My whole point was that “the proper definition” of a word changes based on context or domain.
“Field” can mean a place where you grow crops, or a place where you play sports. Which one is “the proper definition”?
“Organic” has multiple “proper definitions” based on what you’re talking about.
Also, it does not mean “natural” in marketing terms. “Natural” has no regulatory definition; “organic” does.
I’m not arguing that we can’t approve improve the agricultural systems writ large. That’s something that we must do. But complaining about organic farming is something I mostly hear from conservatives who also deny climate change and think industrial farming is the only way to feed a civilization.
I like how you want to lecture about context or domain and then say organic is not meant to mean natural in marketing terms. You clearly don’t get it. That is okay.
I am not fucking complaining. This is called criticism. Stop carrying water for organic farming techniques. To say we can develop something far better is a dramatic understatement.
Context does matter. I’m sure when I select “organic tree supports” in the slicer software for 3D printing, it’s not talking about organic chemistry. It’s talking about organic geometry.
When you say a group or event develops organically, you’re not talking about chemistry. You’re talking about how it wasn’t centrally planned but more grew on its own.
It’s not that strange for a word to have multiple potential definitions depending on how it’s being used, so talking about the definition of organic used in chemistry to refute all other uses of the term, as if it were the only possible definition, is not a good argument.
And it’s hilarious that you’re trying to draw a false equivalence between “organic” and “natural” when one has a precise regulatory definition, and the other doesn’t.
Anyway, you’re on a thread about the trump admin approving dangerous chemicals for use in food production. If those chemicals somehow make their way onto a list of being approved for organic produce, I’ll eat my shoes.
What part of regulatory definition do you not understand?
The only one acting like a “moron” is the one reduced so far as to rely on that as an insult to deflect from their inability to refute my point.
You made a lot of red herrings to try to bait me into a defensive position. I only bothered addressing the parts that were relevant to the points that I actually made.
I never said anything about regulatory definition. Your reading comprehension isn’t that great I guess. You making a point about something unrelated doesn’t exactly add to the conversation. But thanks for the information I already knew.
I apologize if insulting your behavior hurt your feelings.
I never said anything about regulatory definition.
I did, and you’ve been conveniently ignoring that instead of addressing the points I actually made. Have you forgotten who posted the top-level comment here? This chain is you replying to me, dude. You don’t get to decide what this argument is about just to make me seem in a weaker position. You don’t decide what my argument is just because the one I’m actually making is too hard for you to refute.
You making a point about something unrelated doesn’t exactly add to the conversation.
That’s exactly what you’re doing. Projection in a nutshell.
I apologize if insulting your behavior hurt your feelings.
My feelings aren’t hurt, I’m simply pointing out that you apparently don’t have any good-faith arguments left because you’ve resorted to projection, strawmen, and namecalling.
Listen, you don’t have a point anymore. If you had something to add other than a feeble attempt at contradiction then we could of had a lovely conversation. Your behavior is definitely an issue. Cheers!
My whole point was that “the proper definition” of a word changes based on context or domain.
“Field” can mean a place where you grow crops, or a place where you play sports. Which one is “the proper definition”?
“Organic” has multiple “proper definitions” based on what you’re talking about.
Also, it does not mean “natural” in marketing terms. “Natural” has no regulatory definition; “organic” does.
I’m not arguing that we can’t
approveimprove the agricultural systems writ large. That’s something that we must do. But complaining about organic farming is something I mostly hear from conservatives who also deny climate change and think industrial farming is the only way to feed a civilization.I like how you want to lecture about context or domain and then say organic is not meant to mean natural in marketing terms. You clearly don’t get it. That is okay.
https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2019/09/organic-vegetables-and-fruits-are-a-marketing-ploy
I am not fucking complaining. This is called criticism. Stop carrying water for organic farming techniques. To say we can develop something far better is a dramatic understatement.
Context does matter. I’m sure when I select “organic tree supports” in the slicer software for 3D printing, it’s not talking about organic chemistry. It’s talking about organic geometry.
When you say a group or event develops organically, you’re not talking about chemistry. You’re talking about how it wasn’t centrally planned but more grew on its own.
It’s not that strange for a word to have multiple potential definitions depending on how it’s being used, so talking about the definition of organic used in chemistry to refute all other uses of the term, as if it were the only possible definition, is not a good argument.
And it’s hilarious that you’re trying to draw a false equivalence between “organic” and “natural” when one has a precise regulatory definition, and the other doesn’t.
Anyway, you’re on a thread about the trump admin approving dangerous chemicals for use in food production. If those chemicals somehow make their way onto a list of being approved for organic produce, I’ll eat my shoes.
What part of marketing do you not understand!?
Please lecture me more on context. You are acting like a moron at this point.
Anyway, I made some points and you said what you said. Cheers!
What part of regulatory definition do you not understand?
The only one acting like a “moron” is the one reduced so far as to rely on that as an insult to deflect from their inability to refute my point.
You made a lot of red herrings to try to bait me into a defensive position. I only bothered addressing the parts that were relevant to the points that I actually made.
I never said anything about regulatory definition. Your reading comprehension isn’t that great I guess. You making a point about something unrelated doesn’t exactly add to the conversation. But thanks for the information I already knew.
I apologize if insulting your behavior hurt your feelings.
I did, and you’ve been conveniently ignoring that instead of addressing the points I actually made. Have you forgotten who posted the top-level comment here? This chain is you replying to me, dude. You don’t get to decide what this argument is about just to make me seem in a weaker position. You don’t decide what my argument is just because the one I’m actually making is too hard for you to refute.
That’s exactly what you’re doing. Projection in a nutshell.
My feelings aren’t hurt, I’m simply pointing out that you apparently don’t have any good-faith arguments left because you’ve resorted to projection, strawmen, and namecalling.
Listen, you don’t have a point anymore. If you had something to add other than a feeble attempt at contradiction then we could of had a lovely conversation. Your behavior is definitely an issue. Cheers!
That’s great, real great. Now go find a mirror, look into it, and say that again, word-for-word.