No. I won’t change shit.

I know. Because you are so insecure that you need to be lonely and unloved. You need to be the victim.

I will never love myself, does that means I earned my loneliness?

It means you deserve loneliness. Because you didn’t take responsibility for doing the one MOST BASIC thing, which is to love yourself and believe in yourself. It doesn’t have to be perfect or 100% (in fact better not!) but you do have to be able to see the good in yourself such that you can have confidence others will see it too.

Instead you blame others for it and feel sorry for yourself. You don’t even seem to realize that it’s this fact and your lack of responsibility toward yourself that is the reason others may find it hard to love you.

You and only you are responsible for that. Fix that and you fill not be lonely. Nobody wants to be around someone like that.

This is your primary issue right here. You value yourself so little that the only value in life you see is in being in a relationship. Or to put it another way, you only see value in yourself when you think others value you. Which means, as others have alluded to and very much not coincidentally, that you will not be successful in a relationship. If you can’t accept and love yourself for who you are, others will inevitably have a hard time doing so as well.
Given your responses thus far you won’t take this well because you are convinced you know better. And that is your secondary issue.

To answer your question: It’s over-rated and not all it’s cracked up to be. It has benefits but so does being single.

But if you want to experience, stop feeling sorry for yourself. Grow up and learn to value you for who you are or nobody else will.

Leave?

I mean yeah… but I don’t know what that guy is doing there.

Maybe this doesn’t count but… I once had a manager who had “Master of All He Surveys” on his business card.

We didn’t get a long too well.

Jesus enslaves

“A certain way of communicating by text that is predominantly displayed by the geriatric population”

You don’t. It’s still a pointless unprovable stereotype.

I’m well aware that I’m somebody else’s elder. I meant it matter-of-factly, like “geriatric pregnancy”.

a) You made a gross generalization that cannot be attributed to a particular age group in a consistent, reproducible manner. “Old” in itself is of course an imprecise term use primarily in relative terms.
b) If as you assert, then you used the term incorrectly. The commonly accepted medical definition of “geriatric” is 65 years or older. When used in a general way to mean “aged” it is not “matter-of-fact” but a generalization and by it’s nature relative.

What you really mean is “people older than me that I find annoying” similar to “boomer” or, in your case, your specific non-factual and colloquial use of “geriatric”.

IOW, attributing your annoyance to some vague age group is roughly as ridiculous as attributing your annoyance to the color T-shirt someone is wearing. Or what country they come from, race they are… etc etc etc. It’s a pointless, meaningless, and often highly localized stereotype.

It’s not the attributes of the person, it’s the behavior.

ikr!

Has anyone else younger than 45 or so felt similarly frustrated with geriatrics’ messages?

What always makes me laugh about posts like this is the knowledge that soon you too will hit that terrible 45 and become “geriatric”. Your text messages and emails (how quaint) will suddenly become incomprehensible and everyone will claim you are giving them a stroke just by existing <rolls eyes>.

The clock is ticking… faster than you think.

That’s what you choose to end this seven hour conversation?

Yes. Because this did not qualify as a conversation.

just wanted to argue and get pedantic for whatever reason

You are the pedantic one. Have a nice day.

It really doesn’t though. If you point is… um… what exactly? That somehow the end result is the same? LOL. Only if you squint real hard and pretend to misunderstand words.

“Plant domestication by the earliest farmers 10,000 years ago is an example of genetic modification.”

Technically, yes. That’s true. Through DIFFERENT mechanisms.

But what do you expect when it’s brought to you by Cargill, Bayer, Syngenta, Nutrien, BASF… among others.

The article said they felt it could endanger their livelihood by crossing with cultivars they’d spent decades developing and which were uniquely valuable economically.

It’s the same outcome and you’re not getting that.

I just explained how it’s not and you’re not getting that.

Here, educate yourself: http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-gmo-and-selective-breeding/

The right way to do it would be to outcross Golden Rice with local strains

That this might happen is literally one of the specific complaints of farmers.

Greenpeace have genetic purity fanatics?

Were you trying to be funny or do you really think this is the motivation here? Did you even read the article?

It is selecting genes through breeding or doing the same thing in a laboratory.

It is a completely different mechanism. The best way to simply describe this is perhaps to say that in selective breeding you are allowing random mutations to happen naturally - IOW allowing the plant to naturally “adapt” to it’s environment. This is crucially different in that you are not going in and saying “oh these genes are the ones we want let’s only bring those out” but rather “these are the characteristics I want, let’s select the organisms that display those”.

To put it another way: in selective breeding you are selecting for a collection of characteristics. A great example is saving seed from a crop you have grown. Those seeds will always do better in your specific environment than commercially purchased seeds of the exact same cultivar. Why? Because there are small random mutations across a number of genes that are better adapted to your specific environment to produce the characteristics you want. Those genes are often not actually understood nor is the effect of different combinations of genes. By working backward from exhibited characteristics you are working from known successful combinations.

It all depends what your definition of genetic modification is.

No it doesn’t.

It’s a completely disingenuous argument and a false equivalency. We know that we are referring to GMO vs selective breeding. These are completely different mechanisms and in the latter case we understand the consequences and implications because humans have been doing it for millennia. In the former case we have not been doing it very long at all and do not yet fully understand the consequences and implications. I’m not saying that makes it inherently wrong, but it is a vast area of unknown ramifications. And given human’s already long history of fucking with nature and finding out my money is on those ramifications being less than ideal.