If they're just using the word "chemical" as an arbitrary word for "bad substance", you have the situation I already described: the word isn't communicating anything useful.
But in practice, someone who claims that they don't want chemicals in their food probably doesn't just mean "harmful substances". They probably mean that they have some criteria for what counts as a harmful substance, and that these criteria are based on traits of things that are commonly called chemicals. When you tell them "wait, water and salt are chemicals", what you're really doing is forcing them to state those criteria so you can contest them (and so they can become aware that that's what they're using).
So don’t use the definition if it’s useless.
It's not just the definition that's useless. The phrase itself becomes useless, because if the only way to know what they mean is by asking "do you mean X", the original statement about not wanting chemicals in their food fails to communicate anything useful.
I'm pretty sure that would not disqualify most people.
Note that it's not being upset that's the problem, it's being selectively upset.
Also, as a man, I can't get social status by claiming I've cried myself to sleep anyway.
But that definition becomes useless if it isn't legible. The Boubas don't want chemicals in their food. If "chemical" means "harmful substance that I don't know how to specify", it's useless to say that they don't want chemicals in their food--how are they going to even deetermine that the food contains "chemicals" by their standard?
Also, the fact that they are even using the existing word "chemical" and not some phrase like "harmful chemical" implies that their definition has something to do with the characteristics of things called by the existing word, such as unfamiliar and long names. This is, of course, not a logical necessity, but people in the real world think this way, so it's a good bet.
Kelsey selectively got upset to the point of crying herself to sleep over something, and posted calls to action with the implication that since she was so emotionally distraught it was callous not to act, but she only did this when it was politically expedient to do so.
I think that this is a bit more than just "didn't write". It's "didn't write when previously it was so urgent and horrible she was crying herself to sleep over it". The more urgent that she claims it is, and the more distraught she claims to be, the more the significance of ignoring it when it's done by a politician she likes. At least, she's disqualified under "Are they truth seeking?"
Any rule about when to give advice has to be robust to people going on and on to lecture you about Jesus because they truly and sincerely want to keep you out of Hell. (Or lecture about veganism, or EA, or politics.)
More generally, social rules about good manners have to apply to everyone--both to people with correct beliefs and to people with incorrect ones. Just like not letting the police break into everyone's houses catches fewer criminals (when the police are right), but protects innocent people (when the police are wrong), not giving advice helps fewer people (when the advice giver is right), but saves people from arrogant know it alls and meme plagues (when the advice giver is wrong).
We know that the actual probability of theories that use the ideal gas law is 0. Under Bayesianism, any and all theories that make use of the ideal gas law would have no way to increase their probability.
The theory isn't "reality behaves according to the ideal gas law", the theory is "reality behaves in approximations to the ideal gas law".
While your insistence that I use colloquial rather than technical terms is cute, it’s also despicably ignorant and you’re not making strong arguments against the wider view of history I’m presenting.
It's a pretty basic principle of debate that you have to dispute things that people actually said. When "we" say that modern people are better than past people, that doesn't count the 1800s as modern, never mind the 1600s. If you don't want to call that "modern people", you can call it something else, but then your dispute is about the something else. The claim about your kind of modern is not one that people have been making; addressing it as though it is is addressing a straw man.
When I said that medieval Christians held a taboo against slavery and did not practice it, and explain the process by which secularization and early proto-sciences justified the creation of history’s most vicious form of slavery, medieval slavery in the Islamic world is not a counterexample in some kind of logical trap you’ve sprung.
You're equivocating between "religious" people and Christians specifically.
Rather, there are many mistaken and misunderstood aspects about the time and especially the role religion played
We may associate religion with the past in some vague way, an irrational set of beliefs that have been superseded by science.
Modern people are the ones who made religion a tool of harm,
If you're going to say things about "religion", Islam is relevant.
(You also brought up Jefferson claiming his religious misgivings were against slavery. Thomas Jefferson believed in God, but wasn't a Christian.)
While Liberal human rights tell you not to “keep serfs,” a stupid phrase meant to insist upon your false narrative of equivalence, remember that the most hard-headed Liberal of the early US, Thomas Jefferson, ensured that the institution of slavery would continue while owning slaves himself.
And the same goes for the things that your religion is supposedly doing--I can find prominent, influential, religious believers who thought that slavery or whatever is good. You just say that they don't count because they're "really" the state.
(Also, I'd appreciate a reference for Jefferson.)
I think Cade Metz fails to qualify for those things. I don't think he is trustworthy, quotes accurately, or is truth seeking. And I certainly wouldn't give him any quotes.