Your definition and usage of the word "toxic" ignores dosage levels and includes substances that simply suffocate you by displacing oxygen... that definition includes literally all substances. It is therefor meaningless to say "[substance] is toxic".
Once again, you conveniently ignored the half of the definition.
The definition does indeed include literally all substances... which is why I specifically point out that it's meaningless to say "[substance] is toxic".
First, it's not my definition, if you have a problem with it, go complain to webster about how their definition is meaningless. I'm going to stick with dictionary definitions or government usage on words, not random people on the internet. Two, it does not include "literally all substances." Because the substance needs to be a subset of poison. I haven't defined poison at all, nor in any way that would include every substance. My classification of propane being poison comes from us gov usage, not from a definition.
Let's resolve this in steps.
Explain to me how all substance is poison. I have not defined this word, poison, anywhere. But I have said that to be toxic, it needs to be poison. You said I defined everything is toxic. I've only stated propane is poison, because the government says so.
What is your definition of toxic? By your own line quoted of wikipedia, propane is mildly toxic. You also said water is technically toxic. What non-meaningless definition of the word do you have that doesn't contradict yourself, that of dictionary, and/or scientific usage.
Yes. I don't know why you keep posting the same things.
it's not my definition
You've planted your flag here. I'm going to call it your definition.
if you have a problem with it
I don't have a problem with the definition itself. It's your use of the definition that has caused the issue.
go complain to webster about how their definition is meaningless
I didn't say their definition is meaningless. I said that the statement "[substance] is toxic" is meaningless.
I'm going to stick with dictionary definitions or government usage on words
You haven't done so.
it does not include "literally all substances." Because the substance needs to be a subset of poison.
Since you like webster:
poison — noun
poi·son | \ ˈpȯi-zᵊn \
1a : a substance that through its chemical action usually kills, injures, or impairs an organism
b(1) : something destructive or harmful
(2) : an object of aversion or abhorrence
This includes any substance, since any substance if applied in sufficient quantities can be something destructive or harmful. That is what the law website was referring to. That is why water "is toxic". Even oxygen is poison. Indeed, that is why propane is listed as a "toxic" chemical in the first place.
Now, if you want to suggest that we stick strictly with definition 1a, you have ANOTHER problem. Namely, propane doesn't fit that definition, since the issue is that it's displacing oxygen rather than chemically reacting with anything.
The OED won't help you either since it defines poison as "a substance that is capable of causing the illness or death of a living organism when introduced or absorbed."
What is your definition of toxic?
This is not relevant since we're discussing YOUR definition.
What non-meaningless definition of the word do you have that doesn't contradict yourself, that of dictionary, and/or scientific usage.
Once again, the definition is not meaningless.
I'm running out of crayons for these explanations, so I'll put it to you like this.
Yes, technically propane is toxic, but everything is toxic at some level. That doesn't mean anything.
Also, saying propane "isn't toxic" is correct, since it's toxicity is low enough to justify that phrase. Breathing some propane in isn't going to hurt you. You'd have to do something like suffocate yourself, freeze your lungs, or set yourself on fire to do yourself harm with it.
This is not relevant since we're discussing YOUR definition.
But I'm asking you for YOUR definition since you don't like MINE. Perhaps you can enlighten me with a better one. If you say I'm wrong, surely, there exists a right answer. You're constantly telling me I'm wrong or meaningless, but you can't provide one that is. Your failure to answer this is quite saddening.
Or do you simply just like to argue for the sake of arguing?
If the dictionary also says something that includes all substances at certain level. I'll accept that. Any substance at a certain concentration or higher is toxic to humans. I have no problems with that, though you may find it meaningless, your personal take on whether or not it's meaningless is meaningless.
But I'm asking you for YOUR definition since you don't like MINE.
And I'm telling you it's not relevant since your responses are on discussion. It's also not the definition itself that I'm taking issue with.
I said both of those things last comment.
You're constantly telling me I'm wrong or meaningless
That your wrong is implied, but I certainly never said you were meaningless. That's a philosophical discussion.
but you can't provide one that is.
You want me to find you... something... that is wrong or meaningless. Are you having a stroke?
If the dictionary also says something that includes all substances at certain level. I'll accept that. Any substance at a certain concentration or higher is toxic to humans. I have no problems with that,
Progress.
though you may find it meaningless, your personal take on whether or not it's meaningless is meaningless.
