Marriage neutering advocates have taken to either feigned outrage or genuine delusions of confusion that anyone thinks that the term "marriage", when being used literally, inherently involves the union of a bride and groom. They act like such a definition for marriage, either generally or legally, is absurd. Instead, most of them insist (for now, anyway) that everything else about the definition of marriage is right – that it is a personal union[1] of two living human beings who are of age[2] and able to consent, neither of whom is currently married to others, who are not too closely[3] related to each other. It is just that the part about… you know… uniting bride & groom is wrong, according to them. So both marriage defenders and marriage neutering advocates believe that marriage is a certain kind of relationship and that other relationships are not marriage, and should not receive legal sanction as marriage.
Just try changing the definition any other way, such as asking about polygamous or incestuous marriages (which, unlike brideless or groomless pairings, have historically been recognized as actual marriages by various cultures) and most of them do everything from scoff to foam at the mouth, and insist that those are an entirely different matter from what they're talking about. So much for "consenting adults" and "love is love" and "look how long we've been together" and "we're raising kids" and "it makes people better off" and all of that. For some yet-to-be explained reason (size/power of lobby group is not a principle), the bride+groom part of definition of marriage is not inherent to marriage, but restrictions on the number or relation of the participants is... at least according to marriage neutering advocates.
Again, so both sides of this debate argue that marriage is a certain kind of relationship and that other relationships are not marriage, and should not receive legal sanction as marriage. Discrimination against those other unions is A-OK, according to what most marriage neutering advocates (currently) say.
How did marriage defenders arrive at their definition? Well, without considering any supernatural origin, every culture that has ever existed in the world for thousands of years has recognized that the union of a man and woman is different from other relationships – even cultures that celebrated homosexual behavior. Biology, sociology, and just about everyone's personal experience confirm this. History and various religions have agreed. Everyone who wrote and adopted the Constitution of the United States of America understood marriage as uniting a bride and groom. None of them is ever cited or quoted as having said that a marriage can exist without a bride or without a groom, or that there a right to have brideless or groomless unions recognized as "marriage" by the states nor the union. Every major dictionary has, historically, defined marriage as between a man and woman.
How did marriage neutering advocates arrive at their definition? Not from an enduring cultural practice. Not from civil rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Susan B. Anthony, or any of the other great civil rights leaders in history. Not from Jesus, nor Moses, nor The Buddha, nor Confucius, or any other of the great religious founders/leaders/teachers. Not from any of the Founding Fathers of the USA. Nor from any sitting President of the United States of America until the current opportunistic flip-flopper. None of these people were documented to have ever indicated that a marriage exists without a bride or without a groom. Somehow this "right" escaped the teachings or statements of every single one of them, and Galileo, Darwin and Einstein, too. Not even (most, if not all) prominent homosexual people or homosexuality advocates of yesteryear talked about brideless or groomless pairings as marriage that should be treated the same as marriage under the law. It is an extremely new idea in human history.
As far as I can tell, marriage neutering advocates have arrived at their definition by attempting to co-opt an inherently heterosexual institution and removing heterosexuality from it, or saying that neither a man nor a woman is essential to marriage. It's like seeing the guy across the street selling kosher food and deciding you want the food you sell – shrimp wrapped with bacon – to be sold as kosher, too. Like "marriage", our present culture and government did not create the term "kosher", but food providers can ask the government to recognize their food as kosher. No matter how much someone likes shrimp wrapped in bacon, it isn't kosher, and the government should not legally register such food as kosher, even though it will not cause someone else's bagels to rot.
It is as though homosexuality advocates assessed the culture to figure out how they could eliminate any lingering reminders in society that homosexual behavior is different than heterosexual behavior, and figured they had to neuter marriage. They want us to pretend that pairing with someone of the same sex is no different than pairing with someone of the opposite sex, that heterosexual coitus is not different than homosexual sodomy. But the differences are real and significant, regardless of what the law or MSM says. Neutering marriage law, however, would empower Leftists to harass, fine, ostracize, and silence those who disagree with them. They want to eliminate any public policy that recognizes or values the integration of the sexes into an independent, natural family unit, and everyone is supposed to go alone with it just because they say so. They simply assert it is so, in defiance of all of history, hoping that nobody will notice that they are the ones with the burden to show this is somehow more beneficial to society than harmful.
Very few of the countries in the world have neutered marriage licensing. To date, only one solitary state in the USA has neutered marriage licensing though initiation of the voters putting a measure on the ballot and then voting to neuter their licensing. The other states have had thier licensing neutered either through judicial imposition or legislators bending over for emotional appeals. Yet Leftist marriage neutering advocates act like the whole world has embraced the neutering of marriage.
The union of a man and woman is objectively different, every culture has had a word for that, and we have called it marriage, and if marriage neutering advocates are successful in co-opting the term "marriage" for brideless unions and groomless unions, there will have to be another term to describe the bride+groom union out of sheer practicality. Since the union of a bride and groom is different, laws can treat it differently. The union is different because men and women are different, as every homosexual person demonstrates.
Hydrogen atoms are not the same as Oxygen atoms. Bonding Hydrogen and Oxygen can create water. Bonding Hydrogen atoms with other Hydrogen atoms doesn’t. Bonding Oxygen atoms with other Oxygen atoms doesn't. This is not a bigoted statement – it is simply an observation about reality. Only an insane person would say that a factory that has produced billions of bottles of water is no different than a warehouse full of Hydrogen and a warehouse full of Oxygen, and should be subject to the exact same regulations. The pairing of two men is a relationship. Marriage is a relationship. But not all relationships are marriage. The pairing of two men is not a marriage, because marriage is a specific kind of relationship consisting of both a bride and a groom. This is why we have different terms for men and women in a wedding ceremony - bride and groom.
Even the producers of "Dancing With the Stars", who have let their show be used for marriage neutering advocacy, always (with the arguable exception of Chastity Bono) pair men with women. Why haven't they also paired men with men and women with women? It isn't because they are haters – it is because men and women are different, and the pairing of a man with a woman is different. If something as trivial as a television show competition doesn't three all three pairings the same, why should something as important as public policy do so?
Marriage neutering advocates advance their agenda in courts, legislation, and public polls through appeals to emotion, using cherry-picked couples (who may be completely sincere and not ideologues in the least). When they can't win logical arguments, they start denying first principles, self-evident truths, and basic definitions, including "man" and "woman". They are saying marriage can be redefined because that suits the claimed feelings of a historically oppressed minority. So, by that criteria, that means if Americans of Chinese ancestry insist they feel polygamous, we have to recognize polygamous marriages.
Every major rights movement has involved extending existing rights to more people. For example, the right to vote for their Congressional Representative being extended to women and to Americans of African ancestry was not a new right. It is extending an existing right. White men had the right, nobody else did. The "right" to get a state marriage license without a bride or without a groom has not been reserved to heterosexuals, nor to men, nor to whites. Nobody has had that "right". It isn't like homosexual people have been singled out. The clerks at the state or county office do not ask for sexual orientation. It isn't like marriage was something invented to make homosexual people feel left out.
The Left wants to weaken any institution that isn't controlled by government. Marriage is one such institution. They used to try to get rid of marriage directly, trying to convince everyone that shacking up was a good idea and that marriage was "just a piece of paper" or oppressive to women. That only took them so far, so now it is about neutering marriage, even though homosexual people make up, at most, 3% of the population and only a fraction of that population even wants to get a marriage license. What's really going on? Well, many of the Leftist marriage neutering advocates admit they ultimately want to "get the government out of marriage", which would, eventually, mean weakening marriage, family, parental rights, etc. and leave more people dependent on the government. How can getting a state marriage license without a bride be a "fundamental right" if it is OK to do away with it entirely?
The reason that we maintain that marriage requires a bride and a groom is that through all of the variations over the years, the constant has been that marriage unites the sexes. It is what makes marriage marriage. Marriage is the term applied to this kind of relationship. Co-opting the term "marriage" is politically advantageous, but it doesn't change the fact that the bride+groom union is different and of more interest to society.
Words means things. If the word "marriage" can be changed per current fashion, so can the word "equality".
Deftly Defending DOMA
Notes:
[1] Just what this personal union means is part of the disagreement. One may say "sexual union", but two men or two women can’t have what has traditionally been understood to be sexual union. The UK has run up against this issue, since marriage has still required consummation (heterosexual intercourse) to be considered valid. Legally in much of the US in recent years, marriage has been boiled down to meaning the vowed union of a man and a woman into being next-of-kin, who can't be compelled to testify against each other, forming a financial partnership with a default assignation of paternity. Consummation, alienation of affection, and criminalization of adultery issues have been largely, if not entirely abandoned. (And I’m sure it is mere coincidence that the push to neuter marriage came AFTER Leftists did away with the legal and social expectation that sex is for marriage that sex with someone other than your spouse was actionable.) "Love" can't be cited as a legal basis for the union. Most of the marriages in history have been arranged.
[2] The age of consent varies from place to place, and emancipation of a minor or parental permission can also factor in to that.
[3] How closely related varies, too. For example, some states will not marry first cousins, some states will marry first cousins with certain restrictions, and some states will marry first cousins with no restrictions. Strangely, most of these "civil rights" marriage neutering advocates don't seem bothered that cousins don't have equality from coast to coast or that some states deny them their "fundamental right" to marry.
Just try changing the definition any other way, such as asking about polygamous or incestuous marriages (which, unlike brideless or groomless pairings, have historically been recognized as actual marriages by various cultures) and most of them do everything from scoff to foam at the mouth, and insist that those are an entirely different matter from what they're talking about. So much for "consenting adults" and "love is love" and "look how long we've been together" and "we're raising kids" and "it makes people better off" and all of that. For some yet-to-be explained reason (size/power of lobby group is not a principle), the bride+groom part of definition of marriage is not inherent to marriage, but restrictions on the number or relation of the participants is... at least according to marriage neutering advocates.
Again, so both sides of this debate argue that marriage is a certain kind of relationship and that other relationships are not marriage, and should not receive legal sanction as marriage. Discrimination against those other unions is A-OK, according to what most marriage neutering advocates (currently) say.
How did marriage defenders arrive at their definition? Well, without considering any supernatural origin, every culture that has ever existed in the world for thousands of years has recognized that the union of a man and woman is different from other relationships – even cultures that celebrated homosexual behavior. Biology, sociology, and just about everyone's personal experience confirm this. History and various religions have agreed. Everyone who wrote and adopted the Constitution of the United States of America understood marriage as uniting a bride and groom. None of them is ever cited or quoted as having said that a marriage can exist without a bride or without a groom, or that there a right to have brideless or groomless unions recognized as "marriage" by the states nor the union. Every major dictionary has, historically, defined marriage as between a man and woman.
How did marriage neutering advocates arrive at their definition? Not from an enduring cultural practice. Not from civil rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Susan B. Anthony, or any of the other great civil rights leaders in history. Not from Jesus, nor Moses, nor The Buddha, nor Confucius, or any other of the great religious founders/leaders/teachers. Not from any of the Founding Fathers of the USA. Nor from any sitting President of the United States of America until the current opportunistic flip-flopper. None of these people were documented to have ever indicated that a marriage exists without a bride or without a groom. Somehow this "right" escaped the teachings or statements of every single one of them, and Galileo, Darwin and Einstein, too. Not even (most, if not all) prominent homosexual people or homosexuality advocates of yesteryear talked about brideless or groomless pairings as marriage that should be treated the same as marriage under the law. It is an extremely new idea in human history.
As far as I can tell, marriage neutering advocates have arrived at their definition by attempting to co-opt an inherently heterosexual institution and removing heterosexuality from it, or saying that neither a man nor a woman is essential to marriage. It's like seeing the guy across the street selling kosher food and deciding you want the food you sell – shrimp wrapped with bacon – to be sold as kosher, too. Like "marriage", our present culture and government did not create the term "kosher", but food providers can ask the government to recognize their food as kosher. No matter how much someone likes shrimp wrapped in bacon, it isn't kosher, and the government should not legally register such food as kosher, even though it will not cause someone else's bagels to rot.
It is as though homosexuality advocates assessed the culture to figure out how they could eliminate any lingering reminders in society that homosexual behavior is different than heterosexual behavior, and figured they had to neuter marriage. They want us to pretend that pairing with someone of the same sex is no different than pairing with someone of the opposite sex, that heterosexual coitus is not different than homosexual sodomy. But the differences are real and significant, regardless of what the law or MSM says. Neutering marriage law, however, would empower Leftists to harass, fine, ostracize, and silence those who disagree with them. They want to eliminate any public policy that recognizes or values the integration of the sexes into an independent, natural family unit, and everyone is supposed to go alone with it just because they say so. They simply assert it is so, in defiance of all of history, hoping that nobody will notice that they are the ones with the burden to show this is somehow more beneficial to society than harmful.
Very few of the countries in the world have neutered marriage licensing. To date, only one solitary state in the USA has neutered marriage licensing though initiation of the voters putting a measure on the ballot and then voting to neuter their licensing. The other states have had thier licensing neutered either through judicial imposition or legislators bending over for emotional appeals. Yet Leftist marriage neutering advocates act like the whole world has embraced the neutering of marriage.
The union of a man and woman is objectively different, every culture has had a word for that, and we have called it marriage, and if marriage neutering advocates are successful in co-opting the term "marriage" for brideless unions and groomless unions, there will have to be another term to describe the bride+groom union out of sheer practicality. Since the union of a bride and groom is different, laws can treat it differently. The union is different because men and women are different, as every homosexual person demonstrates.
Hydrogen atoms are not the same as Oxygen atoms. Bonding Hydrogen and Oxygen can create water. Bonding Hydrogen atoms with other Hydrogen atoms doesn’t. Bonding Oxygen atoms with other Oxygen atoms doesn't. This is not a bigoted statement – it is simply an observation about reality. Only an insane person would say that a factory that has produced billions of bottles of water is no different than a warehouse full of Hydrogen and a warehouse full of Oxygen, and should be subject to the exact same regulations. The pairing of two men is a relationship. Marriage is a relationship. But not all relationships are marriage. The pairing of two men is not a marriage, because marriage is a specific kind of relationship consisting of both a bride and a groom. This is why we have different terms for men and women in a wedding ceremony - bride and groom.
Even the producers of "Dancing With the Stars", who have let their show be used for marriage neutering advocacy, always (with the arguable exception of Chastity Bono) pair men with women. Why haven't they also paired men with men and women with women? It isn't because they are haters – it is because men and women are different, and the pairing of a man with a woman is different. If something as trivial as a television show competition doesn't three all three pairings the same, why should something as important as public policy do so?
Marriage neutering advocates advance their agenda in courts, legislation, and public polls through appeals to emotion, using cherry-picked couples (who may be completely sincere and not ideologues in the least). When they can't win logical arguments, they start denying first principles, self-evident truths, and basic definitions, including "man" and "woman". They are saying marriage can be redefined because that suits the claimed feelings of a historically oppressed minority. So, by that criteria, that means if Americans of Chinese ancestry insist they feel polygamous, we have to recognize polygamous marriages.
