• Linktank@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        There’s no argument to be had, all soap is anti-bacterial. It’s a fact, not a position.

          • Linktank@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Loving all the kickback for stating an empirically correct statement. This platform is wild.

            • laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              I’m curious enough to continue the conversation, if only because talking about definitions is interesting. So I’m not being confrontational, I actually want to have a discussion.

              You say that all soaps are antibacterial because the result in the end is that no bacteria remains on the hands. I see what you’re saying there. But anti-bacterial soap kills the bacteria, including the remaining ones that couldn’t be removed.

              That’s like saying that removing a group of humans based on ethnicity from a region, without killing them, amounts to genocide. Would you say that’s genocide too?* (And I know the comparison is extreme.)

              *I think I read somewhere that forcibly removing people from a region amounts to genocide, though. But you know what I mean…

    • YeetPics@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      There is “I’m trying to open people’s eyes to the truth” focusing on details and definitions.

      Then there’s “I’m a cunt and you’re an idiot” splitting of hairs that add nothing to the conversation or anyone’s thoughts on the matter.

      Guess which group you fall in. (Hint; the votes on your comment)