5 ms·

Jesus this is a stupid argument. "Don’t dump chemicals in water or on land" is a perfectly logical and defensible statement.

hcurtiss 3y ago
Is water a chemical? How about nitrogen, which comprises 3/4 of our atmosphere?
- edgyquant 3y ago
  You know what was meant and this question is the perfect example of someone who is bad faith actor and we should jail for pretending to not get it. Water is a necessity to life and what humans drink, toxic chemicals aren’t. It’s simple, if it isn’t water don’t dump it, period.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- marshray 3y ago
  Is Bose–Einstein condensate a chemical? How about Neutronium? See how that works? Real productive mode of conversation, huh.
  - hcurtiss 3y ago
    I’m just trying to understand what “don’t dump chemicals in water or on land” even means. If nitrogen and water are OK, then the directive is plainly wrong. What else would be OK? And how would we make that decision?
    - paulmd 3y ago
      > I’m just trying to understand what “don’t dump chemicals in water or on land” even means. classic bad-faith interpretation, using the classic bad-faith slogan. No, you’re not “just trying to understand” anything, and GP is absolutely correct about that. We are not dying for content here without your “hurr durr don’t you know water is a chemical posts, and we generally try to maintain a higher level of discourse here. Maybe try Reddit instead. Please see the site rules about using the most generous possible interpretation of a comment, and if you actually have something to contribute then maybe try again.
      - amarant 3y ago
        The comment that spurred this conversation did claim that the problem was overly complicated legislation to a simple problem. "Don't dump chemicals" is about as good a solution as "don't do bad things". You can't oversimplify a complex issue like that and expect to get anywhere. I'm being plenty charitable in assuming you're arguing in good faith, at first glance your comment comes off as anti-intellectual value signalling, which will never ever solve anything. Ever. But this is HN, so I'm going to assume you've simply misunderstood the concern, as anti intellectualism has no place here.
      - hcurtiss 3y ago
        How about anhydrous ammonia? Or phosphate? I’m sorry, but there is no generous interpretation of “don’t dump chemicals on land.” It’s an empty statement that amounts to little more than value signaling. And it was presented with righteous indignation. I thought it best to counter that extreme position with obvious and irrefutable exceptions in an effort to open the door to a more thoughtful conversation. Unfortunately, on environmental issues, it seems for some there is only dogma.
      - epcoa 3y ago
        This is completely uncalled for. You should be ashamed. Ok so dump water. How about detergents with phosphates. Those were fine until they weren’t.
    - edgyquant 3y ago
      Nah you’re playing stupid in bad faith.
    - Bluecobra 3y ago
      Well for starters, maybe it was a bad idea to dump 27,000 barrels of DDT in the ocean near Los Angeles. https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-05-18/heres-what-we-know-about-the-legacy-of-ddt-dumping-near-catalina https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-05-18/heres-w...
thereisnospork 3y ago
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.
- marshray 3y ago
  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.
  - thereisnospork 3y ago
    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 because here 'chemicals' are already being assigned the negative connotation. No true chemical (Scotsman fallacy) could be put on the ground and so forth.
    - marshray 3y ago
      So how would you say it instead?
  - bawolff 3y ago
    > 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 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.

hcurtiss 3y ago

Is water a chemical? How about nitrogen, which comprises 3/4 of our atmosphere?

edgyquant 3y ago
You know what was meant and this question is the perfect example of someone who is bad faith actor and we should jail for pretending to not get it. Water is a necessity to life and what humans drink, toxic chemicals aren’t. It’s simple, if it isn’t water don’t dump it, period.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
marshray 3y ago
Is Bose–Einstein condensate a chemical? How about Neutronium? See how that works? Real productive mode of conversation, huh.
- hcurtiss 3y ago
  I’m just trying to understand what “don’t dump chemicals in water or on land” even means. If nitrogen and water are OK, then the directive is plainly wrong. What else would be OK? And how would we make that decision?
  - paulmd 3y ago
    > I’m just trying to understand what “don’t dump chemicals in water or on land” even means. classic bad-faith interpretation, using the classic bad-faith slogan. No, you’re not “just trying to understand” anything, and GP is absolutely correct about that. We are not dying for content here without your “hurr durr don’t you know water is a chemical posts, and we generally try to maintain a higher level of discourse here. Maybe try Reddit instead. Please see the site rules about using the most generous possible interpretation of a comment, and if you actually have something to contribute then maybe try again.
    - amarant 3y ago
      The comment that spurred this conversation did claim that the problem was overly complicated legislation to a simple problem. "Don't dump chemicals" is about as good a solution as "don't do bad things". You can't oversimplify a complex issue like that and expect to get anywhere. I'm being plenty charitable in assuming you're arguing in good faith, at first glance your comment comes off as anti-intellectual value signalling, which will never ever solve anything. Ever. But this is HN, so I'm going to assume you've simply misunderstood the concern, as anti intellectualism has no place here.
    - hcurtiss 3y ago
      How about anhydrous ammonia? Or phosphate? I’m sorry, but there is no generous interpretation of “don’t dump chemicals on land.” It’s an empty statement that amounts to little more than value signaling. And it was presented with righteous indignation. I thought it best to counter that extreme position with obvious and irrefutable exceptions in an effort to open the door to a more thoughtful conversation. Unfortunately, on environmental issues, it seems for some there is only dogma.
    - epcoa 3y ago
      This is completely uncalled for. You should be ashamed. Ok so dump water. How about detergents with phosphates. Those were fine until they weren’t.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    Nah you’re playing stupid in bad faith.
  - Bluecobra 3y ago
    Well for starters, maybe it was a bad idea to dump 27,000 barrels of DDT in the ocean near Los Angeles. https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-05-18/heres-what-we-know-about-the-legacy-of-ddt-dumping-near-catalina https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-05-18/heres-w...

thereisnospork 3y ago

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.

marshray 3y ago
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.
- thereisnospork 3y ago
  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 because here 'chemicals' are already being assigned the negative connotation. No true chemical (Scotsman fallacy) could be put on the ground and so forth.
  - marshray 3y ago
    So how would you say it instead?
- bawolff 3y ago
  > 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 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.