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!
RetroFed
Share on Mastodon
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsApp
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.
Ohh wow, this kid pulls out I am rubber you are glue.
I wasn’t prepared for that. You win good sir!
People who rely on projection seem to have it so easy when they can just pull out the sarcastic “no u” as soon as they get called out on it.
This isn’t much different…
Still nothing to say, no surprise.
Yeah, you’re still talking about yourself. This conversation’s been at a dead end for a while now.
Not surprised you live on a dead end street.
Sick burn, dude
Totally tubular.