Every major rights movement has involved extending existing rights to more people. For example, the right to vote for their Congressional Representative being extended to women and to Americans of African ancestry was not a new right. It is extending an existing right. White men had the right, nobody else did. The "right" to get a state marriage license without a bride or without a groom has not been reserved to heterosexuals, nor to men, nor to whites. Nobody has had that "right". It isn't like homosexual people have been singled out. The clerks at the state or county office do not ask for sexual orientation. It isn't like marriage was something invented to make homosexual people feel left out.
The Left wants to weaken any institution that isn't controlled by government. Marriage is one such institution. They used to try to get rid of marriage directly, trying to convince everyone that shacking up was a good idea and that marriage was "just a piece of paper" or oppressive to women. That only took them so far, so now it is about neutering marriage, even though homosexual people make up, at most, 3% of the population and only a fraction of that population even wants to get a marriage license. What's really going on? Well, many of the Leftist marriage neutering advocates admit they ultimately want to "get the government out of marriage", which would, eventually, mean weakening marriage, family, parental rights, etc. and leave more people dependent on the government. How can getting a state marriage license without a bride be a "fundamental right" if it is OK to do away with it entirely?
The reason that we maintain that marriage requires a bride and a groom is that through all of the variations over the years, the constant has been that marriage unites the sexes. It is what makes marriage marriage. Marriage is the term applied to this kind of relationship. Co-opting the term "marriage" is politically advantageous, but it doesn't change the fact that the bride+groom union is different and of more interest to society.
Words means things. If the word "marriage" can be changed per current fashion, so can the word "equality".
Deftly Defending DOMA
Notes:
[1] Just what this personal union means is part of the disagreement. One may say "sexual union", but two men or two women can’t have what has traditionally been understood to be sexual union. The UK has run up against this issue, since marriage has still required consummation (heterosexual intercourse) to be considered valid. Legally in much of the US in recent years, marriage has been boiled down to meaning the vowed union of a man and a woman into being next-of-kin, who can't be compelled to testify against each other, forming a financial partnership with a default assignation of paternity. Consummation, alienation of affection, and criminalization of adultery issues have been largely, if not entirely abandoned. (And I’m sure it is mere coincidence that the push to neuter marriage came AFTER Leftists did away with the legal and social expectation that sex is for marriage that sex with someone other than your spouse was actionable.) "Love" can't be cited as a legal basis for the union. Most of the marriages in history have been arranged.
[2] The age of consent varies from place to place, and emancipation of a minor or parental permission can also factor in to that.
[3] How closely related varies, too. For example, some states will not marry first cousins, some states will marry first cousins with certain restrictions, and some states will marry first cousins with no restrictions. Strangely, most of these "civil rights" marriage neutering advocates don't seem bothered that cousins don't have equality from coast to coast or that some states deny them their "fundamental right" to marry.
PW writes: "the union of a man and woman is different from other relationships"
ReplyDelete...and sodium chloride is different from magnesium sulphate, yet BOTH are salts. So there's something essential to "salt" that requires neither sodium nor chlorine. Likewise, there's something about "marriage" that persists, even in the absence of bride or groom.
PW writes: "The union is different because men and women are different"
Magnesium isn't the same as sodium. Sulfur is not the same as chlorine. But magnesium sulfate is salt. And sodium chloride is salt. These two combinations, although different, ARE BOTH SALT! It is not necessary for the components to be identical in order for the attraction and bond to be the same, as we can clearly see in this example. If your premise was correct, it wold be impossible for us to recognize that these different combinations ARE ALL SALT.
PW writes: "[same-sex marriage] is an extremely new idea in human history."
.. and, at one time, "round earth" was an extremely new idea. As was "heliocentric solar system". As was "gender equality". As was "immorality of slavery". Sometimes those "new" ideas turn out to be the correct ones.
PW writes: "the constant has been that marriage unites the sexes"
Marriage formally recognizes the union that exists between two people, and grants to those people certain rights and obligations in deference to their commitment to one another.
PW writes: "the push to neuter marriage came AFTER Leftists did away with the legal and social expectation that sex is for marriage that sex with someone other than your spouse was actionable"
Its hypocrisy, then, to object to same-sex couples who believe that sex is for marriage, and that a person should only have sex with their own spouse. By denying same-sex couples the option to marry, you take away their option to keep sex within marriage.
Dan,
ReplyDelete_and sodium chloride is different from magnesium sulphate, yet BOTH are salts_
You chose a poor analogy. If someone sold me magnesium sulphate as salt, and I put it on my dinner table, I'd be able to tell the difference pretty quickly.
_there's something about "marriage" that persists, even in the absence of bride or groom._
There's _something_, but is it everything we want to persist?
If you have hypomagnesemia, do the benefits of magnesium sulphate persist to "BOTH SALTS"?
"one time, "round earth" was an extremely new idea."
That is another myth...
http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/historicalmyths/a/histmyths7.htm
_As was "gender equality"_
At least this point is accurate. Gender equality is measured by the ability to integrate men and women into the same field and see them meet with the same opportunity and success. And it is a relatively new and progressive idea.
But it also means gender equality is not measured by segregating men away from women, like happens in same-sex marriage. Its one of the points that shows that same-sex marriage is on the wrong side of history.
"Marriage formally recognizes the union that exists between two people, and grants to those people certain rights and obligations in deference to their commitment to one another."
There are other unions that "exist between two people" and grants particular rights and obligations to there commitment to each other.
* Parent/child
* Doctor/Patient
* Lawyer/Client
* Pitcher/Catcher
etc... And they exist independent of marriage because their obligations and commitment, though share many aspects with marriage, do not share all of the same obligations and commitments. To extend the analogy, if you were to group everything as a marriage because it is between two people, and they share obligations and commitments, then would be engaging in the same fallacy of ambiguity as declaring "ARE ALL SALT".
And while I'm on that note, I should clear something else up. Chemists would say "all are salts" or that something is "a salt", meaning it is part of a category. They would actually be very adamant and rigorous about that. The only thing referred to as "salt" itself rather than "a salt" would be NaCl, nothing else.
Sorry, I didn't complete this thought...
Delete"magnesium sulphate as salt"
If someone sold me magnesium sulphate as salt, rather than "Epsom Salt" or "Milk of Magnesia" etc...
a·nal·o·gy
Delete/əˈnaləjē/
Noun
A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
"Salt" is not identical to "marriage" - but it is an apt analogy to explain or clarify my opinion that the words pertain to characteristics of the bond between things rather than as identification of the components that share the bond. More on this, and an invitation to discuss it here.
Flat Earth
You claim that "flat earth" is a myth, because some people eventually stopped believing it. Very nice that educated Europeans had embraced a "globe theory" by the time Columbus sailed, but what did folks believe elsewhere, and prior to that?
"Flat earth" was the dominant theory in Greece until the classical period, in the near east until the Hellensitic period, in India until the Gupta period, in China until the 17th century, in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas ...
Very cool that people started to figure out that the concept of a spherical earth was valid. ( This started to happen around 300 BC )
This is why I wrote "and, at one time, "round earth" was an extremely new idea.". Because, at one time (6th Century BC) Pythagoras's idea of a round earth was very new. And by 330 BC, Aristotle accepted that idea based on empirical proof.
On Lawn writes: "if you were to group everything as a marriage because it is between two people"
DeleteDid somebody suggest that? Even the "salt" analogy respects the reality that not all compounds qualify for the label "salt". Did anyone suggest that H2O, which shares a different kind of bond than NaCl, ought to be called "salt" ? No.
Purpose?
The analogy is about the characteristics of the bond. It seems that you now wish to change the subject to the purpose of the compounds. OK.
I've previously asked about the purpose of marriage, or more specifically, what are the things we require married folks to do that same-sex couples aren't capable of. Check that link to see Chairm Ohn's response(s). Perhaps you can do better?
Its always fun to see your points change.
Delete_You claim that "flat earth" is a myth_
It is a myth, the earth is a globe. I'm not sure that I specifically called that a myth though.
You claimed that a round earth was once a new idea, and I pointed out that was a myth.
_"Flat earth" was the dominant theory in Greece_
Dominant and "new" are completely different criteria.
_Very cool that people started to figure out that the concept of a spherical earth was valid. ( This started to happen around 300 BC )_
Your source (which you paraphrase) disagrees...
"The paradigm of a spherical Earth was developed in Greek astronomy, beginning with Pythagoras (6th century BC)"
But even then it doesn't say it was new at that time. Only that the mechanics of it were starting to be drawn out.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI consider this post a breach of internet etiquette. If I wished to post under my full given name I would have done so. Your choice to take it on yourself to do so shows an utter lack of class. You should show some grace and delete that comment. And we can consider that the end of this conversation. Thank you.
DeleteAfter you solicited a dialog with me on Facebook, I'm shocked that you are so adamant about anonymity.
DeleteSo what is the real reason you want to stop the conversation?
By the way Dan, I liked the delivery of your punchline to the question why you are considered a spammer by the NYT...
Deletehttps://www.facebook.com/SearchCz/posts/10200402790885297
"Because I wrote (rather, I reposted) this about marriage..." [emphasis mine]
I didn't solicit a dialog with you on facebook. This conversation is occurring on http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.ca/. If I wanted my name posted as part of the conversation I would have done so myself. And if you lack the decency to correct that breach, we have no reason to communicate further.
Delete_I didn't solicit a dialog with you on facebook._
DeleteYou did, on the Opine Editorials Facebook page.
_This conversation is occurring on [...]_
Where Playful Walrus is the admin and sets the rules. You and I are just guests.
I really see no reason why here should be any different than anywhere else. Perhaps you can explain that to me.
Do you think this is like professional wrestling, a theatre where you have your own name and do battle in a ring? Perhaps you want anonymity because you are secretly embarassed about what you are writing (I doubt the latter because you use your own name quite often).
I'm completely perplexed that it is really an issue for you, this all seems made up all of a sudden, just now, because you don't have anything else to talk about.
_If I wanted my name posted as part of the conversation I would have done so myself._
Which you did.
Look, leave the conversation if you wish, but there's nothing wrong with your real name. I'm incredulous that you are really that concerned about it since you've reached out using your real name to converse with me.
In other words, don't find some excuse to leave when you points are discredited. No one is making you, or paying you to post that I'm aware of.
So...
DeleteI'll just leave this one more thought and exit this conversation before Dan gets too worked up about it all.
Salts and Marriage.
What makes salt unique? Salt is NaCl, and is used as a flavor enhancer. A unique taste is named after it, and also a class of chemicals.
Can you describe how salt tastes without using the word salt? When people ask how marriage is between a man and a woman, it is like explaining what salt tastes like. You can describe it, but most readily you can point to something you can see, feel, and experience to really relay what it is.
Marriage is a legal relationship and commitment between a man and a woman. That isn't tautological, that is referential, like describing what salt tastes like by calling it "salty".
Salt, in chemistry, is also unique. Is salt unique because it has an ionic bond? No, not only do salts have ionic bonds, but they can often include many different types of bonds. And not all ionic bonds create salts (for instance any oxidized metal like sodium oxide) are ionic bonds, but they are not salts.
What makes a salt unique is that it is produced by the reaction of an acid and a base. An acid and an acid doesn't make a salt. A base and a base do not make a salt. You see where I'm going with this. Like marriage, the real classification hinges on the combination of two complementary pieces which combine to create something new between them.
So as an analogy to marriage, salts once again point to the fact that two unique and complementary things are particularly important to creating something very distinct and useful. And how unique things can be defined by simply the fact that two complementary components come together.
To change to include all ionic bonds simply denies the usefulness of why science classifies them as salts anyway. It is effectively removing the understanding and category we now call "salt", even though you recycle the name to be used in a different category.
The Playful Walrus posts here under a pseudonym, and elsewhere under his given name. And we respect that this is HIS choice to make.
DeleteFrom what I've seen, you post only under pseudonym(s). And we respect that this is YOUR choice to make.
I ought to be afforded the same respect. When I want content to appear here (or anywhere else) under my given name I will make the choice to post it in that way.
Although I see nothing wrong with referring to people by their name, I want this blog to be inviting, so let's stick with the names people have chosen for themselves to appear in the comments, please, even if we know other names for the person making the comment. Since the name used is a rather common first name and no last name is given, I will not delete the posts already made.
DeleteMy mistake. I didn't previously see that the full name was there.
DeleteI am reposting the comment with the redaction:
On LawnMay 31, 2013 at 8:40 PM
_A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification._
NaCl and MgS04 have different structures.
(Na)+(Cl)-
O
(Mg)++(O-S-O)--
O
(Those probably don't line up when published, but it is enough to show the gist of the difference in their structures).
_Did anyone suggest that H2O, which shares a different kind of bond than NaCl, ought to be called "salt" ? No._
No, but someone did something just as strange to people who know chemistry. He suggested that MgS04 was salt, which would signify only NaCl, rather than 'a salt' which puts in in a category of compunds that are all byproducts of acid-base reactions. That person was [name redacted] posting as SearchCz.
MgS04 is called Epsom Salt, but it is also called Milk of Magnesia when dissolved in water, but calling it "salt" is as laughable as calling it "milk".
So if you want to choose an analogy, why did you choose something with a different structure, and why an analogy of marriage to salt when no chemist would conflate MgS04 as "salt"?
_Purpose? The analogy is about the characteristics of the bond._
Besides, if anything the man and woman form a procreative relationship where the same-sex relationship is not procreative. That makes them relationships of a different kind, and in significant ways that you've somehow overlooked.
Your ignorance of the significant differences in the types of relationship doesn't make for an honest or valuable analogy.
_It seems that you now wish to change the subject to the purpose of the compounds._
Compounds have a purpose? It sounds like you believe in intelligent design!
_Perhaps you can do better?_
Perhaps I can. Its clear after reading the exchange, however, that it won't be necessary.
So, now we can continue?
ReplyDeleteI wrote: at one time, "round earth" was an extremely new idea.
On Lawn responded: "That is another myth...
http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/historicalmyths/a/histmyths7.htm"
The article On Lawn cites says: "People in Europe probably did believe that the earth was flat at one stage, but that was in the very early ancient period, possible before the 4th century BCE, the very early phases of European civilisation."
Tell us, On Lawn, are you trying to assert that the idea of a round earth was NEVER a new idea ? Otherwise, what is your reason for pointing out that "round earth" was an accepted theory by the time of Columbus?
I'll restate and elaborate on my original point. Using the human understanding of the earth's shape as an example, we can see that sometimes cultures embrace an idea that is incorrect before gaining a better understanding that allows them to transition to an idea that is correct. Do you wish to dispute this?
And about the word "salt". One definition is (essentially) NaCl, halite, or table salt.
