2 ms·

Are you purposely being pedantic? Or are you really having trouble differentiating what I mean by "chemical-free" foods from the literal fact that everything co

Are you purposely being pedantic? Or are you really having trouble differentiating what I mean by "chemical-free" foods from the literal fact that everything consists of chemicals? EDIT: Removed snark.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Or are you really having trouble differentiating what I mean by "chemical-free" foods from the literal fact that everything consists of chemicals? You obviously mean something other than "chemical" when you say chemical, but there isn't any really clear definition of what it is. AFAICT, when people use this phrasing, they are appealing to one of a wide array of different (but stylistically similar) mythologies that some point in the past had the ideal level of technical involvement with food, but using language that is completely inappropriate, probably because it creates the impression that there is a real objective concrete differentiation that doesn't actually exist -- that there is some well-defined category of "bad thing" that is being excluded when that is the farthest thing from the case. Although, sometimes, the inappropriate language seems to be used instead just to make it impossible to discuss the whole subject meaningfully, since any disagreement with what is actually said is treated as missing the point obscured by the language -- which is never actually clarified so that it can be addressed.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >AFAICT, when people use this phrasing, they are appealing to one of a wide array of different (but stylistically similar) mythologies... So, then you knew all the while that I was obviously referring to certain chemical additives and not just chemicals. Yet, you replied with the obvious statement that "everything is made of chemicals". This kind of pedantry is what really makes meaningful discusion difficult. >sometimes, the inappropriate language seems to be used instead just to make it impossible to discuss the whole subject meaningfully, since any disagreement with what is actually said is treated as missing the point obscured by the language No. The reason it was impossible to discuss meaningfully is not because of how "any disagreement [was] treated". It's because you didn't actually disagree. Instead, you interpreted the comment literally and complained about it being a "nonsense phrase", even when you understood perfectly well what was meant. You then went on a tangent about chemicals and how they work. If, instead, your assertion is that there are no harmful chemicals in our food supply or that there is no difference between eating organic foods vs. processed foods with chemical additives, then you should have stated as much. All of this is tangential to the main point, however, which is that, while Soylent may not be the perfect food replacement, it is likely a step up for most people whose diets are suboptimal for any number of reasons.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Or are you really having trouble differentiating what I mean by "chemical-free" foods from the literal fact that everything consists of chemicals? You obviously mean something other than "chemical" when you say chemical, but there isn't any really clear definition of what it is. AFAICT, when people use this phrasing, they are appealing to one of a wide array of different (but stylistically similar) mythologies that some point in the past had the ideal level of technical involvement with food, but using language that is completely inappropriate, probably because it creates the impression that there is a real objective concrete differentiation that doesn't actually exist -- that there is some well-defined category of "bad thing" that is being excluded when that is the farthest thing from the case. Although, sometimes, the inappropriate language seems to be used instead just to make it impossible to discuss the whole subject meaningfully, since any disagreement with what is actually said is treated as missing the point obscured by the language -- which is never actually clarified so that it can be addressed.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
>AFAICT, when people use this phrasing, they are appealing to one of a wide array of different (but stylistically similar) mythologies... So, then you knew all the while that I was obviously referring to certain chemical additives and not just chemicals. Yet, you replied with the obvious statement that "everything is made of chemicals". This kind of pedantry is what really makes meaningful discusion difficult. >sometimes, the inappropriate language seems to be used instead just to make it impossible to discuss the whole subject meaningfully, since any disagreement with what is actually said is treated as missing the point obscured by the language No. The reason it was impossible to discuss meaningfully is not because of how "any disagreement [was] treated". It's because you didn't actually disagree. Instead, you interpreted the comment literally and complained about it being a "nonsense phrase", even when you understood perfectly well what was meant. You then went on a tangent about chemicals and how they work. If, instead, your assertion is that there are no harmful chemicals in our food supply or that there is no difference between eating organic foods vs. processed foods with chemical additives, then you should have stated as much. All of this is tangential to the main point, however, which is that, while Soylent may not be the perfect food replacement, it is likely a step up for most people whose diets are suboptimal for any number of reasons.