[thereisnospork]

No its not. Its an absurd statement that doesn't adequately define chemicals, water, or land nor does it address the very necessary industrial processes wherein 'chemicals' are and need to be dumped on water or land. A trivial for instance:

Okay, no more fertilizer on the crops then. Enjoy the famine.

[marshray]

Obviously it's broad and there will be many exceptions. The exceptions are often the interesting part of the discussion.

Words have different meanings in different contexts. Pretending that "chemicals" can only ever be used to refer to all material substances equally is just intentionally trying to sabotage productive discussion.

[thereisnospork]

The usage of chemicals is so broad and incorrect as to be inane in historical context and rhetorically useless, as demonstrated previously. If there's something to discuss regulating, then is necessary to describe it, otherwise all that's been said is 'BAD THINGS' shouldnt be put on the ground. A: duh B: meaningless, because "bad things" doesn't create a basis for a rule or judgement of aforementioned exceptions be because here 'chemicals' are already being assigned the negative connotation. No true chemical (Scotsman fallacy) could be put on the ground and so forth.

[marshray]

So how would you say it instead?

[bawolff]

> Words have different meanings in different contexts

Well define it then.

Nobody is complaing that there might be an alternative definition of chemical.

The complaint is that you're not using any widely known definition of "chemical" and not providing your own definition.

You can shut everyone up by just defining how you are using the word. I doubt you will since i think you are lying about there existing some other definition that makes sense in the context you are arguing, and you lack the knowledge/ability to make up your own definition that would fit your argument.

[marshray]

Here you go, here's one plain vanilla dictionary definition, absent context.

Now would you like to discuss which "substances produced by chemical processes" are likely to be the most impactful upon the environment, or would you like to continue quibbling over semantics?

chemical [ kem-i-kuhl ]SHOW IPA

noun

a substance produced by or used in a chemical process.

chemicals, Slang. narcotic or mind-altering drugs or substances.

adjective

of, used in, produced by, or concerned with chemistry or chemicals: a chemical formula; chemical agents.

used in chemical warfare: chemical weapons.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/chemical

[bawolff]

Well given this is in response to the statement:

> "It’s pretty simple, don’t dump chemicals in water or on land period."

Then i still maintain anyone using that definition of chemical in the context of that statement is an utter idiot.

> Now would you like to discuss which "substances produced by chemical processes" are likely to be the most impactful upon the environment

Why? There is already a government department tasked with that, that can probably do a better job then you or i could.

If you're trying to argue that the status quo is fine and we shouldn't change anything, then you have a weird way of doing so.