ReplyDeleteAnother is this:
* Any chemical compound formed from the reaction of an acid with a base, with all or part of the hydrogen of the acid replaced by a metal or other cation *
I'm not a chemist, so I asked a chemical engineer these questions:
1) Does a chemist ever refer to compounds other than NaCl as "salt" ?
2) Would you ever call magnesium sulfate "salt" ?
His answer was .... "yes".
And so, in this light, I'll revisit my original comment. It was:
"It is not necessary for the components to be identical in order for the attraction and bond to be the same, as we can clearly see in this example. "
And just to be super clear on this, here's a pop quiz. Pick the best answer.
Which of the following compounds fit the definition of "salt"?
a) Sodium Chloride
b) Magnesium Sulfate
c) Ammonium Nitrate
d) All Of The Above
If you answered "d" you would correct.
So, On Lawn made a fair amount of noise about this. But does any of it refute my statement (above) ? Tell us, On Lawn, are your posts intended as some kind of refutation of the statement that the components can differ whilst the attraction and bond remain the same?
And, a final note. On pseudonyms.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, a thank you to The Playful Walrus for responding to my concerns about identity. You are a gracious host.
Secondly, and to clarify: I would probably publish any of these comments under my own name, at my own discretion. My only objections pertain to keeping that choice at my own discretion, and any possible exposure to identity theft (which I apparently need to lock down elsewhere).
And finally, Mr/Mrs/or Ms On Lawn: If you think it is such a great idea to attach one's given name to blog posts or comments, why have you not done so with your own posts and comments? Why is it that you should have the option of posting under a pseudonym, but you think you should deprive others of that privilege? Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical to you?
Footnote
ReplyDeleteOn Lawn writes: "You chose a poor analogy. If someone sold me magnesium sulphate as salt, and I put it on my dinner table, I'd be able to tell the difference pretty quickly."
Nobody said the two were identical. Only that they both share characteristics common to the definition of "salt". NOBODY says they are both the same thing - yet they both (equally?) fit the definition of salt.
On Lawn Asks: "So if you want to choose an analogy, why did you choose something with a different structure, and why an analogy of marriage to salt when no chemist would conflate MgS04 as "salt"?"
Because salt is (clearly?) an example of different components sharing a similar bond. Illustrating that the emphasis ought to be on the kind of bond we're considering, rater than the components present in that bond.
BTW: your resistance to call anything other than NaCl "salt" is a GREAT validation of my premise .. that the CHARACTERISTICS of the bond are (often) erroneously ignored.
Dan, you are just trying to be mean again. And dishonest.
ReplyDeleteI'll just keep pointing that out.
"Tell us, On Lawn, are you trying to assert that the idea of a round earth was NEVER a new idea ?"
You are asking me to state something with certainty where there is none to be offered. I've stated it is a myth: a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
_Using the human understanding of the earth's shape as an example, we can see that sometimes cultures embrace an idea that is incorrect before gaining a better understanding that allows them to transition to an idea that is correct._
You can use the idea that marriage is nothing about procreation as something culture is embracing that is incorrect, hopefully before they realize that was wrong. The last group of people who clung to the idea that children have no rights to their natural relationships and roots were slave owners, if you want a historic example.
It is dishonest of you to imply that removing man and woman from marriage is like finding the earth to be round because you state both are or were new in some meaningful way in history. Yet in typical SearchCZ fashion you get it wrong even then, neither ideas are/were to human history.
_2) Would you ever call magnesium sulfate "salt" ? His answer was .... "yes"._
DeleteAsking a friend from High School chemistry class doesn't count.
The grammar of it is very simple. Salt is a definite article (NaCl), the category of salt is an indefinite article. Go ahead and look them up.
But lets do it this way. Where salt means a kind of compound we'll substitute for the word "compound", also an indefinite article.
Would you ever call magnesium sulfate "compound" ?
No, you would call it "a compound".
So for a unscientific survey, lets ask Google, which traps usage of phrases all over the internet. For the phrase "Magnesium Sulphate is salt" you get one hit, and it isn't english and it isn't even the exact phrase. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22magnesium+sulphate+is+salt%22&oq=%22magnesium+sulphate+is+salt%22
"Content by wikipedia artikel fuer magnesium sulphate is. Salt, mg stk, einschlielich preiselbeer-kapseln, stk nach epsom. Stoff, aus den ersten beiden tagen"
So even that one hit is a miss as it spans two different sentences.
So now lets look at how many hits we get for "magnesium sulphate is a salt". About 83,400 results...
That makes it 83,400 to 0.
_It is not necessary for the components to be identical in order for the attraction and bond to be the same, as we can clearly see in this example._
DeleteAs already noted, the bond is not what makes salt unique. Nor are all bonds in salt the same.
As a category, ionic bonds include a much larger set of compounds than just salts. Salts also include bonds that are not ionic.
You really have nothing right here.
_Why is it that you should have the option of posting under a pseudonym, but you think you should deprive others of that privilege?_
DeleteI've not kept you from posting as a pseudonym, as the whole thread clearly shows "SearchCZ" as the author of each post.
People can use my real name if they want to, I _don't deny them that right_.
_Which of the following compounds fit the definition of "salt"?_
DeleteOnly one of then is salt proper, but they are all salt compounds, by definition.
I wrote: "at one time, "round earth" was an extremely new idea."
DeleteYour retort: "That is another myth..."
http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/historicalmyths/a/histmyths7.htm
Seems quite clear that you're calling my statement a myth. The article you posted supports this reading as well. Noteworthy that the article does not explore the reasons why ancient people believed in a flat earth in the first place.
And now you write something different, falsely claim that this is what you wrote in the first place, and call me "mean and dishonest" ? That dog won't hunt.
If you mean to *clarify* your position, and point out that you meant something different by your original retort, I'll gracefully accept that. And although you've been known to call that kind of thing *back-pedaling*, I won't stoop to that level. But you can save your accusations about my honesty and deportment.
Re: The definition of "salt"
DeleteOn Lawn: "Asking a friend from High School chemistry class doesn't count."
I agree, which is why I didn't ask a friend from high school. I asked a graduate student from Purdue who currently holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering.
On Lawn: "So for a unscientific survey, lets ask Google, which traps usage of phrases all over the internet. For the phrase "Magnesium Sulphate is salt" you get one hit, and it isn't english and it isn't even the exact phrase."
The phrase Magnesium Sulphate is salt returns over 3 million hits. But here's one that's even better ... search for Sodium Chloride is salt. Here are couple of the more interesting hits you'll find:
1) http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Sodium_chloride
"Sodium chloride, also known as common salt, table salt, or halite, is a chemical compound with formula NaCl. Sodium chloride is the salt most responsible for the salinity of the ocean and of the extracellular fluid of many multicellular organisms. It is commonly used as a flavour enhancer and preservative for food."
It doesn't say that "sodium chloride is salt" ,,, it says "sodium chloride is the salt".
You might also check out what that site says about the term "salt".
http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Salt
"In chemistry, salt is a general term used for ionic compounds composed of positively charged cations and negatively charged anions, so that the product is neutral and without a net charge. These ions can be inorganic (Cl-) as well as organic (CH3-COO-) and monoatomic (F-) as well as polyatomic ions (SO42-)."
Their disambiguation page is pretty good too:
http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Salt_%28disambiguation%29
it begins:
"The word salt has a number of meanings: [...]"
Which is part of the reason that "salt" is an apt metaphor in this case. Because it has a widely held common meaning as well as a precise scientific meaning. Also noteworthy that the precise scientific meaning of "salt" also encompasses the NaCl, the combination most commonly referred to as "salt".
I wrote: "It is not necessary for the components to be identical in order for the attraction and bond to be the same, as we can clearly see in this example."
DeleteOn Lawn: "As already noted, the bond is not what makes salt unique. Nor are all bonds in salt the same."
You've invented a pointless strawman to argue against. I never claimed that that the attraction and bond constitue the comprehensive definition of "salt".
My example illustrates this idea: the name we choose for a combination of things sometimes has more to do with the nature of that combination, regardless of which specific elements are being combined.
I wrote: "salt is (clearly?) an example of different components sharing a similar bond"
You make some noise about this comment, but no part of it is false.
Do salts share a similar bond? Yes.
Can they be comprised of different components? Yes.
Are there other (non-salt) compounds that also share this kind of bond? Its not germain to my point. So you can write about that if you wish to make some other point, but it doesn't refute my statement(s).
_And now you write something different, falsely claim that this is what you wrote in the first place, and call me "mean and dishonest" ?_
DeleteYou are drunk. Nothing's changed.
"The phrase Magnesium Sulphate is salt returns over 3 million hits"
DeleteNo, you did a word search for pages which contain the four words. To search for a phrase you need quotation marks.
Here, once again is the link...
https://www.google.com/#output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22Magnesium+sulphate+is+salt%22&oq=%22Magnesium+sulphate+is+salt%22
One result. You may not be able to grasp how to use URL's, so here is a link for your clicking convenience.
"But here's one that's even better ... search for Sodium Chloride is salt."
DeleteOkay, it gets about 20,000 hits and a cursory reading show they are legit...
_"In chemistry, salt is a general term used for ionic compounds composed of positively charged cations and negatively charged anions [...]" [...] Which is part of the reason that "salt" is an apt metaphor in this case._
DeleteYes because cations and anions are complementary components of a pair. You don't get salts from two cations or two anions.
So yes, it is an apt analogy about how marriage is about combining different genders. But it isn't an apt analogy to try to explain same-sex bonding.
_My example illustrates this idea: the name we choose for a combination of things sometimes has more to do with the nature of that combination, regardless of which specific elements are being combined._
DeleteSalt's definition rests on things being combined (either salt and base, or cation and anion), as even the definitions you quote point out. Each combination is of a complementary pair (not segregated pair).
Just saying...
1) I'm not drunk.
Delete2) I think we've covered this topic sufficiently, so I'll let you have the last word if you wish. If you have something to which you would like me to respond, please post it as a question so that I'll understand that you wish to continue discussion.
"Do salts share a similar bond? Yes."
DeleteAt some point every chemical bond is electrical forces linking two atoms together.
At some point salts have very different and unique properties.
I realize that is really all you are trying to say, but salts are a bad analogy for even that.
Salts are all different, some are sweet, some are savory, some are salty. Some are composed of acidic or basic anhydrides. But they all are made from an acid and a base, not two acids or two bases.
It doesn't make sense to try to re-define salt as the product of either an acid and base, or two acids, or two bases.
_I think we've covered this topic sufficiently_
DeleteI think it is safe to say that translates to, "I did try those links and I was wrong".
_I'll let you have the last word if you wish._
I think it is safe to translate that as, "I've got nothing left, I was completely wrong".
Only you clearly don't have the decency to admit it out loud. I fear you are simply going to try the exact same arguments elsewhere, hoping that no one there actually understands the topic very well.
On Lawn: "Salt's definition rests on things being combined (either salt and base, or cation and anion), as even the definitions you quote point out.
DeleteCorrections: salts are formed by combining either:
1) a base and an acid
2) a metal and an acid
3) solutions of different salts
Also, while salt compounds contain an anion and a cation, its a stretch to say that an anion and a cation are being combined. Because the elements in question when an ionic bond is formed are neither anion nor cation at the outset.
Consider NaCl as an example. Sodium doesn't arrive on the scene as a cation, nor does chlorine arrive as an anion. They don't become anions or cations until those atoms combine, after a spare electron moves from the sodium atom to the chlorine atom. And the same process occurs in salt compounds that contain neither sodium nor chlorine.
_Because salt is (clearly?) an example of different components sharing a similar bond._
ReplyDeleteAlmost true. Salt is an example of what different components (acid and base) create through hydrogen ion exchange.
And that makes it like marriage, which combines the different genders man and woman, but different than same sex marriage.
To repost what you seem to have overlooked in your prima donna routine over your self-hatred of your given name (No, not my real name!) Some people don't like to be called names. But to you it is being called your name that breaches etiquette!
It is amazing how wrong you get things at so many levels. I literally have never met anyone on the internet so prolific in error that wasn't a self-humiliating troll.
But I digress...
Salts and Marriage.
What makes salt unique? Salt is NaCl, and is used as a flavor enhancer. A unique taste is named after it, and also a class of chemicals.
Can you describe how salt tastes without using the word salt? When people ask how marriage is between a man and a woman, it is like explaining what salt tastes like. You can describe it, but most readily you can point to something you can see, feel, and experience to really relay what it is.
Marriage is a legal relationship and commitment between a man and a woman. That isn't tautological, that is referential, like describing what salt tastes like by calling it "salty".
Salt, in chemistry, is also unique. Are salts unique among compounds because they have an ionic bond? No, not only do salts have ionic bonds, but they can often include many different types of bonds. And not all ionic bonds create salts (for instance any oxidized metal like sodium oxide) are ionic bonds, but they are not salts.
What makes a salt unique is that it is produced by the reaction of an acid and a base. An acid and an acid doesn't make a salt. A base and a base do not make a salt. You see where I'm going with this. Like marriage, the real classification hinges on the combination of two complementary pieces which combine to create something new between them.
So as an analogy to marriage, salts once again point to the fact that two unique and complementary things are particularly important to creating something very distinct and useful. And how unique things can be defined by simply the fact that two complementary components come together.
To change to include all ionic bonds simply denies the usefulness of why science classifies them as salts anyway. It is effectively removing the understanding and category we now call "salt", even though you recycle the name to be used in a different category.
On Lawn: "Playful Walrus is the admin and sets the rules. You and I are just guests."
DeleteAnd as his guests we both should have the good grace to accept and follow those rules. You sure seem awfully disgruntles at having been asked to do the very thing that you yourself said we ought to do.
You realize that quote is from another thread... and you didn't respond to any quotes from this thread.
DeletePerhaps you haven't read this post.
DeleteIf you have something to which you would like me to respond, please post it as a question so that I'll understand that you wish to continue discussion.
Interesting. I see nothing in that post that says I can't comment on what you wrote. Is that what you intended to write? Do you intend any continued restriction on what I write, just as your attempt to restrict people from using your real name was phrased as an attempt to restrict you from being able to post as someone/thing else?
DeleteStill, I think you've had well enough to make a point, and try to reply to the problems it had. I'm not going to make you reply to anything, you've already painted yourself into the corner. You painted yourself into it quite early.
It well enough to point out that often, you didn't reply to anything in the thread you posted in, and instead either misplaced your replies or felt that you'd rather pretend to reply by finding something from somewhere else. Its up to you what to do about it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete_I wrote what I entended[sic] to write,_
DeleteOh man.
_I think you want to ask me about the intended meaning of those words._
Oh, so now you have special intended meanings that are different than their actual meanings.
Actually, looking back on the conversation, particularly how you presumed that a salt is defined by a particular kind of bond rather than its composition of complementary pairs, I think that is a frank admission on your part.
