It's precisely in less educated circles, and only in them, that one can talk about the harmlessness of GMOs – because if a person has even a little knowledge about GMOs, if a person has even a little common sense, then trying to convince them of the harmlessness of genetically modified organisms is pointless.
No, everything is correct: 1) you can never prove anything to you; this is a fact, and this is not the first case in this topic. But proving <> to you is impossible. 2) I meant presenting strict evidence that meets all the main standards, and 3) that is recognized as such by any more or less competent person. 4) But if a person, despite the logical reasoning of the opponent, simply denies everything without any basis, as in your case, 5) then it is impossible to prove anything to him personally; you are right.
1) The same applies to you; I also couldn't prove anything to you because you simply denied everything, and this is also not an isolated case.
2) There was no strict evidence in what you said. You tried to change the subject, pull facts out of thin air, play with words, and speculate. But I didn't see a strict logical chain from which the existence of Australia follows.
3) "Any more or less competent person" – I haven't heard anything funnier than that yet.
There are many different competent people, and their opinions on the same issue can easily differ.
"Competence" – you use terms, but our understanding of them is different. We need to define the terms first.
4) There was very little logic in your evidence for such an elementary thing as the existence of Australia. Plus, when you argued with me, you did exactly that: you simply denied everything without any basis. So why are you so upset that I, having taken a nihilistic position, also simply denied everything without any basis?
5) which is what I was trying to prove. I'm saying that it's impossible to prove anything to someone who simply denies everything without any basis. And I don't really have that as a goal. My goal is to inform.
And why do you think that ordinary, non-GMO hamburgers are healthy? That wasn't what was said. It was said that GMO hamburgers lead to blood cancer (leukemia) and infertility. Ordinary hamburgers are also harmful, of course, but at least they don't lead to such consequences.
It's very easy for me to prove that it's impossible to prove anything to a person who doesn't want to believe anything, who has no authorities in life, and I have demonstrated this.
Even from a logical point of view, you couldn't prove the simplest thing to me – such as the existence of Australia.
And I can't prove even the simplest things. Because even the most logical arguments are simply denied. But I don't have the task of proving and convincing (it's simply beyond my capabilities). The only task is to inform those whose brains haven't been eaten by toadstools yet.
