• PapaStevesy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    5 months ago

    Well, we call it chemistry, but the forces at play existed long before we even knew to name them.

    • GladiusB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I understand. But if it’s isolated it’s considered non reactive. (I manage a hazmat DOT fleet)

      • PapaStevesy
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Ok? That’s neat, I just fail to see the relevance I guess. A god would be harmless too, if it was isolated from the rest of the universe.

        • GladiusB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I’m asking how it’s going to react with stuff. In like a basic chemistry kind of way.

          • PapaStevesy
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Seems like something a hazmat DOT fleet manager would already know though, so I guess I just don’t know why you’re asking that. And truthfully, I don’t particularly care, as, again, I fail to see the relevance. I mean like, if it’s real chemical kinetic information that you’re after, there are innumerable better sources than the comments section of a meme page on a fringe social media platform. If you’re trying to make a point about my original tongue-in-cheek comparison, feel free to make it.

            • GladiusB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              Ok. You can just accept you’re wrong rather than double downing and sounding less educated than you originally did.

              • PapaStevesy
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Mmm yes, because “double downing” is a phrase an educated person uses. Got it, lolol.

                Look, I would totally accept that I was wrong if I knew what you were referring to, but I literally don’t know, you haven’t explained your opinion at all. Like, please! Tell me what you mean! What am I wrong about?

                • GladiusB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Like totally. Because educated people don’t know modern lingo or anything. No cap. Your argument is so mid.

                  • PapaStevesy
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    At least I gave one, even if it was sarcastic. Once again, all you offer is non sequiturs and haughty derision. I guess I just want to know what you think this discussion is about, because all I’ve gotten out of it is vacuous meta-argument trollery.