_I have responded to your posts_
Yes, at some level stating you "don't feel a need to continue responding" is a response. It doesn't answer anything, and doesn't come out with the honest admission you were wrong about the meaning and grammatical nuances of the very analogy you claim illustrates your point.
Salt does not refer to a particular bond, instead it points to the components instead. Yet that is the inverse of what you claim your point relies on when you said, "my opinion that the words pertain to characteristics of the bond between things rather than as identification of the components that share the bond."
Your intended meaning didn't jive with the real meaning.
I don't need to ask you about it, you already made that very clear.
_Your acid/base analogy, by the way, simply uses "salt" as a metaphor to illustrate a different viewpoint than my own._
That salts comprise anions and cations, the remnants of the mixing of acids and bases, is scientific fact. Its not a matter of viewpoints based on "entended[sic]" meanings. The simple truth is that you have an opinion, and it doesn't match the facts.
_As to any restrictions on what you write_
Will be set by Playful in this site and not you.
_This is known as "courtesy"._
Yes, want to be like Batman, and I'll humor you.
_since you are so concerned about replies being posted in their proper threads_
Its funny, the three posts you link to are your own. They aren't posted in the wrong threads, they simply created new threads with quotation references to old threads.
I do that myself and see no problem with it.
No, the only issue is when you pretend to post something in response to a thread, when in fact it is quoting something that happened in another thread a while ago.
_If you have something ELSE to which you would like me to respond_
Honestly, I agree that you should cut your losses. You've tried to show Playful, and then myself, as wrong here because of some trumped up analogy doesn't even work. That you chose to respond, and how you chose to respond, is entirely up to you.
I apologize for going a bit off topic with this particular comment, but I'm being asked why the public is no longer permitted to read the posts and comments at The Opine Editorials. Care to comment?
ReplyDeleteOpine simply moved to new venues. Blogging is too transitory for the arguments we made, and not social enough for the interactions we want. In some ways, by trying to be both it really turned not to be neither.
DeleteSo we've moved to social media for more immediate reactions, and we are preparing ebooks for our more timeless content.
Oh, and why was it taken down during the move? For me it was simply too unwieldy a content to have it smattered across so many streams and years.
DeleteIt was tiring to deal with the same arguments over and over. The first paragraph of our draft so far mentions how painful it has been for us to see people lurch at us with arguments they thought were winners, that they were assured were good arguments, only to see them shatter and people just leave all in a huff. Of course if they read our archives they would have already known that, and it was tiring to replay those same arguments over and over ... and keep it fresh and fun.
Believe me, after your escapades and other's there, we would love nothing more than to keep those openly documented. But no one is going to weed through our archives to find those discussions, nor do they really need to. Debates, like football games, are not really fun to watch as re-runs.
[typo & grammatical corrections]
ReplyDeleteI wrote what I intended to write, but I think you want to ask me about the meaning I intended. I have responded to your posts, and seeing nothing "new" offered don't feel a need to continue responding to your repetition of red herrings and strawmen. ( Your acid/base analogy, by the way, simply uses "salt" as a metaphor to illustrate a different viewpoint than my own. A different metaphor, for a different point of view. That's swell, but it doesn't negate my use of "salt" as a metaphor to illustrate a differing viewpoint. )
As to any restrictions on what you write, I continue to believe that we ought to respect the choices of the person posting re: how their identity is presented. You are free to present your thoughts here under your given name or under any of the (many?) pseudonyms you use when posting online. I respect your right to make that decision for yourself, and expect reciprocity. This is known as "courtesy".
Another note: since you are so concerned about replies being posted in their proper threads, I suggest that you might want to be more careful in the future where you post your replies. Because as you can see here, here, and here, you either suffer the habit of failing to reply or misplacing your reply into some other thread ... something you call out as a transgression yet commit yourself.
If you have something ELSE to which you would like me to respond, please post it as a question so that I'll understand that you wish to continue discussion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMy reply remains at the old site of the post.
DeleteIt would have been better to fix the rest of the errors in your post while you were at it.
I fixed the typo and the grammatical. You haven't shown any others that require corrections in all of your complaints.
DeleteThe reality that the word "salt" has more than one meaning does not equate to an error in the meaning I chose to focus on. ( Among other things, "salt" means any chemical compound formed from the reaction of an acid with a base, with all or part of the hydrogen of the acid replaced by a metal or other cation. Many different compounds fit that definition, so ... not an error. )
The reality that the substances that fit this definition have more than one characteristic does not equate to an error in the characteristic I chose to focus on. ( All salts DO have ionic bonds. Its interesting that other substances ALSO have ionic bonds, but of little concern as I never claimed otherwise. I correctly pointed out that all salts have the same kind of bond, which they do. So, no error here either. )
The reality that any of the other definitions of "salt", or any of the other various characteristics of "salt", can be used to illustrate some different viewpoint does not negate the other possible metaphors based on the other characteristics of that class of substances.
_You haven't shown any others that require corrections in all of your complaints._
DeleteCorrection, you've decided not to correct any. I never required you to correct anything, but it would be proper etiquette.
You still have plenty errors that could be corrected. For instance you should correct your claims about Google search of the phrase "magnesium sulphate is salt" returning thousands of results. You should correct your claim that it is proper grammar to confuse definite and indefinite articles.
But most importantly you have yet to even acknowledge that you mistook how salts were defined when you created your analogy to compete with Playful's analogy about water.
_The reality that the word "salt" has more than one meaning does not equate to an error in the meaning I chose to focus on._
You really don't have a clue, and for that I pity you.
The problem is that the meaning you chose to focus on wasn't the meaning of salt when you said, "the words pertain to characteristics of the bond between things rather than as identification of the components that share the bond". Both definitions of salt depend on the components as defining characteristics.
There is no characteristic defining "salt bond" in the sense that you "entend". For instance, if you go to the wikipedia for "Salt Bond" you are redirected to a construction of a labratory device called a salt bridge instead.
_The reality that the substances that fit this definition have more than one characteristic does not equate to an error in the characteristic I chose to focus on._
You never focused on any characteristic of bonds in salts other than there was a bond. I'm the one who brought up ionic bonds. Its the closest thin you'll get to a characteristic salt bond, but as we explained it is not actually unique to salts at all.
_Its interesting that other substances ALSO have ionic bonds, but of little concern as I never claimed otherwise._
You said specifically that "The analogy is about the characteristics of the bond." You simply haven't thought ahead far enough ahead. You have yet to realize the obvious. The chemicals may have the same characteristic of an ionic bond, but it is not bigoted to say that are not ionic bonds all called salts.
_can be used to illustrate some different viewpoint_
So lets get this straight.
If you ignore that there is a difference between "salt" and the category of "salts", and if you ignore that not all similar compounds are salts, and not all salts have similar bonds, and if you ignore that the definition of salt is based on the composition of the compound, then your analogy could work.
Instead, however, salt is just one member of a salt category. And that category designated by its complementary pairing of salts and bases, even though it might share similar bonds with other compounds. That sure illustrates Playful's argument, "The union is different because men and women are different". The compound is different because acids and bases are different.
No, your point doesn't work. It may exist in your imagination, but sadly it can only do so as a product of ignorance.
So yes, sure, you can maintain your analogy as your own illustration if you wish, if you think the analogy is more important than reality. And apparently you do. But salts are a far more apt analogy of what Walrus pointed out.
As is quoted from Star Trek, you have illusion and Walrus has reality. May your way be as pleasant.
If I understand correctly, you mean that the presence of an ionic bond is irrelevant because, although a characteristic of salt, it is also a characteristic of things that are not salt and therefore it is not a defining characteristic ?
DeleteIf you understood me correctly, you would understand it doesn't fit what you intend your analogy to mean because it is not bigoted to call Sodium Hydroxide something other than a salt even when it has an ionic bond.
DeleteIt is very relevant to why your analogy doesn't work.
I see. The characteristic (ionic bond) which is present in ALL salt is not relevant to my argument because that characteristic is also present in things that are not salt ?
DeleteYou are absolutely hilarious ... Lets compare what I said with what you read, shall we?
DeleteMe: >> "It is very relevant to why your analogy doesn't work."
SearchCZ: > "The characteristic (ionic bond) which is present in ALL salt is not relevant to my argument"
So how on earth did you get "not relevant" from my statement "very relevant"?
How do you get things so basic, so wrong, sooo often?
You use the term "it" four times in your post. "It" is itself an ambiguous term, being a reference to something previously mentioned. (And there have been countless things previously mentioned on this page)
DeleteYou could avoid miscommunication by avoiding ambiguous terms.
You write: "It is very relevant to why your analogy doesn't work."
And in that sentence you wrote, "it" refers to what?
Also. In that same post you write that "It doesn't fit". To say that something "doesn't fit" is pretty close to calling that thing irrelevant. That's "how on earth" I misunderstood your meaning.
DeleteEarlier Search, you said ... "If you have something ELSE to which you would like me to respond, please post it as a question ... "
DeleteThat sounds like an admission that you jumped to a bad conclusion. But that doesn't explain how you got it exactly backwards.
So lets repeat the questions,
So how did you get the conclusion "not relevant" from my answer that explicitly states "very relevant"?
So the next question remains, how do you get things that are so basic, so wrong, sooo often?
_To say that something "doesn't fit" is pretty close to calling that thing irrelevant._
DeleteFunny. That isn't even remotely correct.
So if I have it right you misunderstood my meaning because you ignored a very explicit answer, and instead tried to divine another answer from something not very explicit.
I think that explains your problems in a lot of areas, frankly. An obvious and explicit answer is ignored, and instead the wrong answer you are searchCZing for is wrested from the closest available source, no matter how mistaken that effort might be.
Does that pretty much sum it up?
I've already answered these, one explicitly and one implicitly. Here's a repeat:
DeleteYou: "So how did you get the conclusion "not relevant" from my answer that explicitly states "very relevant"?"
Because you begin your post by pointing out that "it doesn't fit". Claiming that a statement "doesn't fit" is a criticism of the utility of that statement in the argument being made. Likewise, claiming that a statement is "irrelevant" can have the same effect. Also, it is unclear what you mean by "it" in this case.
You go on in that post to write that "It is very relevant", again leaving it unclear if you are referencing the same thing that your previous use of "it" references.
So, something doesn't fit, yet something is very relevant. Your writing doesn't clearly indicate what either of those things are, and whether they refer to the same thing or different things.
You: "So the next question remains, how do you get things that are so basic, so wrong, sooo often?"
When you write things that are unclear or inexact, you ought not expect that your meaning will be understood. If you re-wrote that post minus the "it"s you'd cut a lot of ambiguity.
_I've already answered these, one explicitly and one implicitly._
DeleteTry answering both explicitly.
_Likewise, claiming that a statement is "irrelevant" can have the same effect._
So again, I think that explains your problems in a lot of areas, frankly. An obvious and explicit answer is ignored, and instead the wrong answer you are searchCZing for is wrested from a sentence fragment that vaguely might have a similar but unstated effect, no matter how mistaken that effort might be.
Does that pretty much sum it up?
_your previous use of "it" references._
No, without an explicit change in reference, the antecedent is the same.
So again, I think that explains your problems in a lot of areas, frankly. An obvious way of reading an unchanged reference is ignored, and instead the wrong answer you are searchCZing for is wrested from the fact that an unchanged reference might be an oversight, no matter how mistaken that effort might be.
Does that pretty much sum it up?
_When you write things that are unclear or inexact, you ought not expect that your meaning will be understood._
The statement "very relevant" is very clear and exact.
So again, I think that explains your problems in a lot of areas, frankly. An obvious answer to your question, e.g. "very relevant", is ignored. Instead the wrong answer you are searchCZing for is wrested from a phrase not even remotely about relevance, no matter how mistaken that effort might be.
Does that pretty much sum it up?
Your use of "it" for times in a single post, combined with your refusal to clarify what "it" refers to in any (or all) of those four instances, pretty well sums things up.
DeleteThere's no refusal to clarify. Just incredulity that you are really trying to pretend to be _that_ incompetent. You asked a question and established the subject, and when the answer references "it" you are completely lost without bearing.
DeleteSo again, I think that explains your problems in a lot of areas, frankly. The obvious way of reading "it" in reference to the question is ignored, and instead the wrong answer you are searchCZing for is wrested from the fact that it might mean Ancient Aliens for all you can tell, no matter how mistaken that effort might be.
That goes beyond credible incompetence, and is just basic dishonesty on your part. Who asks a question and then gets such complete amnesia as to not understand what the answer to "it".
You really insult your audience to expect them to be as incompetent _as you are pretending to be_.
Lets review your question, "If I understand correctly, you mean that the presence of an ionic bond is irrelevant because, although a characteristic of salt, it is also a characteristic of things that are not salt and therefore it is not a defining characteristic ?"
When you wrote "it" were you equally as clueless as to what "it" was meant to reference?
Do you really have any reason to believe that somehow "it" changed when I replied to the question that already used "it" twice?
I'll take that as your statement that the meaning of "it" in my post retains the same meaning in your response.
DeleteIn which case, we can replace all those "it"s and perhaps better understand what each of us wrote.
My post (replacing the "it"s):
If I understand correctly, you mean that the presence of an ionic bond is irrelevant because, although a characteristic of salt, [the presence of an ionic bond] is also a characteristic of things that are not salt and therefore [the presence of an ionic bond] is not a defining characteristic ?
I can confirm that this is what I meant. So far so good.
And your response (with the same replacements):
If you understood me correctly, you would understand the presence of an ionic bond doesn't fit what you intend your analogy to mean because the presence of an ionic bond is not bigoted to call Sodium Hydroxide something other than a salt even when the presence of an ionic bond has an ionic bond.
The presence of an ionic bond is very relevant to why your analogy doesn't work.
#1, I think maybe this isn't what you meant after all.
#2, it doesn't answer my question.
You are hilarious....
DeleteYou are going to claim that the quote, "[The presence of an ionic bond] is very relevant to why your analogy doesn't work" doesn't answer your question?
No. I'm stating that your response to my question (aka "it" henceforth) (in its entirety) is ambiguous, difficult to understand, and in light of your most recent clarification it is utter gibberish. And no, gibberish does not answer a question.
DeleteEven more hilarious!
DeleteSearchCZ before.. "it doesn't answer my question."
So I ask it forthright, You are going to claim that the quote, "[The presence of an ionic bond] is very relevant to why your analogy doesn't work" doesn't answer your question?
SearchCZ states "No."
One way or the other SearchCZ, yes or no. Did the phrase I quoted answer or not answer your question?
I'm just trying to understand what you wrote here, which I understood to be your answer to my question. That post makes less and less sense in light of your explanation of what you meant by "it".
DeleteIf you would prefer, I'd be happy to disregard your original answer in favor of some other answer. Let's try that new quote to see if it answers what I asked.
I asked: "If I understand correctly, you mean that the presence of an ionic bond is irrelevant because, although a characteristic of salt, it is also a characteristic of things that are not salt and therefore it is not a defining characteristic ?"
