3 ms·
He said kids toys are a bad example because wood toys are meaningfully distinct from non-wood toys, and then explained how they are in fact not meaningfully dis
by com2kid 2y ago
He said kids toys are a bad example because wood toys are meaningfully distinct from non-wood toys, and then explained how they are in fact not meaningfully distinct beyond a superficial level, which I brought back around to the differences between organic/non-organic food (e.g. feel good and possibly environmentalism).
All that said, my initial reply was wrong because I ignored the "certification movements" part of the phrase I quoted (I honestly didn't notice that) and beyond fear mongering amongst parents (which is pretty easy to do from a marketing standpoint), I also cannot think of any other examples!
- Dylan16807 2y ago> then explained how they are in fact not meaningfully distinct beyond a superficial level Which part of the comment did this? I don't see it. The second line you quoted definitely doesn't do that. It talks about the environmental/pollution factor being small, but the environmental/pollution factor is not why they said the toys are meaningfully distinct. The factors making them meaningfully distinct don't get elaborated on at all, let alone elaborated on in a way that contradicts the original claim.