No, we're not. You might be, but no one else is.

What people are generally discussing is whether or not Monsanto is poisoning humans, and meta-issues like whether or not the article does a good job of helping us understand whether or not Monsanto is poisoning humans.

Although some (currently-absent) HN commenters probably feel otherwise, I don't see a single comment in this thread trying to downplay culpability (although not that many people are playing it up, either). And you're the only one talking about poisoning the earth (which is definitely an important subject, but not really relevant to the linked article, which is about the impact on human health). So why are YOU trying to change the topic?

(Note, btw, that all of your comments in this thread-subtree have all been downvoted to hell. It appears to me that these same comments are sarcastic and nasty, and very poorly argued. On the other hand, your comment that begins with "The reason this is important to discuss is that..." is mostly pretty reasonable, and hasn't been smashed by downvotes. I think that's not a coincidence.)

> (Note, btw, that all of your comments in this thread-subtree have all been downvoted to hell. It appears to me that these same comments are sarcastic and nasty, and very poorly argued. On the other hand, your comment that begins with "The reason this is important to discuss is that..." is mostly pretty reasonable, and hasn't been smashed by downvotes. I think that's not a coincidence.)

Indeed. I disagree with fit2rule all around the comment threads for this article and I upvoted that one - because it's reasonable and thoughtful.

In the meantime, the pro-Monsanto downvote brigade has been quenched by more who agree with me than don't...

Cool. But how about just writing more of the constructive kind of comments? Then there will be no need for downvoting brigades for any side.

I was calling into question the veracity by which some were willing to defend Monsanto, no matter the cost. I agree that the tone of responses can be moderated higher, but I also think that the reaction of the pro-Monsanto crowd has its own insidious nature, which must be dealt with - its a company well known for its own online PR tricks and campaigns, in an effort to manage its image. And it is not without its evil side, as a corporation.

So I'll consider your feedback for the next time we have to discuss Monsanto's efforts to control the worlds food.

In general I don't think Monsanto has a very strong support group here - most of the discussions about that company I read here was pointing out various evil things they're doing. I myself I'm not a fan of the company - but I believe in what I call 'high-resolution discourse' - i.e. focusing precisely on the actual problem. In case of Monsanto, most of the problems with them is about their business practices, not about the GMO technology - so it's fair to blame them for acting like assholes, but it's not fair to automatically assume the tech is bad (or to extend it to the entire field, e.g. "GMOs are bad because Monsanto is evil").

If the hypothetical pro- and anti-Monsanto crowd is willing to engage in a constructive, high-resolution discourse then I think it's only for the better - everyone can learn something new from it.