Your latest answer: "[The presence of an ionic bond] is very relevant to why your analogy doesn't work."
I would say, no, you have not answered my question. Perhaps I should inquire in a different way.
You have previously pointed out that ionic bonds are not unique to salts. They are not the defining characteristic that make salt unique. What's your point?
So let me get this straight. You would be happy to disregard the original answer, in favor of the original answer.
DeleteYou are a constant source of comedy, I'll give you that.
You claim my "latest" answer is "[The presence of an ionic bond] is very relevant to why your analogy doesn't work."
Well, its not changed from the source you link to twice in the same comment, except that you replaced "it" with the subject of your question. Something, I won't hesitate to add, you spent numerous posts claiming you could not do before.
You are your own three stooges, poking yourself in the eye at almost every turn :-D
_You have previously pointed out that ionic bonds are not unique to salts._
I've not just said it, that is a fact of chemistry.
_They are not the defining characteristic that make salt unique._
Again, that is a fact of chemistry.
So lets get to this clarified example of pure expression of your question...
_What's your point?_
That is supposed to be a restatement of the question, "If I understand correctly, you mean that the presence of an ionic bond is irrelevant because, although a characteristic of salt, it is also a characteristic of things that are not salt and therefore it is not a defining characteristic ?"
That vague, open ended question is supposed to be the same thing as asking if I think something is relevant or not for a specific reason?
I don't buy it. I'm curious, in this comedy you are performing, just how my statement doesn't answer yours.
Lets put them side by side...
SearchCZ : >> "If I understand correctly, you mean that the presence of an ionic bond is irrelevant because [...]"
[edited by Search]: > "[The presence of an ionic bond] is very relevant [...]."
So tell me exactly how does that fail to answer the question?
Let's be clear here. With the benefit of clarifications that YOU offered here, my ORIGINAL question to you would be:
Delete"If I understand correctly, you mean that the presence of an ionic bond is irrelevant because, although a characteristic of salt, [the presence of an ionic bond] is also a characteristic of things that are not salt and therefore [the presence of an ionic bond] is not a defining characteristic ?"
And your ORIGINAL response would be:
"If you understood me correctly, you would understand the presence of an ionic bond doesn't fit what you intend your analogy to mean because the presence of an ionic bond is not bigoted to call Sodium Hydroxide something other than a salt even when the presence of an ionic bond has an ionic bond.
The presence of an ionic bond is very relevant to why your analogy doesn't work."
And you now wish to change your response, to exclude much of what you wrote the first time around, and instead to simply say:
"[The presence of an ionic bond] is very relevant to why your analogy doesn't work."
Seeing that this still does not answer my question I offered to "inquire in a different way". And somehow you think that's "supposed to be the same thing" as some previous question? Now you are clearly ignoring the obvious and explicit. I clearly SAID that this was a different inquiry, so where on earth would YOU get it was meant to be the same? You ignore the obvious and explicit statement that the inquiry is different, and complain that the inquire is different. That's pretty sad.
You may feel free to answer either of the two questions at hand. At this point you've answered neither.
_And you now wish to change your response, to exclude much of what you wrote the first time around_
DeleteFocusing on the bottom line, 1) doesn't exclude anything and even if it did 2) doesn't change the answer.
_Seeing that this still does not answer my question I offered to "inquire in a different way"._
"What is your point?" is supposed to be a restatement of the question, "If I understand correctly, you mean that the presence of an ionic bond is irrelevant because, although a characteristic of salt, it is also a characteristic of things that are not salt and therefore it is not a defining characteristic"?
That vague, open ended question is supposed to be the same thing as asking if I think something is relevant or not for a specific reason?
I don't buy it. I'm curious, in this comedy you are performing, just how my statement doesn't answer yours.
Lets put them side by side...
SearchCZ : >> "If I understand correctly, you mean that the presence of an ionic bond is irrelevant because [...]"
[edited by Search]: > "[The presence of an ionic bond] is very relevant [...]."
So tell me exactly how does that fail to answer the question?
_I clearly SAID that this was a different inquiry_
Clearly saying it would not be the same question that would have been, "let me ask a different question", rather than, "Perhaps I should [ask the same question] in a different way".
"At this point you've answered neither."
Here we go, the basic SearchCZ evasion. None of the other evasions worked out for you?
So now you are simply going to deny that any of my thoughtful attempts to answer your question ... in ways you refuse to explain :-D
But let me answer both points "in a different way" for you.
I'll take your question and rephrase it into the answer.
Same answer, just put "in a different way".
The presence of an ionic bond is relevant because, although a characteristic of salt, the presence of an ionic bond is also a characteristic of things that are not salt.
Thus, in an analogy which claims to illustrate "If [Playful's] premise was correct, it wold[sic] be impossible for us to recognize that these different combinations ARE ALL SALT" contradicts itself since it is possible and even proper to state that chemicals with "the presence of an ionic bond" "ARE [NOT] ALL SALT[s]".
When your answer needs *clarification* and truncation in order to be discernable, both of those actions constitute changes.
DeleteWhen I clearly write that I intend to inquire in a different way, you ought to expect some difference(s) in the inquiry. Not my fault that you made the mistake of thinking "inquiry" meant "ask the same question".
So mo, the open ended question was never presented as being "the same thing" as anything else. It was clearly presented as being different, which makes your complaints very puzzling.
The contradiction is so evident even in what you wrote that it is hilarious.
DeleteIn the same paragraph you state your intended inquiry was going to be expressed "in a different way", and then state it is a "mistake" to expect that means you were actually going to "ask the same question" ... "in a different way".
You couldn't keep track of the subject of the question you wrote before, and became lost when I referenced "it". Now you can't keep track of whether or not you really intended to ask either time. All you can remember is that it is the same with a few differences, but entirely different!
LOL...
_When your answer needs *clarification* and truncation in order to be discernable, both of those actions constitute changes._
ReplyDeleteWrong again, 1) It didn't need clarification. That is clearly evident in the fact that even you were able to figure out what "it" meant without me stating anything more than the obvious. And 2) focusing on the bottom line doesn't mean the rest is truncated off.
So both of those are really just lies, it isn't even incompetance.
You clearly have lost any conscience about lying so blatantly.
Still, even if you won't admit it, the facts are pretty clear.
Another instance, earlier I focused on the smallest portion of my answer to show just how wrong minded your interpretation is. Remember, that is what you are still trying to explain, just how you could have gotten something so simple so backwards.
So how on earth did you get "not relevant" from my statement "very relevant"?
And at that time you never accused it of being truncated even though it was even a smaller portion then.
Instead of calling it a truncation, you claimed you didn't know what "it" meant. But we already went over how you finally confessed to knowing what "it" meant.
_When I clearly write that I intend to inquire in a different way, you ought to expect some difference(s) in the inquiry._
And instead of "some difference(s) in the inquiry" you post-hoc stated it was a different inquiry outside of your original inquiry altogether, claiming "inquiry is different".
You are doing your routine of trying to fudge one phrase into a similar sounding phrase when they are, in fact, different.
Something that has "some difference(s)" is not the same thing as saying they are "different" altogether.
No where did I claim there wouldn't be "some difference(s)". In fact I stated, I expected it to have differences as a "restatement".
Clearly saying it would not be the same question that would have been, "let me ask a different question", rather than, "Perhaps I should [ask the same question] in a different way".
"At this point you've answered neither."
ReplyDeleteHere we go, the basic SearchCZ evasion. None of the other evasions worked out for you?
So now you are simply going to deny that any of my thoughtful attempts to answer your question ... in ways you refuse to explain :-D
But let me answer both points "in a different way" for you.
I'll take your question and rephrase it into the answer.
Same answer, just put "in a different way".
The presence of an ionic bond is relevant because, although a characteristic of salt, the presence of an ionic bond is also a characteristic of things that are not salt.
Thus, in an analogy which claims to illustrate "If [Playful's] premise was correct, it wold[sic] be impossible for us to recognize that these different combinations ARE ALL SALT" contradicts itself since it is possible and even proper to state that chemicals with "the presence of an ionic bond" "ARE [NOT] ALL SALT[s]".
_You have previously pointed out that ionic bonds are not unique to salts._
I've not just said it, that is a fact of chemistry.
_They are not the defining characteristic that make salt unique._
Again, that is a fact of chemistry.
So lets get to this clarified example of pure expression of your question...
_What's your point?_
That is supposed to be a restatement of the question, "If I understand correctly, you mean that the presence of an ionic bond is irrelevant because, although a characteristic of salt, it is also a characteristic of things that are not salt and therefore it is not a defining characteristic ?"
That vague, open ended question is supposed to be the same thing as asking if I think something is relevant or not for a specific reason?
I don't buy it. I'm curious, in this comedy you are performing, just how my statement doesn't answer yours.
Lets put them side by side...
SearchCZ : >> "If I understand correctly, you mean that the presence of an ionic bond is irrelevant because [...]"
[edited by Search]: > "[The presence of an ionic bond] is very relevant [...]."
So tell me exactly how does that fail to answer the question?
_Not my fault that you made the mistake of thinking "inquiry" meant "ask the same question"._
The comedy of lies just keep marching on with you.
And then you compound it by stating that expecting only "some difference(s)" is a mistake! You contradict your previous statement without even blinking.
LOL.
_So mo, the open ended question was never presented as being "the same thing_
Dan, my name isn't Mo.
_It was clearly presented as being different, which makes your complaints very puzzling._
And then you top it off with another contradicting twist.
But it isn't puzzling that you can't keep your facts straight :-D
You never focused on any characteristic of bonds in salts other than there was a bond. I'm the one who brought up ionic bonds. Its the closest thing you'll get to a characteristic salt bond, but as was explained it is not actually unique to salts at all. There is no "salt bond" for you to focus an analogy about what can be included and not included based on its bond.
ReplyDeleteYou said specifically that "The analogy is about the characteristics of the bond." You simply haven't thought ahead far enough ahead. You have yet to realize the obvious. The chemicals may have the same characteristic of an ionic bond, but it is not bigoted to say that are not ionic bonds all called salts.
But lets be generous. What does it take for your analogy to actually work?
Well...
1) If you ignore that there is a difference between "salt" and the category of "salts"
2) If you ignore that not all similar compounds are salts, and not all salts have similar bonds
3) If you ignore that the definition of salt is based on the composition of the compound, then your analogy could work.
Instead, however, salt is just one member of a salt category. And that category designated by its complementary pairing of salts and bases, even though it might share similar bonds with other compounds. That sure illustrates Playful's argument, "The union is different because men and women are different". The compound is different because acids and bases are different.
No, your point doesn't work. It may exist in your imagination, but sadly it can only do so as a product of ignorance.
So yes, sure, you can maintain your analogy as your own illustration if you wish, if you think the analogy is more important than reality. And apparently you do. But salts are a far more apt analogy of what Walrus pointed out.
As is quoted from Star Trek, you have illusion and Walrus has reality. May your way be as pleasant.
On Lawn remains as gracious as ever. A few afterthoughts on this exchange:
ReplyDeleteI wrote an analogy based on what salt is. According to Chemistry Daily:
"In chemistry, salt is a general term used for ionic compounds composed of positively charged cations and negatively charged anions, so that the product is neutral and without a net charge. These ions can be inorganic (Cl-) as well as organic (CH3-COO-) and monoatomic (F-) as well as polyatomic ions (SO42-)."
On Lawn wrote: "salt is just one member of a salt category. And that category designated by its complementary pairing of salts and bases".
I searched google for the phrase "pairing of salts and bases" - the phrase you wrote. There were zero hits. Perhaps you meant to write about the pairing of acids and bases?
Also, anything that fits the definition of "salt" is a member of the salt category.
On Lawn wrote: "There is no characteristic defining "salt bond" in the sense that you "entend". "
And I never said that the type of bond present in salt (ionic) is the defining characteristic of that class of compounds. Only that it is a characteristic present in every salt, regardless of what elements are present in the compound.
And on to another phrase you added to the conversation: "salt bond". I'm not sure what you expect to prove by pointing our that a phrase you came up with is absent from Wikipedia. You complaint that Wikipedia doesn't include a phrase you came up with says nothing about the things I've written. As such, your Wikipedia search for "salt bond" is irrelevant.
But here are a few relevant searches, and the number of hits returned on Google:
"chemical bond of salt" = 145 results
"salt bonding" = 5,040 results
salt bond = over 64 million results
On Lawn wrote: "you've decided not to correct any".
Incorrect. I've decided to correct two. You've decided not to correct any of your comments.
_Perhaps you meant to write about the pairing of acids and bases?_
ReplyDeleteYes, actually I did. Good catch.
_And I never said that the type of bond present in salt (ionic) is the defining characteristic of that class of compounds._
Actually, you did. "'Salt' is not identical to 'marriage' - but it is an apt analogy to explain or clarify my opinion that the words pertain to characteristics of the bond between things [in this reference 'salt'] rather than as identification of the components that share the bond."
_As such, your Wikipedia search for "salt bond" is irrelevant._
Wishful thinking, but in order to call it irrelevant you would need to disavow a large portion of your writing which focused on salts having a defining characteristic bond.
* "It is not necessary for the components to be identical in order for the attraction and bond to be the same, as we can clearly see in this example [of salts]."
* "Did anyone suggest that H2O, which shares a different kind of bond than NaCl, ought to be called 'salt' ? No. Purpose? The analogy is about the characteristics of the bond."
* "Tell us, On Lawn, are your posts intended as some kind of refutation of the statement that the components can differ whilst the attraction and bond remain the same?"
* "Because salt is (clearly?) an example of different components sharing a similar bond. Illustrating that the emphasis ought to be on the kind of bond we're considering, rater than the components present in that bond."
* "BTW: your resistance to call anything other than NaCl "salt" is a GREAT validation of my premise .. that the CHARACTERISTICS of the bond are (often) erroneously ignored."
etc...
_But here are a few relevant searches_
Lets check that out...
_"chemical bond of salt" = 145 results_
That is an awfully low number. But the problem is that the phrase does not signify a "characteristic" or "same" bond. It simply states any chemical bond of salt, which can be (and are) diverse.
"salt bonding" = 5,040 results"
You'll find that phrase typically means when salts act like a glue for different molecules, peptides in particular.
It doesn't even mean the bonds between the components of salt.
You promised relevant searches, but so far are batting with two strikes.
_salt bond = over 64 million results_
Actually, you forgot the quotes again to make it a phrase rather than a word search. As a phrase it gets still a respectable 53,000. However the phrase suffers the same problem as the former, it doesn't signify a characteristic, similar bond across salts.
For instance, one of the pages is the Wikipedia page. Another is the name of someone on Facebook (My name is Bond, Salt Bond").
And many references are ambiguous to whatever bond that salt might have (e.g. "What breaks a salt bond?")
So that is a strike out.
