it, keep resorting to retarded semantics as a distraction 

+dsndicmsait is a fallacy to make a false claim. i never said monsanto was guilty.please cite where i stated monsanto was guilty.is this fail number 8 for you? or is it 9. youre on a roll today.

+Jason Gregg so it's not a fallacy to claim monsanto is guilty because they are monsanto 

+dsndicmsaif youre wondering the definition of red herring, this is it. lmao.come to think of it, its probably a propositional fallacy. specifically affirming a disjunct. youre concluding that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A, therefore not B.so youre saying if the petroleum companies arent guilty, neither is monsanto. which is a propositional fallacy.is this fail 6 or 7... lmao...

+Jason Gregg so yes petroleum products are carcinogenic but those who knowingly dumped them not the manufacturer would be responsible for their dumping 

+dsndicmsawe can argue about the environmental dangers of petroleum products in another thread. this is about monsanto and PCB's.you last comment makes no grammatical sense at all.

+Jason Gregg ok the so sorry for a few questions, 

+dsndicmsairrelevent. were not arguing petroleum products. were arguing monsanto and PCB's.another logical fallacy from the monsanto shill account.

+Jason Gregg are petroleum products carcinogenic

+dsndicmsait doesnt matter. your argument is a logical fallacy. your argument actually solidifies validity to the fact that monsanto knew it was a carcinogen and they continued to produce it.this only proves how immoral and unethical monsanto is. you really are supporting my points and you dont even realize it.so whats it like working as a shill. do they let you work from home in the middle of the night or do you have to go into an office to troll videos and forums. you should really go back to mcdonalds because youre not very good at defending monsanto. such a nefarious company. its a tough job, ill give you that. its like defending hiter in israel. nearly impossible.youre a known shill for monsanto. by my continuing this argument with you is for the sole purpose of letting the uninformed know who you really are. dont they teach you when to give up?

+Jason Gregg lol ok then moron, it's not like that proves it the effects of pcbs were known and available in open scientific journals since 1939 

+dsndicmsaneither monsanto, nor the epa, so the year of its publishing is moot.besides, why would i argue with a KNOWN shill for monsanto.

+Jason Gregg //www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19392701412.html;jsessionid=C36A53AD14BE7D9DF4DEAB25F1BE37C5please would you note the year of publication 

+dsndicmsawrong. monsanto themselves state on record that they did NOT know the toxic health effects of PCB's till the 1960's.but the truth is, they DID know since the 30's.so your comment is deceptive at best.btw, your use of petroleum products as a feeble attempt at an analogy is useless. not to mention another logical fallacy.why am i even arguing with a sock puppet account. oh well. ill continue my pina colada and see the level of monsanto trolls these days.

+Jason Gregg the effects of pcbs have been published since 1939, the uses of such products were told of the effects, yet dumped themOh and should all petroleum products be banned

+dsndicmsaif the chemical company knew of the toxicity of a particular product, and not only continued to produce it, but concealed its toxicity, then it is the fault of the manufacturer. this based on clear moral and ethical business standards.monsanto has been proven time and time again to ignore moral and ethical business practices.so yes, if you make a product, know it has adverse health effects, and continue to produce it, the manufacturer is at fault.say you create a breath spray that causes cancer. you have full knowledge that it causes cancer but you hid your findings from the fda for decades. then my associate purchases the breath spray, he says it works, so i use a little. I get cancer from using the breath spray, im not going to sue my friend, im going to sue the producer. which is you.it would be a different story if monsanto didnt know that PCB's were a carcinogen, but they did. in fact they knew the toxicity the entire time they produced PCB's. it would also be a different story if they didnt hide that knowledge from the EPA, but they did.the burden of fault is on monsanto.now give up. this account has already ben outed as a pro-monsanto troll acount.

+Jason Gregg how so..... how is it different, monsanto was not the one dumping the pcb's it was the city and third parties, is it these third parties that are responsible for the dumping or the manufacturer  

+dsndicmsayoure attempting to associate two distinctly different scenarios fallaciously.thats your 4th fail. admit youre a monsanto troll and give up.

+Jason Gregg lol how am I making any of those fallacies

+dsndicmsawell...false correlation... false attribution. red herring. false analogy. plain and simple. are you ready to admit you work for monsanto yet?

+Jason Gregg is it which one......... and how so.... 

+dsndicmsathats a logical fallacy.

+Jason Gregg are oil companies responsible for the effects if some one pours oil into the ocean 

+dsndicmsatypical first comment from a monsanto troll. lets argue the topic. and leave your shill101 shit at the door. do you really want to waste time arguing about red dye and triclosan? you really are a monsanto shill arent you. from the looks of your profile, id say you fit all the criteria for a sock puppet account.is monsanto to blame for PCB impact on the environment.is monsanto an ethical company that can be trusted?did monsanto know the environmental impact of PCB's.i promise i will out you as a monsanto troll.in fact, ill let you decide which front you want to defend. make your case for monsanto and ill effing destroy it.

typical first comment from a monsanto troll. lets argue the topic. and leave your shill101 shit at the door. do you really want to waste time arguing about red dye and triclosan? you really are a monsanto shill arent you. from the looks of your profile, id say you fit all the criteria for a sock puppet account.is monsanto to blame for PCB impact on the environment.is monsanto an ethical company that can be trusted?did monsanto know the environmental impact of PCB's.i promise i will out you as a monsanto troll.in fact, ill let you decide which front you want to defend. make your case for monsanto and ill effing destroy it.

+Jason Gregg where are they published, please link 

+dsndicmsa the effects of fluoride are well published also, yet ill bet its in your toothpaste. how about red dye in your food, it causes cancer and is in every red M&M... triclosan is another chemical that has lots of data, yet its still in antibacterial soap. regardless, you cant defend a company just because its legal. monsanto knew full well the effects of pcb's, and they still produced it. so yes, i blame the immoral and unethical corporations for the poisoning. so, with your logic, should i blame you for using your toothpaste and antibacterial soap and allowing it to run down the drain. or the chemical company that produces the chemical knowing that it poses a negative health effect.both of your comments have flawed logic. your other comment is a blatant logical fallacy.ive been arguing with pro monsanto trolls for years. ive shut down every single argument. and ill out you as well. care to dance?

Not a real trial, a kangaroo court, a publicity stunt.