Also brand new items versus used items. When you buy a used item, someone else has already absorbed the PFAS, and the depreciation for that matter.

>These policies also affect wealthy individuals and wealthy individuals want to be healthy (I assume).

They get to move to whatever enclave they want and buy expensive RO filters.

Or, they don't believe in science broadly and believe they won't be impacted. If scientists are so smart, why aren't they rich like me and exploiting everyone and everything to the maximum potential profit??

I understand this may look dismissive or blamey, but sometimes (actually a shocking amount) there aren’t equal merits to both sides…

I’ve looked into this a lot and there isn’t any strong argument I’ve seen that this is good for humanity, and let’s not pretend every political action is a sincere attempt to improve the world for all equally.

If you look into all the abuse heaped upon the man who discovered leaded gasoline was bad it helps give context on just how far some people will go for their own profits.

Well, the facts are that this administration will always, without fail, without a single exception, do the opposite of what has been shown to be good for the US people. This isn't a property of authoritarianism either, no other authoritarian state is so uniformly across the board against science, medicine, and technology.

If you have any other suggestion than the reason they do this is something related to money, please be my guest and volunteer. Because otherwise it is the most baffling and self destructive policy making that has ever been documented in the history of humankind.

It's not out of the realm of possibility that one side of a issue is not acting in good faith. If that's the case, compromise isn't really a viable option; trying to work with someone within a system doesn't work if they literally don't support the system itself. Obviously not everyone agrees that's what's happening here, but not everyone agrees with your premise that there's guaranteed to be some reasonable compromise to every possible issue either.

In some ways, you're kind of arguing the same thing but in reverse by claiming that the comment you're responding to isn't being made in good faith. You're certainly entitled to hold that opinion, but only because of the exact same logic that entitles the parent commenter to hold the opinion that they express in the first place (and for what it's worth, I don't think it's actually being made in bad faith; not everyone will agree about where to draw the line, but at least to me it seems like we're long past the point of giving the benefit of the doubt on policies like the one described in TFA).

It's not a debate style, this is the actual explanation.

Do you think you have a better one?

Ok, what is your counter argument?

I think it is just venting, rather than debate. Realistically we’re locked in for about a year and a half of full Republican control of every branch of government before literally anything at all can be changed (and even then the main achievable goal for the midterms would be for Democrats to take the House, right? Which gives them at least some ability to do some oversight, but is pretty limited).

Thanks for calling this out. I share your frustration.

As a non-american it's becoming more and more difficult to tell the two sides apart with all the shit flinging going on.

And this is in part why these things are happening.

People will dismiss it as "talking points" or "too ridiculous".

And then they will continue to do it, fully aware that people will just not believe what is happening.

The media would have a much harder time collecting ad dollars if they didn't use strawman arguments and misrepresentation to lock in an audience.

Ask a liberal about conservatives or a conservative about liberals and they have abso-fucking-lutely no idea what the ideals of the other side are. None whatsoever. Thanks silo'd media.

Im sorry if you’re naive about life but the Republican Party has shown nothing but contempt for life in general. Ideological coherency is not something they have cared about, hence debating them as if their arguments has any weight whatsoever is not useful.

Whenever they propose something, just ask yourself which lobbyist stands something to gain. That will be a sufficient explanation.

[flagged]

these are fascistic decisions. fascism is well understood, and it is the root of the issue here.

a confused, sickened and desperate population is easier to control and manipulate. end of story.

This nonsense meta comment is pretty frustrating to me. Use a counter argument rather than wringing your hands and whining with no apparent critique other than “I don’t like that this person is being mean”

Take one step backwards. Do cockroaches debate with the boot heel that comes to squish them? The billionaires are not “debating” anything with the “little people”

You're assuming people in here want actual debate, when really the purpose of this comment thread is just a modern two minutes of hate session.

An insurance company CEO was famously shot in broad day light just before he went into a meeting to celebrate his accomplishment of denying people healthcare for his company's profits. Nobody felt bad except other CEOs and the people they directly pay because everyone has a story of the insurance company putting profit over people. They did not get rich by treating more people.

USA HealthCare insurance companies are the _Death Panels_, run by CEO, accounts, and investors, that work to maximize profit over keeping people health. They pay _specialist_ to contradict the actual practicing doctors on why some procedure or medicine is needed.

A firm's sole responsibility is to increase profit and a maximize returns for shareholders. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine

Wrt to insurance companies: You can get rich by insuring more people. Treatment is not profitable.

I'd argue the insurance companies prefer to collect premiums and not treat people.

So why did Dupont and 3M cover up their own evidence of PFAS toxicity for decades? (This is a known fact. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2023/05/425451/makers-pfas-forever... ) Why did they do that, if not for their own profits?

I wonder if you misunderstood what the commenter was saying. It isn’t that the goal of the companies is to make people sick as you suggest, it’s that the goal of the companies is to increase profits, and they don’t want concerns over people’s health to be a constraint on that goal.

Do you own shares in companies which are in the chemical manufacturing business? Or are you somehow otherwise invested in having ultra-lax environmental regulations? Genuine question.

The other explanation for not wanting to call a spade a spade is in the category of actually hating other people and wishing them to die a prolonged, painful death.

What's your reasonable explanation, then? A whole lot of words for saying nothing.

read Orwell's "Animal Farm".

then ask yourself if the pigs had any "nuance" to what they were doing.