On the other hand, the wikipedia which includes pages on millions of topics, including research and explanation of many aspects of chemistry, doesn't have an entry for "salt bond". Because there really is no similar, same, characteristic bond that is unique and definitive to salts, contrary to the assertions you made, reproduced in the quotes above.
_Incorrect. I've decided to correct two._
DeleteAny, in that statement, refers to your statement "You haven't shown any others that require corrections in all of your complaints."
But if it makes you feel better, it would be more plainly rendered as "you haven't corrected any of the others".
For instance you should correct your claims about Google search of the phrase "magnesium sulphate is salt" returning thousands of results. You should correct your claim that it is proper grammar to confuse definite and indefinite articles.
But most importantly you have yet to even acknowledge that you mistook how salts were defined when you created your analogy to compete with Playful's analogy about water.
_The reality that the word "salt" has more than one meaning does not equate to an error in the meaning I chose to focus on._
You really don't have a clue, and for that I pity you.
The problem is that the meaning you chose to focus on wasn't the meaning of salt when you said, "the words pertain to characteristics of the bond between things rather than as identification of the components that share the bond". Both definitions of salt depend on the components as defining characteristics.
There is no characteristic defining "salt bond" in the sense that you "entend". For instance, if you go to the wikipedia for "Salt Bond" you are redirected to a construction of a laboratory device called a salt bridge instead.
You've made many false accusations which would be polite to retract, also.
But lets be generous. What does it take for your analogy to actually work?
Well...
1) If you ignore that there is a difference between "salt" and the category of "salts"
2) If you ignore that not all similar compounds are salts, and not all salts have similar bonds
3) If you ignore that the definition of salt is based on the composition of the compound, then your analogy could work.
Instead, however, salt is just one member of a salt category. And that category designated by its complementary pairing of salts and bases, even though it might share similar bonds with other compounds. That sure illustrates Playful's argument, "The union is different because men and women are different". The compound is different because acids and bases are different.
No, your point doesn't work. It may exist in your imagination, but sadly it can only do so as a product of ignorance.
So yes, sure, you can maintain your analogy as your own illustration if you wish, if you think the analogy is more important than reality. And apparently you do. But salts are a far more apt analogy of what Walrus pointed out.
As is quoted from Star Trek, you have illusion and Walrus has reality. May your way be as pleasant.
I didn't "forget" any quotes on my internet searches. I just realize that other people might express their ideas in different ways, so I reject the idea that one should rely on a search for the phrase "Salt Bond" as a definitive way to explore the bonds that exist between molecules in the compound "salt".
DeleteI can't be held responsible for your ludicrous decision to search for meaning in the phrase "Salt Bond", which you seem to have invented.
And a side note: its a little weird that you reply to your own comment.
Search you are weaseling again...
Delete_I didn't "forget" any quotes on my internet searches._
In "salt bond" you labeled it as a phrase you were searching for... "And on to another phrase you added to the conversation: 'salt bond'." Phrases require quotes, and they were missing on your search.
Even if I was to accept your explanation, it is clear that if "salt bond" isn't definitive enough a search then clearly searching for just the separate words "salt" and "bond" an article is much, much, worse.
So if that really was your complaint, then why do it in defense of something that works even worse for that application?
"its a little weird that you reply to your own comment."
There is a word limit, and sometimes I have to break it up into two comments. Sometimes it is good enough to leave that new comment as a new thread, sometimes I want to keep them in the same thread.
Sometimes things that come across "weird" have a good explanation. But so far you've offered no such explanation, though plenty anomalies and contradictions have been pointed out to you.
Seeing a question mark, I'll respond to your question.
DeleteOn Lawn writes: "So if that really was your complaint, then why do it in defense of something that works even worse for that application?"
Let's be clear. You invented a poor search phrase ("Salt Bond"), decided to look for it within a limited scope (wikipedia), and tried to build an argument based on the poor outcome of your decisions. That pose provides zero information to help gauge the quality of any arguments I've posted.
And as I pointed out, if you are interested in information about the bonds that exists in salt, you need to start with the understanding that others might choose different terms and phrases to express that concept. Perhaps one ought to even have the humility to realize that one's own terminology ( that is, your "Salt Bond" phrase ) might not be the BEST or MOST COMMON way that the concept is expressed.
On Lawn: "it is clear that if "salt bond" isn't definitive enough a search then clearly searching for just the separate words "salt" and "bond" an article is much, much, worse."
Incorrect. It is clear that search for the phrase "salt bond" - a phrase YOU introduced - is too narrow to reveal content relevant to the subject. Searching for the words "salt" and "bond" creates a broader search in which you might find articles on the subject that do not include the ridiculous phrase "salt bond", which you introduced here. You might actually find articles on the subject at hand among the hits returned. And yo characterize this outcome as "much, much worse" ! Why? Because it requires you to make some effort to distinguish relevant form irrelevant content? I don't think that effort is beyond our capabilities.
On Lawn maintains that my analogy only words under the following conditions (in bold, below)
Delete1) If you ignore that there is a difference between "salt" and the category of "salts"
No need to ignore that a difference exists in the common use of the term "salt" compared to the scientific use of that term. That's important part of the analogy: there are compounds that fit the scientific definition of salt, and that chemical engineers refer to as salt, that most folks wouldn't call salt. Many compounds fit the definition of salt, but most folks only use that word to refer to NaCl. That fact is consistent with all my prior statements, so no need to ignore it.
2) If you ignore that not all similar compounds are salts, and not all salts have similar bonds
All salts have ionic bonds. There is no salt that lacks an ionic bond. That is the common bond referenced when I wrote: "It is not necessary for the components to be identical in order for the attraction and bond to be the same".
What is it that we need to ignore about compounds that are not salt ?
3) If you ignore that the definition of salt is based on the composition of the compound, then your analogy could work.
Please do observe that the definition of salt is based on something other than the specific components that combine to form the salt. That is what my analogy points out, that the definition is not dependent upon the specific components that combine.
_my analogy only words under the following conditions_
DeleteWord.
_That's important part of the analogy: there are compounds that fit the scientific definition of salt, and that chemical engineers refer to as salt, that most folks wouldn't call salt_
Sure, like the compound you mentioned in your analogy, Magnesium Sulphate, otherwise known as Epsom Salt. :-D
_[...] most folks only use that word [salt] to refer to NaCl. That fact is consistent with all my prior statements, so no need to ignore it._
Sure, like these statements ... "These two combinations, although different, ARE BOTH SALT!" And, "these different combinations ARE ALL SALT."
LOL...
_All salts have ionic bonds._
DeleteCorrection, all salts have at least one ionic bond.
_That is the common bond referenced_
Yet ionic isn't any more a "common bond" than just saying a chemical bond in the first place.
_"It is not necessary for the components to be identical in order for the attraction and bond to be the same"._
Yet the components anions and cations are required. And many salts include covalent bonds, like the H20 you claimed would never be called a salt.
Hence you have to ignore the fact that not all similar compounds are salts, and not all salts have similar bonds.
_Please do observe that the definition of salt is based on something other than the specific components that combine to form the salt._
DeleteAnd your reference to that definition I can observe is?
Because all the definitions referenced by both you and me observe specific components that combine to form the salt.
_That [the definition of salt is based on something other than the specific components] is what my analogy points out_
And why it is based on something false...
_You invented a poor search phrase ("Salt Bond")_
ReplyDeleteThat phrase is a reasonable expression of something you mentioned was the basis of your analogy.
_That pose provides zero information to help gauge the quality of any arguments I've posted._
Its not a poor search phrase, it is a reasonable phrase from a poor and misguided analogy of your own creation.
If you want to disavow that having no direct reference to anything like what you claim is the basis of your analogy has no impact on the validity of what you wrote, then that is fine. I'll just chalk it up to your continued comedy of errors :-D
_you need to start with the understanding that others might choose different terms and phrases to express that concept._
Except "salt bond", that would be "poor" ... LOL
So what are these phrases that I should have looked for that would express how "ALL ARE SALT[s]" because they have the same bond...
What is the "most common" phrase to express that concept?
_Seeing a question mark, I'll respond to your question._
Oh yes, you are returning to your aloof routine. You realize there have been many comments which had no question mark that you did reply to. There have also been many questions you didn't answer.
But no matter. I'm not asking you to reply to anything, for the record. Any "question mark" you see can be considered rhetorical questions that don't require a response to bring across the message of how your reasoning doesn't really add up. It is up to you to decide whether you really want to answer or not.
_Searching for the words "salt" and "bond" creates a broader search in which you might find articles on the subject that do not include the ridiculous phrase "salt bond"_
And find Bond, Salt Bond, the person.
And no, you won't find any more articles on the subject of the "salt bond" if they don't use the phrase "salt bond".
But if you do find a phrase which does, I'm happy to review it.
"[...] the ridiculous phrase 'salt bond', which you introduced here"
Oh and this is maybe the funniest. The fact it is ridiculous and that I introduced it here, only underlines the point that your analogy is based on something that isn't recognized in the scientific body of knowledge. "Salt Bond" isn't a ridiculous expression of your analogy's basis of the same bond bond being how we know what is a salt was true, mind you, its just ridiculous because your analogy's basis is ridiculous.
_You might actually find articles on the subject at hand among the hits returned._
Like which article? The dictionary, wikipedia, and all the other explanations of what salt is note the characteristic which makes something a salt or not is the components, not the bond.
You've not produced one article to the contrary, while the obvious sources say something completely contradictory to that premise.
I think that explains your problems in a lot of areas, frankly. An obvious and explicit answer from the obvious sources of dictionaries and encyclopedias are ignored, and instead the wrong answer you are searchCZing for is wrested from no particular article at all but perhaps it is in one of 3 million pages Google finds the word "salt" and "bond" in, no matter how mistaken that effort might be.
The fact that your limited search for the phrase "salt bond" provided you with no information on the nature of the bond(s) that exist in salt compounds is sufficient proof that it is not "a reasonable expression" of the concept.
Deleteas I previously pointed out, somebody interested in the chemical bonds in salt would stand a better chance of finding that information using the phrase "chemical bond of salt". And you can do even better "chemical bonds in salt".
On Lawn: "So what are these phrases that I should have looked for that would express how "ALL ARE SALT[s]" because they have the same bond..."
Who said that they are all salt[s] because they have the same bond? I identified the bond common to all salt compounds as a characteristic. I think you invented something to argue against when you decided to respond as if I had called it a defining characteristic.
On Lawn: "Like which article? The dictionary, wikipedia, and all the other explanations of what salt is note the characteristic which makes something a salt or not is the components, not the bond.
You've not produced one article to the contrary, while the obvious sources say something completely contradictory to that premise."
Sure I have. In this post I linked to an article in Chemistry Daily. Oh, and if you read that article you'll find that you've also made an error here. Turns out that some sat compounds can form without combining an acid and a base.
Not to mention, if you would have simply searched google for the words salt bond ( not the phrase you invented, so no, don't put quotes around them) as I suggested, you would have found lots of articles that discuss the bond(s) that occur in salt compounds. Five of the articles listed on the first page of hits were on topic, and included:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionic_bond
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110903173747AAZZQMI
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/143Aioniccpds.html
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_type_of_bond_holds_atoms_together_in_a_salt_molecule
ALL of these discuss the bond that occurs in salt without using the phrase "salt bond".
_The fact that your limited search for the phrase "salt bond" provided you with no information on the nature of the bond(s) that exist in salt compounds is sufficient proof that it is not "a reasonable expression" of the concept._
DeleteWrong again.
1) The fact is really that it does reference the concept of bonding that is the basis of your analogy.
2) The fact that such a reference doesn't really exists shows how misguided your basis is.
3) The fact is, we can find out all we want about chemical bonds, but your theory of the existance of a defining bond that tells us what is a salt and what isn't a salt, does not match anything in reality.
4) To mix the concept of chemical bonds,
_the phrase "chemical bond of salt"_
Refers to NaCl, and not the "chemical bond of salts", which actually turns up zero hits.
It is amazing, and hilarious, how you keep getting things wrong so often.
This also shows another failure of SearchCZ, who claimed that his analogy doesn't require us conflating the chemical salt, with the chemical category of salts.
_Who said that they are all salt[s] because they have the same bond?_
Why SearchCZ did...
* "It is not necessary for the components to be identical in order for the attraction and bond to be the same, as we can clearly see in this example [of salts]."
* "Did anyone suggest that H2O, which shares a different kind of bond than NaCl, ought to be called 'salt' ? No. Purpose? The analogy is about the characteristics of the bond."
* "Tell us, On Lawn, are your posts intended as some kind of refutation of the statement that the components can differ whilst the attraction and bond remain the same?"
* "Because salt is (clearly?) an example of different components sharing a similar bond. Illustrating that the emphasis ought to be on the kind of bond we're considering, rater than the components present in that bond."
* "BTW: your resistance to call anything other than NaCl "salt" is a GREAT validation of my premise .. that the CHARACTERISTICS of the bond are (often) erroneously ignored."
_Turns out that some sat compounds can form without combining an acid and a base._
False. It is true some salts can exchange anions and cations, but those are still the products of acids and bases.
You provide more Fails on a consistent basis than Failblog.
_discuss the bond(s) that occur in salt compounds_
Right, which can include just about every kind of chemical bond there is :-) Even covalent bonds, which you ruled out H20 because it wasn't the same bond as found in salts.
Okay, so that fail was a repeat. You made that same mistake numerous times in this discussion.
Yes they do discuss the bonds that happen in salts. The problem is it doesn't match what you described as a bond in salts that define what is, and what isn't a salt, or in other words the "salt bond". Because such a concept doesn't match reality.
I think that explains your problems in a lot of areas, frankly. An obvious and explicit answer from the obvious sources of dictionaries and encyclopedias are ignored, and instead the wrong answer you are searchCZing for is wrested from no particular article at all but perhaps it is in one of 3 million pages Google finds the word "salt" and "bond" in, no matter how mistaken that effort might be.
Funny, none of those quotes you posted state that the bond that exists in salt is its defining characteristic - only that it is a characteristic shared even if the components of the salt compound differ. You spend a lot of effort pretending that I made a claim so that you can dispute it. You should stick to what I have written rather than what you imagine or invent. Since I never mentioned "a bond in salts that define what it is" I'm not too concerned with your complaint in this regard.
DeleteOh, also, you should read the article I linked to, which clearly states the the combination of acids and bases is only one of three ways that salt compounds form. The other two ways:
1) combining a metal and and acid
2) mixing solutions of different salts together
You wrote: "It is true some salts can exchange anions and cations, but those are still the products of acids and bases.
Please cite a source for these two claims, because I believe the first refers to a salt bridge rather than a salt. And the second is simply false.
Watch the goalposts move (or do they?)
DeleteSearchCZ before: > "Who said that they are all salt[s] because they have the same bond?"
Then I put in just a few quotes from Search that do say that. But for some reason he thinks I didn't fulfill his request...
