Not really. Subjective false equative argumenting your way out of things doesn't make the laws universally bad and wrong.
What is subjective abut a peer reviewed scientific paper i posted in full? I have yet to see a single piece of evidence to support your claims, in this instance not even a mike myers site. I also posted the legal limits of copper, which are above the toxic levels. Now to take you back to the start, i said Legal and moral was not the same, i gave copper as an example, i posted both a peer reviewed scientific paper to support the toxicity of copper, and also posted the legal maximum discharge amount, which happens to be an order of magnitude above the lethal level for many organisms.
I suspect your struggling to work out how come the legal limit is above the actual toxic limit?
Fairly easy to answer, when the regulations came out few had studied the effects of copper toxicity, only after there had been numerous reports of population crashes in aquatic systems, were studies done to determine the actual toxicity level. They remain at those levels because nothing moves fast in legislation.
I am more than used to you missing vital information, so for your benefit i will post the paper again
https://www.ojafr.ir/main/attachments/article/73/OJAFR, A,19.pdf
If you could kindly point out what you find subjective about the measurements they took, i would be most grateful. As for the legal limit table, you may look that up yourself if you cant find the one i posted.
Magnitude wise you realize we are talking the difference between 1A and 100mA dont you? (example units used to give you a context of difference).
For example. Peanut allergies can be fatal to some people but those people do not set the morally charged and legally defined standards of all peanuts being fatally toxic to all people and therefore the laws need to be rewritten to ban them from existence.
Very strawman and poor example, there are NO legal limits for peanuts as they are not toxic, they cause harm to a group of people with an allergy to them, this is very different from a substance that is actually Toxic. For example there is a upper exposure limit for cyanide because this is toxic, it dosnt affect just a few people, it is a substance that has toxicity to everyone.
Same with herbicides, some are 100% fatally toxic to certain plants in insanely tiny quantities but not to all plants at that level and not to all organisms at similar levels.
To my knowledge no one mentioned herbicides, however you did directly challenge my example of copper being aquatically toxic. You will find it difficult to find an aquatic organism that isnt sensitive to copper, this is why Tilapia were used, they happen to be one of the less supcetable organisms.
You're subjectively weasel wording to try and make your claims look more valid and justified, and mine less, than what the laws and reality stand for and we both know it.
You are confusing the person providing scientific evidence with the one providing nothing but opinion to back there position.
I know full well how this subjective false equative reasoning game to falsely justify feeling of moral and intellectual superiority works so why continue to play it? You wont change my views
I have admitted several times in different threads, that despite overwhelming evidence being supplied to you, it was highly unlikely you would change your view. Which sadly directly conflicts with and makes somewhat a mockery of this
My moral actions and justifications are grounded in the laws as they stand based on scientific determinations
Clearly if this were indeed true, we would have seen scientific evidence to support your case? Peanuts and herbicides (with no supporting evidence either) are both not relevant to the discussion and without any supporting evidence worthless. In
I know full well how this subjective false equative reasoning game to falsely justify feeling of moral and intellectual superiority works
I completely agree with this, in fact i would go so far as to say IMHO you are somewhat of a gifted expert in it.
However, in how each of us present our side that may very well change how others see the both of us, and not for ways you would like them to be seen and go.
Indeed i again agree, which is why i suggest you try and post supporting information, when only one side offers relevant scientific evidence, the reader of the thread is left in no doubt what is subjective, and what is researched fact.