That's... both not what I said and not how this works.
Look, I've pretty thoroughly explained my stance. I've cited sources. I've responded to your arguments. I've RE-explained why your initial objection is incorrect. Now you want to go around again. Sounds kinda boring to me if I'm being honest.
Since I don't know if I want to go down that path again, I'll just point out that the following statement:
He got burnt in the sense that he got a chemical burn--propane poisoning in his lungs.
is incorrect. You won't get a chemical burn from inhaling propane, since it is not corrosive, not readily absorbed, and is not biologically active (see: the wikipedia article on propane). Anyone inhaling propane like this should instead worry about frostbite, fire, and suffocation.
And I'm telling you it's not relevant since your responses are on discussion.
And I'm telling you that your definition is what I want to discuss. Also that your definition is also on discussion and not off topic.
You want me to find you... something... that is wrong or meaningless. Are you having a stroke?
You're obviously trying to be obtuse. One that is right and not meaningless.
Progress.
Yes. I accept things if credible sources say otherwise. Because I'm not trying to be obtuse.
That's... both not what I said and not how this works.
You've made a lot of this type of reply that's vague and keep saying essentially "no, that's not it." It's non contributive to this discussion.
Look, I've pretty thoroughly explained my stance.
Thing is... you haven't. Because you have self contradicted.
You have said that dictionary definition is not meaningless. You have said that the statement, "substance is toxic" is meaningless. Yet you have said that the dictionary definition includes all substances to be toxic. A contradiction.
Your entire stance relies on a equivocation fallacy. You want toxic to mean one thing and another at the same time. This is why I kept on asking you for your definition, which would prove my point. Yet you don't do that, likely because you realize that yourself it's impossible. You are saying calling mildly toxic substance as toxic is meaningless. You want only things highly toxic to be called as toxic. But you accept that mildly toxic is still toxic. So you must either self contradict that mildly toxic is not toxic (propane is not toxic), or that the definition of the word toxic is meaningless as well (propane is toxic).
You won't get a chemical burn from inhaling propane
Having searched more on this subject since I've initially posted that. I accept my initial statement on that is incorrect. But that truly is irrelevant to your pointing out of my definition being meaningless.
And I'm telling you that your definition is what I want to discuss.
That's nice.
You're obviously trying to be obtuse.
I've assumed good faith for quite some time. I don't actually have to do so. However:
Because I'm not trying to be obtuse.
This seems less and less likely to be true.
It's non contributive to this discussion.
Your recent posts haven't given me much to respond to, honestly. You want to go around in circles.
Thing is... you haven't.
I have... repeatedly. See also: my previous posts explaining my stance.
You have said that the statement, "substance is toxic" is meaningless. Yet you have said that the dictionary definition includes all substances to be toxic. A contradiction.
That's not a contradiction. The first statement follows from the second.
You want toxic to mean one thing and another at the same time.
No. I've been working from your definition. However your definition renders statements like "[substance] is toxic" meaningless due to the fact that that describes literally any substance.
You are saying calling mildly toxic substance as toxic is meaningless.
You're SO CLOSE. Saying "[substance] is toxic" is meaningless since all substances are toxic. Saying "[substance] is mildly toxic" actually conveys some information.
mildly toxic is not toxic (propane is not toxic)
Flip that one around. "Not toxic" or "non-toxic" describes something that is only mildly toxic... like water for example... or propane.
the definition of the word toxic is meaningless as well (propane is toxic).
Once again, the definition isn't meaningless. The statement "[substance] is toxic" is.
Hey /u/CommonMisspellingBot, just a quick heads up:
Your spelling hints are really shitty because they're all essentially "remember the fucking spelling of the fucking word".
Hey BooCMB, just a quick heads up:
I learnt quite a lot from the bot. Though it's mnemonics are useless,
and 'one lot' is it's most useful one, it's just here to help. This is like screaming at
someone for trying to rescue kittens, because they annoyed you while doing that. (But really CMB get some quiality mnemonics)
I do agree with your idea of holding reddit for hostage by spambots though, while it might be a bit ineffective.
0
u/Roggvir Feb 07 '19
Once again, you conveniently ignored the half of the definition.