SearchCZ now: > "none of those quotes you posted state that the bond that exists in salt is its defining characteristic"
Either those are consistent or they are not.
Either SearchCZ is moving the goal posts ... or the fact they "are all salt[s] because they have the same bond" is a "defining characteristic".
So either SearchCZ is not sticking with what he wrote (aka lying), or both he and I did (and is lying when he complains I did not).
I have to admit SearchCZ, I saw that one coming a mile away.
"combining a metal and and acid"
I never said that an acid and a base is the only way to produce a salt. I said that something is a salt because it is produced by an acid and a base ... there can be many ways to produce the same compound but the defining characteristic is the existence of an acid/base reaction that produces the compound.
You will never find a salt that cannot be produced by an acid and a base, even if it is the product of an acid and a metal. You'll never find a product of an acid and a base that is not a salt. How else you produce the same compound doesn't disqualify it.
They are all the same that way, and nothing that is violates that rule is categorized with it. Hence it is a defining characteristic. But we already went over that :-D
_Please cite a source for these two claims_
LOL... okay
I said, "some salts can exchange anions and cations"
You can actually find that in the article you pointed to ... "Salts can also form if solutions of different salts are mixed, their ions recombine, and the new salt is insoluble and precipitates"
"those [salts] are still the products of acids and bases."
From the page (and even your quote of the page), "Salts are formed by a chemical reaction between [...] a base and an acid"
On Lawn wrote: "What makes a salt unique is that it is produced by the reaction of an acid and a base."
DeleteYet this statement is false for all of the salts produced by the reaction of an acid and a metal. The reaction of an acid and a base has nothing to do with magnesium sulphate, potassium chloride, or copper chloride. These are all salts that don't even have the characteristic you named. Thus, that cannot possibly be the characteristic that makes a salt unique.
Noteworthy, though, that all these salts do have the characteristic I named. In all of them, an ionic bond is present. ( this is not the defining characteristic, in and of itself - a point that is immaterial to any claim I've made here. more on that in a moment )
On Lawn ALSO wrote: "Salts are all different, some are sweet, some are savory, some are salty. Some are composed of acidic or basic anhydrides. But they all are made from an acid and a base".
Now On Lawn writes: "I never said that an acid and a base is the only way to produce a salt."
Wait. He wrote that "salts] are all made from an acid and a base". And he wrote "I never said that an acid and a base is the only way to produce a salt."
Yet when I stated that salt compounds can form without combing an acid and a base, On Lawn called that "false".
These can't both be correct statements, On Lawn. And I think you've had ample opportunity to check your facts and self correct. I begin to wonder if you are being honest in your communication here.
Also, you might want to take a look at this page from Launceston College's physical sciences department, which includes the following:
DeleteOne of the ways acids were originally classified was by their characteristic reactions. [...]
acid plus metal produces salt plus hydrogen gas
acid plus metal hydroxide produces salt and water
acid plus metal oxide also produces salt and water
acid plus metal carbonate produces salt, carbon dioxide gas and water
acid plus metal hydrogen carbonate also produces salt, carbon dioxide gas and water
acid plus metal sulfite produces salt, sulfur dioxide gas and water
In the above discussion the term salt has occurred several times; it is not, of course, referring solely to NaCl, so called table salt. In this context the term salt refers to any ionic compound resulting from a reaction involving acids. So if you mix solutions of HCl and NaOH you get aqueous NaCl and HOH (or H2O). NaCl is the salt. On the other hand, if you mix HNO3 and CuO you get Cu(NO3)2 and H2O. In this case Cu(NO3)2 is the salt.
So, according to yet another authority on chemistry, the term "salt" can refer to sodium chloride. It can also refer to copper chloride. And notice, the physical science department doesn't write that acid plus metal produces a salt. They write that it produces salt.
To be clear, the phrase "those [salts] are still the products of acids and bases." occurs nowhere in the article I referenced. That article doesn't even support your claim that the original salts were necessarily the products of acids and bases.
DeleteYour post wrongly suggests otherwise.
Maybe you should go ahead and cite your source. The one that supports your statements.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI see where you are confused.
DeleteYou see, if I'm citing what someone else says verbatim, then I put quotes around it. It is a very common practice, I think most people learn it in elementary school. But perhaps you haven't gotten that far yet.
But I'm not quoting a source. However, it is common knowledge. The claim is even supported in the article you linked to.
For most people that is an epic fail, but for Search it is just his common, can't get anything right, kind of fail ... :-D
On Lawn wrote (and deleted): "I never claimed it was quoted from a source"
DeleteSir. First you cite a source: "IYou can actually find that in the article you pointed to"
After that you list a quote: "those [salts] are still the products of acids and bases."
Problem: the quote does not appear in the article you cited. You are, in fact, quoting yourself and not the article you previously cited. You name a source, then you list quotes that do not appear @ that source. That is dishonest misattribution.
On Lawn wrote (and deleted): "But I can cite where that claim is supported, even in the article you linked to."
Please do.
I see where you are confused.
DeleteYou see, if I'm citing what someone else says verbatim, then I put quotes around it. It is a very common practice, I think most people learn it in elementary school. But perhaps you haven't gotten that far yet.
But I'm not quoting a source. However, it is common knowledge. The claim is even supported in the article you linked to.
For most people that is an epic fail, but for Search it is just his common, can't get anything right, kind of fail ... :-D
And for added hilarity, he simply restated the same fail. But unlike a re-run, it is even funnier the second time.
On Lawn wrote: "You see, if I'm citing what someone else says verbatim, then I put quotes around it."
DeleteBut the phrase you put in quotes wasn't something that someone else wrote - so it doesn't even conform to your rationalization for your misrepresentation.
It is a repetition of something you wrote, which you've presented in this way to create the impression that somebody else wrote it. That is not honest communication.
_But the phrase you put in quotes wasn't something that someone else wrote [...]_
DeleteExactly.
_so it doesn't even conform to your rationalization for your misrepresentation_
LOL. No it is your misrepresentation.
The original can be found here and it does not have any quotes.
You then edited it, and added quotes. I kept your quotes on it noting your additional edit, but clearly this is another case of you forgetting what you were writing about when you put it in quotes.
This ranks right up there with forgetting what question you asked when I answered and referred to "it". :-D
The Bond Present In Salt
ReplyDeleteBefore I begin, allow me to point out that, in this discussion, the term salt will occur many times. "Salt" is not, of course, referring solely to NaCl, so called table salt. In this context the term salt refers to any ionic compound resulting from a reaction involving acids.
I wrote, about salts and about marriages, "It is not necessary for the components to be identical in order for the attraction and bond to be the same.".
All salts have an ionic bond. Sodium chloride has it. Copper chloride (in spite of the fact that it is NOT formed by the reaction of an acid and a base) has it. Every salt has it. The ionic bond is present in every salt, even though the component atoms that comprise the salt may vary.
On Lawn has made a lot of noise about other bonds that may be present in salt compounds. Some salt compounds also have covalent bonds between some of the atoms, but event these also share the kind of bond present in every salt: the ionic bond.
On Lawn has made a lot of noise about the fact that ionic bonding isn't a unique, defining characteristic of salt. It is true that not every ionic compound is salt. It is also irrelevant. The presence of an ionic bond is still a characteristic common to every salt, which is what I said in the first place. And that presence of that ionic bond is part of the chemists's definition of salt.
What I've said is that "salt" refers to many different compounds. AND I've said that these different compounds all have a certain bond. I wrote: "It is not necessary for the components to be identical in order for the attraction and bond to be the same."
... and now on to On Lawn's complaint ...
On Lawn makes a lot of noise complaining that the presence of an ionic bond is not what makes salt unique, and that it is not the defining characteristic of salt. He pretends that I''ve said that all these various compounds are salt because of the type of bond they have in common, even though what I've written is they are all salt and they have this bond in common.
_Copper chloride [...] is NOT formed by the reaction of an acid and a base_
DeleteCopper Chloride (for this I'll assume Copper(I) Chloride)
CuOH + HCl => H20 + CuCl
CuOH is Copper (I) Hydroxide, and it is a base
HCl was already mentioned, it is an acid.
Hence Copper Chloride is the product of an acid and a base.
_It is true that not every ionic compound is salt. It is also irrelevant._
It is relevant when you claim that something is a salt because it shares the same bond :-D..
* "It is not necessary for the components to be identical in order for the attraction and bond to be the same, as we can clearly see in this example [of salts]."
* "Did anyone suggest that H2O, which shares a different kind of bond than NaCl, ought to be called 'salt' ? No. Purpose? The analogy is about the characteristics of the bond."
* "Tell us, On Lawn, are your posts intended as some kind of refutation of the statement that the components can differ whilst the attraction and bond remain the same?"
* "Because salt is (clearly?) an example of different components sharing a similar bond. Illustrating that the emphasis ought to be on the kind of bond we're considering, rater than the components present in that bond."
* "BTW: your resistance to call anything other than NaCl "salt" is a GREAT validation of my premise .. that the CHARACTERISTICS of the bond are (often) erroneously ignored."
On lawn writes: "So what are these phrases that I should have looked for that would express how "ALL ARE SALT[s]" because they have the same bond..." ... then provides a list of quotes that are supposed to show that I've claimed all are salts because they have the same bond. Lets see if any of the quotes provided back up his claim.
ReplyDeleteOn Lawn says I wrote: "It is not necessary for the components to be identical in order for the attraction and bond to be the same, as we can clearly see in this example [of salts]."
Nothing in that statement claims that something is a salt because it has a particular bond. Yet, an ionic bond is present in every salt, even though the chemical composition varies from salt to salt. Thus, my statement is true.
On Lawn says I wrote: ""Did anyone suggest that H2O, which shares a different kind of bond than NaCl, ought to be called 'salt' ? No. Purpose? The analogy is about the characteristics of the bond."
One characteristic of salt is the presence of an ionic bond. An ionic bond is present in every salt. H2O lacks this kind of bond, and cannot be considered a salt. Compounds that lack an ionic bond cannot be considered salt. That is not to say that every compound possessing an ionic bond is considered salt: that's something I've neither stated nor implied.
On Lawn says I wrote: "Tell us, On Lawn, are your posts intended as some kind of refutation of the statement that the components can differ whilst the attraction and bond remain the same?"
I think we've covered this concept. Nothing in that statement claims that something is a salt because it has a particular bond. In salts, different molecules combine, but the type of bond they have remains the same in spite of the differences in their composition. It is an ionic bond, something present in all salts. True statement.
On Lawn says I wrote: "Because salt is (clearly?) an example of different components sharing a similar bond. Illustrating that the emphasis ought to be on the kind of bond we're considering, rater than the components present in that bond."
And this is supposed to equate to a claim that all ionic compounds are salt - something I've never stated or implied? That something is a salt because that bond is present? Its not in there. My words are simply another restatement of my observation that the components can change while the nature of the bond remains the same.
You are stepping all over yourself again :-D
DeleteThere's nothing wrong with the old list of quotes. Just to show you are still at it, here's new quotes...
_Compounds that lack an ionic bond cannot be considered salt._
Because you went further than just saying "are not", to "cannot".
It is the nature of the components to form an ionic bond, that is true. But that is because of the nature of the components, not a requirement of the bond. As we discussed, salts also can include covalent bonds, and many ionic compounds are not salts.
_In this context the term salt refers to any ionic compound [...]_
Right after that you note a clause based on a component of the reaction that creates the salt, but how that contradicts what you already wrote was dealt with elsewhere.
On another note, if you are saying salts are salts "in spite of the differences in their composition", you can naturally name one that is not created by a base and an acid...
And you can name reactions that are an acid and base that don't create a salt.
On the other hand, I can name salts that have covalent bonds in them, and ionic compounds that cannot be produced by an acid or base.
On Lawn: "salts also can include covalent bonds, and many ionic compounds are not salts"
DeleteIrrelevant. All salts contain an ionic bond, no mater what molecules comprise the salt.
On Lawn:"you can naturally name one that is not created by a base and an acid"
Sure I can. Copper chloride, a salt which may be formed by the direct union of the elements copper and chlorine. Acid and metal, not acid and base.
On Lawn: "And you can name reactions that are an acid and base that don't create a salt."
No need, as we already have it <a href="http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Salt>from an undisputed authority</a> that acid+base is only one of three possible ways that salts form.
_All salts contain an ionic bond, no mater what molecules comprise the salt._
DeleteSalts aren't comprised by molecules.
Salts can include molecules.
And while I agree it is not very relevant to most of chemistry, it happens to be relevant to your claims about salts ... which also aren't very relevant to actual chemistry :-D
_Copper chloride_
Wrong. Even that page you linked to shows the reaction that makes CuCl2 from an acid and base...
Cu(OH)2(s) + 2HCl(aq) → CuCl2(aq) + 2H2O(g)
_Acid and metal_
Chlorine as C2 is a halogen gas, it is not an acid. Acids are created from ions, and C2 isn't an ion and doesn't ionize in water.
HCl is an acid.
For that matter, salt (NaCl) can be formed directly from Na and Cl2.
_formed by the direct union of the elements copper and chlorine._
There is no acid in the elemental reaction either.
Your definition of a salt is, "the term salt refers to any ionic compound resulting from a reaction involving acids."
Would you say that your definition is not true for this salt? Would that prove your definition to be false?
_Acid and metal, not acid and base._
Earlier I wrote, "What makes a salt unique is that it is produced by the reaction of an acid and a base."
ReplyDelete_Yet this statement is false for all of the salts produced by the reaction of an acid and a metal._
For all salts produced by the reaction of an acid and metal?
Luckily enough Search provided us a convenient list. Lets see if my statement is not true for any of them (let alone all of them). Search claims, "The reaction of an acid and a base has nothing to do with [1]magnesium sulphate, [2]potassium chloride, or [3]copper chloride".
1) Magnesium Sulphate
MgOH2 + H2S04 => 2H20 + MgS04
MgOH2 is magnesium hydroxide and it is a base.
H2S04 is sulfuric acid.
Hence it is produced by an acid and a base.
2) Potassium Chloride
K0H + HCl => H20 + KCl
KOH is Potassium Hydroxide, and it is a salt.
HCl is Hydrochloric Acid.
Hence it is produced by an acid and a base.
3) Copper Chloride (for this I'll assume Copper(I) Chloride)
CuOH + HCl => H20 + CuCl
CuOH is Copper (I) Hydroxide, and it is a base
HCl was already mentioned, it is an acid.
Hence Copper Chloride is the product of an acid and a base.
3/0, that is a complete strikeout Search.
_Noteworthy, though, that all these salts do have the characteristic I named. In all of them, an ionic bond is present._
Yet by your criteria, so would all acids and bases, but they are not salts.
So your criteria is about as useful as just saying they all have chemical bonds, as much as ionic bonds.
_this is not the defining characteristic, in and of itself - a point that is immaterial to any claim I've made here_
You are right that isn't a defining characteristic, but you have made that claim numerous times. In fact it is one of the basis of your analogy. The link even shows when you admitted as much.
