3 ms·

it's definitionally non-zero. control what you have control over.

Hackbraten 3y ago
This so much. It’s a little like democratic elections. A single vote has negligible impact, but all those single votes combined? They have the power to make or break the future of a country. An individual decision not to use plastic is not unlike that.
- dwaite 3y ago
  This implies that my use or not affects other people and not solely myself. Awaiting numbers as to how much plastics in the water which comes out of my tap is from washed microwaved plastics.
eviks 3y ago
Then change your definition to something useful. I care about impact on human health, so if you reduce (via personal choice) exposure by 1 out of 10, but 5 is enough to seriously impact you and anything above 5 but below 100 has no additional impact, then you've achieved 0
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  > anything above 5 but below 100 has no additional impact not sure where you got this part from, but your entire argument depends on it being true, and it isn't reminds me of the people who said facemasks and vaccines do nothing (meaning literally 0% effect) because they weren't 100% perfect virus force fields
  - eviks 3y ago
    Another one missing simple logic: no, it's irrelevant for my argument whether this is true, it only serves to illustrate the point that "by definition" claim was wrong since it entirely depends on the level of poison and the reduction possible at the individual level And you claim that it isn't true makes no sense either since this isn't a claim about a fact that can be true or false
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      Not irrelevant. By definition, non-zero does indeed mean not zero, so that person's claim wasn't wrong, either > you claim that it isn't true makes no sense either since this isn't a claim about a fact that can be true or false actually, it makes total sense, because your factual claim was that, for a nonzero number, "you've achieved 0", which is obviously wrong. It's simple logic, friend. maybe try tying your post back to reality, where the effect isn't actually zero? Fill in the analogy, since it's clear we can reduce our microplastic exposure a non-zero amount (your personal opinion that it's not enough for you is what is irrelevant here)
      - eviks 3y ago
        That wasn't my claim, you keep confusing non0 reduction with 0 effect on human health

This so much. It’s a little like democratic elections. A single vote has negligible impact, but all those single votes combined? They have the power to make or break the future of a country. An individual decision not to use plastic is not unlike that.

dwaite 3y ago
This implies that my use or not affects other people and not solely myself. Awaiting numbers as to how much plastics in the water which comes out of my tap is from washed microwaved plastics.

eviks 3y ago

Then change your definition to something useful. I care about impact on human health, so if you reduce (via personal choice) exposure by 1 out of 10, but 5 is enough to seriously impact you and anything above 5 but below 100 has no additional impact, then you've achieved 0

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
> anything above 5 but below 100 has no additional impact not sure where you got this part from, but your entire argument depends on it being true, and it isn't reminds me of the people who said facemasks and vaccines do nothing (meaning literally 0% effect) because they weren't 100% perfect virus force fields
- eviks 3y ago
  Another one missing simple logic: no, it's irrelevant for my argument whether this is true, it only serves to illustrate the point that "by definition" claim was wrong since it entirely depends on the level of poison and the reduction possible at the individual level And you claim that it isn't true makes no sense either since this isn't a claim about a fact that can be true or false
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    Not irrelevant. By definition, non-zero does indeed mean not zero, so that person's claim wasn't wrong, either > you claim that it isn't true makes no sense either since this isn't a claim about a fact that can be true or false actually, it makes total sense, because your factual claim was that, for a nonzero number, "you've achieved 0", which is obviously wrong. It's simple logic, friend. maybe try tying your post back to reality, where the effect isn't actually zero? Fill in the analogy, since it's clear we can reduce our microplastic exposure a non-zero amount (your personal opinion that it's not enough for you is what is irrelevant here)
    - eviks 3y ago
      That wasn't my claim, you keep confusing non0 reduction with 0 effect on human health