Farm Press Blog

You just can’t cure stupid

RSS

Stupid pretty much defines the comment I received earlier this week following the blog on farmers as the backbone of America.

Ignorance, I think is merely a lack of knowledge. I have to admit to a certain amount of ignorance about some things—quantum physics, for instance. And I have no idea what calculus is except maybe algebra on steroids.

I could read up on calculus, probably, and maybe tune into a program on the National Geographic Channel to learn more about quantum physics. I don’t think I will ever master either subject, but maybe I could understand a little more about what they are.

Ignorance, therefore, is curable.

And then you have stupidity. Stupidity, I think, is ignorance on steroids. Stupidity denotes a lack of knowledge but also another element—a refusal to admit that lack of knowledge and bewilderment that anyone could suggest that what you assume is true could be wrong.

You can’t cure stupid. Stupid wants no facts to muddle its opinion, ill-formed though it may be.

Stupid pretty much defines the comment I received earlier this week following the blog on farmers as the backbone of America. I’ll disguise the crudeness out of respect. Here it is:

 

Seriously? Ag and Ag related industries are responsible for more cancer, more cancer deaths, the entire gender-bending of the last 3 generations and the toxic pollution of 100% of all navigable waterways in the USA... and you think them the backbone of the USA? More the @#$%&* (anatomical description of a body part below the waist and above the knees) of the USA.

 

Where to begin? Let’s just take it as a whole. Nothing about that bears any resemblance to truth. One wonders where the writer—anonymous, naturally—gets his information. Gender-bending?  What is that, anyway? Pollution of 100 percent of the navigable waterways? Please! Cancer deaths from agriculture? Proof unavailable.

If you are enjoying reading this article, please check out Southwest Farm Press Daily and receive the latest news right to your inbox.

Refuting with evidence any of his assertions would be an exercise in futility because he has no desire to consider anything other than his own uninformed opinion. Where does he get his information? Not from reputable science.  Maybe the internet: If it’s on the internet it has to be true, right?

The comment, sadly, is indicative of what agriculture faces in an era in which information, opinion and outright falsehoods, are distributed with no regard for authenticity, no editor to fact check, no credible filter to separate the wheat from the chaff. And too much chaff makes it into the flour.

I suppose this commenter buys all his food at the supermarket and needs no assistance from agriculture. As long as he has clothing stores why should he be concerned about cotton or wool for his clothing or leather for his shoes?

Or maybe he would prefer to import all his food and fiber from China—no pollution there and food safety is never an issue.

Since the writer has enough energy to type a note, one must assume that he is eating regularly, so he owes more to America’s farmers than he’s willing to admit. And because of those farmers he has the time and technology to send me stupid comments.

Farmers and ranchers are the backbone of the nation

 

Also of interest:

It’s back to school for farmers and ranchers

Texas A&M pays homage to Dr. Norman E. Borlaug on 100th birthday

Ag law tabbed “Almost a Miracle,” by Chairman Lucas

Discuss this Blog Entry 3

on Mar 31, 2014

First I must compliment you on a clifthanger of an opener. I HAD to read the post. Great writer. As to the content, you said the comment was anonymous. So how do you know some stupid left wing idiot wrote it. MAYBE, like in the last election campaign, a well paid right wing hack wrote it to discredit the environmentalist. So, someone has pushed your button. My farmer father used to say that if we have to give up pesticides and fertilizer, list the tens of millions you choose to starve. Now it would be hundreds of millions. So we need our farmers and they need the tools that are necessary to feed a still growing world population. Yet, we do need to recognize our water, and air pollution that are by products. Also, although it's not calculus, we do need to recognize the growing threat of global warming and climate change, Perhaps an intelligent review of scientific facts and agreement would lead to less stupidity and name calling. so blog on and enlighten us.

on Mar 31, 2014

Cindi,
I don't assume a left wing idiot or a right wing hack wrote the comment. Also, I don't care. I do care about the misinformation. And I agree with you that climate change and global warming are real and that we need to take precautions. I heard a meteorologist comment recently that he doesn't care what causes climate change because the response should be the same either way. I also believe that farmers are as environmentally aware and more active than most self-proclaimed activists who would take away the tools necessary to produce food. I also agree that someone pushed my button; it gets pushed a lot--from far left and far right and sometimes from the middle. We need safeguards, we need regulations, we need effective tools to improve farm efficiency. And we need to protect the environment.
Thanks for your thoughtful and perceptive comment.
Ron

on Mar 31, 2014

Man, what an ignoramus! Where did they get all that junk?
I guess the EPA calling atrazine an endocrine disruptor and USA farmers using over 10 million TONS of it a year wouldn't count towards causing cancer throughout the entire USA, right? Cause we all KNOW what an endocrine disruptor is, right? And it has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation, right?
And the NCI claiming higher cancer rates of ALL cancers on farms, accounting for over 75% of the land use in the USA, wouldn't count either: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/ahs
Equally stupid data: "...Based on a model adjusting for age, ethnicity, education, and respondent status, there was evidence of a two-fold excess risk of prostate cancer among farmers with substantial exposure to pesticides [odds ratio (OR)=2.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1–5.1], as compared to unexposed farmers. ..."
from : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2687920/
You really should refute their claims showing how utterly ignorant they are of the real truth....
uh-oh; I also found this: "...We found significant associations between cutaneous melanoma and maneb/mancozeb (63 exposure days: OR = 2.4; 95% CI, 1.2–4.9; trend p = 0.006), parathion (≥ 56 exposure days: OR = 2.4; 95% CI, 1.3–4.4; trend p = 0.003), and carbaryl (≥ 56 exposure days: OR = 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1–2.5; trend p = 0.013). Other associations with benomyl and ever use of arsenical pesticides were also suggested..."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=10.1289/ehp.0901518
darn intrusive research! Like this: from our OWN government no less:
"... Children are at particularly high risk of developing cancer from pesticides as their bodies develop. Girls who were exposed to DDT before they reach puberty are five times more likely to develop breast cancer in middle age. When parents are exposed to pesticides before a child is conceived, that child's risk of cancer goes up. Pesticide exposures during pregnancy and throughout childhood also increase the risk of childhood cancer. Farmers, farm-workers and their families tend to be exposed to more pesticides than the general population, and experience higher rates of a number of cancers:

Farmers and pesticide applicators have higher rates of prostate cancer.
Women who work with pesticides suffer more often from ovarian cancer.
Crop-duster pilots and farm women have higher rates of melanoma and other skin cancers.
..."
source: http://www.panna.org/your-health/cancer
And those communist left-wingers probably did this research too:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/food/risks.htm
wait, that was the US government too.
hmmmm..... can you again show us where all that "refuting" research showing that Ag doesn't cause cancer, it doesn't pollute the waterways and that farmers aren't to blame is... not that I don't just BELIEVE you because you wrote it on the internet or anything.....

And to quote the EPA NWQR "...In thirty-three states, nonpoint source (ag) pollution is the most significant form of pollution affecting streams and rivers, and in Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, and Wisconsin, nonpoint source (Ag) pollution accounts for over 90% of stream and river pollution..." Nope: discount that junk information too.

Please or Register to post comments.

What's Farm Press Blog?

The Farm Press Daily Blog

Connect With Us
Blog Archive
Continuing Education Courses
This CE course is accredited for hours in Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico. The content focuses...
New Course
The 2,000 member Weed Science Society of America’s (WSSA) Herbicide Resistance Action...
New Course
The course details six of the primary diseases affecting citrus: Huanglongbing (Citrus...

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×