171–180 of 237 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jesus this is a stupid argument. "Don’t dump chemicals in water or on land" is a perfectly logical and defensible statement.
Is water a chemical? How about nitrogen, which comprises 3/4 of our atmosphere?
See how that works?
Real productive mode of conversation, huh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No its not. Its an absurd statement that doesn't adequately define chemicals, water, or land nor does it address the very necessary industrial processes wherein 'chemicals' are and need to be dumped on water or land. A trivial for instance: Okay, no more fertilizer on the crops then. Enjoy the famine.
Obviously it's broad and there will be many exceptions. The exceptions are often the interesting part of the discussion. Words have different meanings in different contexts. Pretending that "chemicals" can only ever be used to refer to all material substances equally is just intentionally trying to sabotage productive discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A lot of care goes into their disposal or recycle. Are you aware of the usage of PFAS in textiles, food packaging, and waterproof-treated goods? I'm a little confused what you mean by care goes into their disposal. PFAS treatments on textiles for example are disposed of by pouring down a washing machine drain into municipal sewers and from there into natural waterways. Because of the "forever", small amounts add up…
> Are you aware of the usage of PFAS in textiles, food packaging, and waterproof-treated goods? No, because that's not true. Teflon (the substance used widely in waterproof goods and food packaging) is not the same thing as PFAS [1] (which is actually not one thing, but a whole class of things). Teflon is PTFE [2], which is different. The terminology being casually flung around this issue is misleading. Certain PFAS…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A lot of care goes into their disposal or recycle. Are you aware of the usage of PFAS in textiles, food packaging, and waterproof-treated goods? I'm a little confused what you mean by care goes into their disposal. PFAS treatments on textiles for example are disposed of by pouring down a washing machine drain into municipal sewers and from there into natural waterways. Because of the "forever", small amounts add up…
> Are you aware of the usage of PFAS in textiles, food packaging, and waterproof-treated goods? No, because that's not true. Teflon (the substance used widely in waterproof goods and food packaging) is not the same thing as PFAS [1] (which is actually not one thing, but a whole class of things). Teflon is PTFE [2], which is different. The terminology being casually flung around this issue is misleading. Certain PFAS…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, and we've seen some pervasive changes about people in the past decade. Just because people made those changes to their bodies their identity, doesn't mean that those changes haven't happened.
Is... is this about trans people? Am I understanding you correctly? Are you suggesting a causal relationship between the use of PFAS and the visibility of trans people in society?
Good step, but companies will find untested alternatives. “9 out of 12,000”
[flagged]
(Also, look at how old my account is and consider whether or not I care about your downvote. Reply with something that directly refutes the point I'm making so we can have the vibrant discussion this website used to be known for. Downvotes are simply pathetic attempts to silence correct views. Intellectuals have discussions, not censor their opponents. Only the most indefensible and mediocre positions depend on censorship. It also explains why the most unimpressive people depend on it.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No its not. Its an absurd statement that doesn't adequately define chemicals, water, or land nor does it address the very necessary industrial processes wherein 'chemicals' are and need to be dumped on water or land. A trivial for instance: Okay, no more fertilizer on the crops then. Enjoy the famine.
Obviously it's broad and there will be many exceptions. The exceptions are often the interesting part of the discussion. Words have different meanings in different contexts. Pretending that "chemicals" can only ever be used to refer to all material substances equally is just intentionally trying to sabotage productive discussion.
Well define it then.
Nobody is complaing that there might be an alternative definition of chemical.
The complaint is that you're not using any widely known definition of "chemical" and not providing your own definition.
You can shut everyone up by just defining how you are using the word. I doubt you will since i think you are lying about there existing some other definition that makes sense in the context you are arguing, and you lack the knowledge/ability to make up your own definition that would fit your argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously it's broad and there will be many exceptions. The exceptions are often the interesting part of the discussion. Words have different meanings in different contexts. Pretending that "chemicals" can only ever be used to refer to all material substances equally is just intentionally trying to sabotage productive discussion.
> Words have different meanings in different contexts Well define it then. Nobody is complaing that there might be an alternative definition of chemical. The complaint is that you're not using any widely known definition of "chemical" and not providing your own definition. You can shut everyone up by just defining how you are using the word. I doubt you will since i think you are lying about there existing some other…
Now would you like to discuss which "substances produced by chemical processes" are likely to be the most impactful upon the environment, or would you like to continue quibbling over semantics?
chemical [ kem-i-kuhl ]SHOW IPA
noun
a substance produced by or used in a chemical process.
chemicals, Slang. narcotic or mind-altering drugs or substances.
adjective
of, used in, produced by, or concerned with chemistry or chemicals: a chemical formula; chemical agents.
used in chemical warfare: chemical weapons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously it's broad and there will be many exceptions. The exceptions are often the interesting part of the discussion. Words have different meanings in different contexts. Pretending that "chemicals" can only ever be used to refer to all material substances equally is just intentionally trying to sabotage productive discussion.
The usage of chemicals is so broad and incorrect as to be inane in historical context and rhetorically useless, as demonstrated previously. If there's something to discuss regulating, then is necessary to describe it, otherwise all that's been said is 'BAD THINGS' shouldnt be put on the ground. A: duh B: meaningless, because "bad things" doesn't create a basis for a rule or judgement of aforementioned exceptions be b…
How can this be a debate? This stuff has broadly poisoned the water supplies of entire regions in a way that won’t be easy to fix and they are still debating. Is that really the line?
Look at this map.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00502
Look at the known effects: