4 ms·
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 wa
by 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 agoNot 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 agoThat wasn't my claim, you keep confusing non0 reduction with 0 effect on human health