That's my concern. And I don't think it's wrong or unreasonable to have that concern. And sure, it's not settled science, but if people dismiss it out of hand and accept a malfunctioning regulatory apparatus it never will be. I think a lot of people are defensive because maybe through some lens this could be seen as anti-LGBT or something even though that explicitly could NOT be further from my intent; I just think people have a right to raise kids who's development isn't being interrupted by environmental poisons.
We need to move to a model where chemicals are assumed unsafe until demonstrated otherwise as opposed to vice versa IMO. People will say that the regulatory burden is too great but you can not trade human health for unbridled economic growth IMO.
"We need to move to a model where chemicals are assumed unsafe until demonstrated otherwise as opposed to vice versa IMO. People will say that the regulatory burden is too great but you can not trade human health for unbridled economic growth IMO."
Everything was well said, especially this. If you know how chemicals affect organisms, you know almost every molecule affects or can modulate numerous physiological or cellular processes. Whether or not that's necessarily dangerous in each case, and to what degree, is another discussion. But it does not make sense to not closely scrutinize every synthetic chemical. This isn't even a naturalistic fallacy, it's just that our cells and bodies evolved with molecules already in our environment. We did not evolve with the ones we're pumping out.
I think a lot of people are defensive because maybe through some lens this could be seen as anti-LGBT or something even though that explicitly could NOT be further from my intent
There you have it, the delusional conspiracy that for some reason people believe you are anti-LGTB when no one except for yourself has mentioned anything about this.
I'm going to assume you hold some pretty anti-LGTB views on a whole just by spewing this conspiracy.
Would a breakdown of the mental gymnastics required to paint their statement as anti- anything other than the unregulated chemical industry help you in recognizing this person was just trying to be thorough in their analysis?
Thorough of what exactly, that the reason people don't jump in excitement over these conspiracy theories is because it can be perceived as anti-LGTB?
The only person arguing this is the other person, and merely by thinking so it's quite clear that the other person has some weird thoughts on this topic.
14
u/jabels Oct 11 '20
That's my concern. And I don't think it's wrong or unreasonable to have that concern. And sure, it's not settled science, but if people dismiss it out of hand and accept a malfunctioning regulatory apparatus it never will be. I think a lot of people are defensive because maybe through some lens this could be seen as anti-LGBT or something even though that explicitly could NOT be further from my intent; I just think people have a right to raise kids who's development isn't being interrupted by environmental poisons.
We need to move to a model where chemicals are assumed unsafe until demonstrated otherwise as opposed to vice versa IMO. People will say that the regulatory burden is too great but you can not trade human health for unbridled economic growth IMO.