> a weird backstory to public opposition to glyphosate which has very little to do with glyphosate itself

Is it required that the public have a "good reason" for wanting something?

> glyphosate is relatively benign and relatively inert compared other common crop and landscape treatments

We used to spray DDT everywhere. This isn't exactly a resounding recommendation. Perhaps there's a case for using as little additives in farming as is possible.

▲

parineum an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> Is it required that the public have a "good reason" for wanting something?

Not required but it's a nice to have, especially if the thing they want done is to have the desired outcome.

▲

themafia an hour ago | parent [-]

The desired outcome is simply not using Glyphosate. I'm not seeing how "reasonability" of this idea impacts it's implementation.

If you find someone using it you severely fine them and/or put them in jail.

	▲	sokoloff 44 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I’m sure someone’s desired outcome is to stop using urea or ammonium nitrate as a fertilizer. “Reasonability of X” factors into many people’s assessment of “should we do X or not-X?”
	▲	tptacek 33 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Why is that a desired outcome?

▲

tptacek 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No, it isn't. What's your point?

▲

themafia an hour ago | parent [-]

Your quip follows a trope:

"There's a weird reason the public wants this and it has little to do with the thing itself."

Very often the implication being:

"Therefore the public is wrong and should be ignored."

	▲	tptacek 34 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I think the public is in fact wrong, but that has nothing to do with my argument.