_Wait. He wrote that "salts] are all made from an acid and a base". And he wrote "I never said that an acid and a base is the only way to produce a salt."_
And that conflicts how, exactly? LOL...
I never said that an acid and a base is the only way to produce a salt. I said that something is a salt because it is produced by an acid and a base ... there can be many ways to produce the same compound but the defining characteristic is the existence of an acid/base reaction that produces the compound.
You will never find a salt that cannot be produced by an acid and a base, even if it is the product of an acid and a metal. You'll never find a product of an acid and a base that is not a salt. How else you produce the same compound doesn't disqualify it.
They are all the same that way, and nothing that is violates that rule is categorized with it. Hence it is a defining characteristic. But we already went over that :-D
_Yet when I stated that salt compounds can form without combing an acid and a base, On Lawn called that "false"._
The full quote you wrote was, "Oh, and if you read that article you'll find that you've also made an error here. Turns out that some sat compounds can form without combining an acid and a base. "
And what is false is that what I wrote is an error :-D
I never said that an acid and a base is the only way to produce a salt. I said that something is a salt because it is produced by an acid and a base ... there can be many ways to produce the same compound but the defining characteristic is the existence of an acid/base reaction that produces the compound.
You will never find a salt that cannot be produced by an acid and a base, even if it is the product of an acid and a metal. You'll never find a product of an acid and a base that is not a salt. How else you produce the same compound doesn't disqualify it.
They are all the same that way, and nothing that is violates that rule is categorized with it. Hence it is a defining characteristic. But we already went over that :-D
on lawn wrote: "all [salts] are made from an acid and a base"
Deletehe also wrote: "I never said that an acid and a base is the only way to produce a salt."
All salts are made from an acid and a base, but an acid and a base isn't the only way to produce a salt? Square that circle.
Why does that elude you?
DeleteIts even perfectly fine the way you restate it!
If your statement is false for any salt, then it is false. Anhydrous CuCl2 may be prepared directly by union of the elements, copper and chlorine. No bases in that list, sir, so not a combination of acid+base.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete_If your statement is false for any salt, then it is false._
DeleteI agree. You'll have to show me an example of a salt that can't be produced by an acid and a base to disprove the definition. You know, that definition that comes from the Wikipedia, numerous dictionaries and chemical textbooks... you just might be the one to disprove it.
_Anhydrous CuCl2 may be prepared directly by union of the elements, copper and chlorine._
Anhydrous means that it isn't dissolved in water. Evaporate water from a CuCl2 reaction (say the result of HCl and Copper Hydroxide, which produces CuCl2 and water) and you have anhydrous CuCl2.
Evaporation is a trivial additional step to create anhydrous CuCl2 from an acid and base.
_No bases in that list, sir, so not a combination of acid+base._
There is no acid in the elemental reaction either.
Your definition of a salt is, "the term salt refers to any ionic compound resulting from a reaction involving acids."
Would you say that your definition is not true for this salt? Would that prove your definition to be false?
On Lawn: "What makes a salt unique is that it is produced by the reaction of an acid and a base."
Delete( is produced, not can be )
On Lawn: "all [salts] are made from an acid and a base"
( are made, not can be made )
And when I pointed out that some salt compounds can form without combining an acid and a base, On Lawn called that false.
( His assertion amounts to a claim that salts can only form by combining an acid and a base )
Now On Lawn asks me to "show you a salt that cannot be produced by an acid and base".
Not necessary. The fact that salts can be formed without an acid and base is sufficient. It shows that his earlier claims about the essential requirement of an acid+base reaction in order to form salt, are incorrect.
No back-pedaling, On Lawn. But feel free to self-correct whenever you wish.
_is produced, not can be [...] are made, not can be made_
DeleteI'm sorry, that might be the funniest thing you've ever said!
Yes a salt is produced by an acid and base. They are made by the combination of an acid and base. That indefinite article again is confusing you. In this case it is the indefinite present tense.
An example from that page, "'I write grammar books.' This sentence implies that I write grammar books on a regular basis, perhaps as a career."
If he writes a letter is he all of a sudden not a grammar book writer? Has he lost his career if he jots a note down or writes an email?
He doesn't have to say he can write grammar books to be a grammar book writer. He can say "I write grammar books".
Similarly, a salt is produced by an acid or base means it happens regularly (which in scientific terms means it is a reproducible result). If you want to test if something is a salt, you follow the definition "a salt is produced by an acid and base", find the acid and base that creates it, and viola! you've proven it is a salt.
It doesn't cease to be a salt if someone says, "wait I can make that same compound without the base and/or acid". Nor do you have to say it can be created that way, because just like the writer's career, it has to be regular and reproducible, not just a theoretical possibility that only might happen.
_And when I pointed out that some salt compounds can form without combining an acid and a base, On Lawn called that false._
The full quote you wrote was, "Oh, and if you read that article you'll find that you've also made an error here. Turns out that some sat compounds can form without combining an acid and a base. "
And what is false is that what I wrote is an error :-D
I never said that an acid and a base is the only way to produce a salt. I said that something is a salt because it is produced by an acid and a base ... there can be many ways to produce the same compound but the defining characteristic is the existence of an acid/base reaction that produces the compound.
You will never find a salt that cannot be produced by an acid and a base, even if it is the product of an acid and a metal. You'll never find a product of an acid and a base that is not a salt. How else you produce the same compound doesn't disqualify it.
They are all the same that way, and nothing that is violates that rule is categorized with it. Hence it is a defining characteristic. But we already went over that :-D
_The fact that salts can be formed without an acid and base is sufficient [to disprove your definition]_
Is that so.
You've yet to actually try that shoe on yourself.
Your definition of a salt is, "the term salt refers to any ionic compound resulting from a reaction involving acids."
Yet Sodium Chloride can be formed with out an acid.
Would you say that your definition is not true for this salt? Would that prove your definition to be false?
No back pedaling, but feel free to self-correct whenever you wish :-D
_So, according to yet another authority on chemistry, the term "salt" can refer to sodium chloride._
ReplyDeleteActually the author uses the term "the salt".
NaCl is the salt.
_It can also refer to copper chloride_
"The salt" can be copper chloride. But oddly enough the chemical in that article is not copper chloride, it is copper (II) nitrate. "On the other hand, if you mix HNO3 and CuO you get Cu(NO3)2 and H2O. In this case Cu(NO3)2 is the salt".
_And notice, the physical science department doesn't write that acid plus metal produces a salt. They write that it produces salt._
They didn't write it as "an acid" or "a metal" either, even though that would have been grammatically correct. Why? Because the point you are talking about is conforming to chemical notation, not english grammar. It is a transliteration of a chemical equation where the '+' is written out as "plus" and "produces" is written out instead of '=>'.
I take it you are simply unfamiliar with chemical notation? I mean you appear to have confused CuCl2 with Cu(NO3)2, and you seem to not have recognized chemical notation when it was written out in words instead of symbols.
The author was so worried about the ambiguity that they spelled it out clearly that they meant the category salt, rather than NaCl. Something you have yet to do...
Oh, On Lawn. You should have read the entire article I posted. The very next sentence read:
Delete"As it turns out, each of the typical reactions listed above follows a pattern, as set out in this table. In all cases the resulting salt is CuCl2(aq)."
That's copper chloride. A salt. And how is it formed: "Anhydrous CuCl2 may be prepared directly by union of the elements, copper and chlorine."
That's chlorine (an acid) and copper (a metal). NOT a combination of an acid and a base. The salt that results isn'e made form an acid and a base. Its made from an acid and a metal - one of three ways that the chemist says salts can form.
_That's copper chloride._
DeleteCopper (II) chloride specifically. CuCl would also be copper chloride, but specifically Copper (I) Chloride.
_That's chlorine (an acid) and copper (a metal)._
Chlorine as C2 is a halogen gas, it is not an acid. Acids are created from ions, and C2 isn't an ion and doesn't ionize in water.
HCl is an acid.
For that matter, salt (NaCl) can be formed directly from Na and Cl2.
_NOT a combination of an acid and a base._
That reaction didn't include an acid at all, nor a base.
_The salt that results isn'e made form an acid and a base._
Wrong. Even that page shows the reaction that makes CuCl2 from an acid and base...
Cu(OH)2(s) + 2HCl(aq) → CuCl2(aq) + 2H2O(g)
_The very next sentence read: "As it turns out, each of the typical reactions listed above follows a pattern, as set out in this table. In all cases the resulting salt is CuCl2(aq)."_
Yes, that is in there. The confusion came from you saying that it was referred to in the same way that NaCl was ... compounded by the fact that you didn't even catch how NaCl was referred accurately.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you must have meant the two compounds in the same paragraph, referred the same way. Not having an accurate reference, I suppose it is my mistake for trying to make sense of your usual mistakes... :-D
My apologies, next time I'll make sure you articulate accurately before continuing.
_I wrote, about salts and about marriages, "It is not necessary for the components to be identical in order for the attraction and bond to be the same."._
ReplyDeleteWhat is so funny is that even his own novel definition of a salt is based on components .... "salt refers to any ionic compound resulting from a reaction involving acids."
All compounds involve components. Even elements involve components. This doesn't contradict my statement "It is not necessary for the components to be identical in order for the attraction and bond to be the same."
Delete_All compounds involve components. Even elements involve components. This doesn't contradict my statement_
DeleteWell, it does actually, but since it is a stawman I won't spend any more time on it.
More directly to the point, the fact that they are all the same component (namely "acids") in your definition makes it a specific component requirement. It makes the same component a defining characteristic.
"acid" is not a component, it is a classification that encompasses a good many different substances. interestingly, two substances needn't be identical in order to satisfy the definition of "acid" either.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete_"acid" is not a component_
DeleteYour definition places acid as a necessary component of the reaction. Your definition of a salt is, "the term salt refers to any ionic compound resulting from a reaction involving acids."
Would you say that your definition is not true for NaCl which although called salt can be produced without an acid nor base from just elemental Sodium and Chlorine? Would that prove your definition to be false?
It doesn't. I said that salt refers to ANY ionic compound resulting from a reaction involving acids. I didn't say that salt refers ONLY to those compounds.
DeleteAlso, I repeat, acidity is a characteristic shared by a multitude of different compounds that might yield salt in a chemical reaction.
No, I said no back pedaling.
DeleteYour definition places acid as a necessary component of the reaction. Your definition of a salt is, "the term salt refers to any ionic compound resulting from a reaction involving acids."
Would you say that your definition is not true for NaCl which although called salt can be produced without an acid nor base from just elemental Sodium and Chlorine?
Would that prove your definition to be false?
Your answer basically says that NaCl that is created from an acid reaction is, and NaCl that is created elementally is not. And that contradiction just doesn't wash.
ANY and ONLY are two different words. They have different meaning.
DeleteAnd, the source I quoted said:
"In this context the term salt refers to any ionic compound resulting from a reaction involving acids."
"in this context" is an important part of the quote, which you conveniently drop. another bit of dishonest communication from On Lawn.
No, I said no back pedaling.
DeleteAny refers to any ionic compound ... any ionic compound _resulting from a reaction involving acids_.
Your definition places acid as a necessary component of the reaction. Your definition of a salt is, "the term salt refers to any ionic compound resulting from a reaction involving acids."
Would you say that your definition is not true for NaCl which although called salt can be produced without an acid nor base from just elemental Sodium and Chlorine?
Would that prove your definition to be false?
Your answer this time just hints that you would accept more than just ionic compounds, (any instead of "only ionic compounds"), which would then include H20.
Is H20 an ionic compound resulting from a reaction involving acids?
DeleteNo.
So, how does H20 correspond with what I've written about salt?
... also, to make it a little clear for you ...
Here are three different statements, with different meanings.
1) In this context, the term salt refers to any ionic compound resulting from a reaction involving acids.
[That's something I actually wrote, and it is true]
2) the term salt refers to any ionic compound resulting from a reaction involving acids.
[That's a misrepresentation you invented]
3) the term salt refers to any ionic compounds resulting from a reaction involving salts.
[that is a false statement, and something that i've never stated]
You do see that those are 3 different statements, correct?
_So, how does H20 correspond with what I've written about salt?_
DeleteYour answer this time just hints that you would accept more than just ionic compounds, (any instead of "only ionic compounds"), which would then include H20.
_Is H20 an ionic compound resulting from a reaction involving acids?_
Since when did your statement say "only" ionic compounds? :-D
Are you saying "any" still means "only" ionic bonds?
_the term salt refers to any ionic compounds resulting from a reaction involving salts. [that is a false statement, and something that i've never stated]_
LOL... to quote, "In this context the term salt refers to any ionic compound resulting from a reaction involving acids."
I should also remind you that the context is your own analogy.
On Lawn: "Since when did your statement say "only" ionic compounds? :-D"
DeleteHere, I wrote that "All salts DO have ionic bonds.". That was 4 days ago.
Here, I wrote "The characteristic (ionic bond) [...] is present in ALL salt". That was 3 days ago.
And here, two days ago, you acknowledged, in your words, that "all salts have at least one ionic bond".
Then again, here, where I wrote "Noteworthy, though, that all these salts do have the characteristic I named. In all of them, an ionic bond is present.". That was yesterday.
And I explicitly addressed H20 here, where I wrote:
"an ionic bond is present in every salt [...]
One characteristic of salt is the presence of an ionic bond. An ionic bond is present in every salt. H2O lacks this kind of bond [...]
Compounds that lack an ionic bond cannot be considered salt. [...]"
So when you write that my answer hints that [I] would accept more than just ionic compounds [as salts] it shows that you are either not paying attention to the conversation over the last four days, or you are not being honest in your communication.
If you won't pay attention and communicate honestly, this conversation has become a waste of my time.
Also, allow me to point out a difference in these two statements that you may have overlooked.
Delete1) the term salt refers to any ionic compounds resulting from a reaction involving salts
2) In this context the term salt refers to any ionic compound resulting from a reaction involving acids
The first statement addresses reactions involving acids. The second one does not.
Also, the second statement comes from this page from Launceston College's physical sciences department. As such, the "context" in question is not my analogy, it is the references to salt that occur within that linked page.
_So when you write that my answer hints that [I] would accept more than just ionic compounds [as salts]_
DeleteLets look at that hint again...
I said that salt refers to ANY ionic compound resulting from a reaction involving acids. I didn't say that salt refers ONLY to those compounds.
Oh! That makes it all clear.
So when I asked, "Since when did your statement say "only" ionic compounds? :-D" you provided a number of quotes (none of them using the word "only" but I can accept that is what you meant).
But before you explicitly said "I didn't say that salt refers ONLY to those compounds."
So when I asked, "Are you saying "any" still means 'only' ionic bonds?" the answer is yes. You still intend it to mean just (or only) ionic compounds. Yet you drove that they are different words for some reason...
Skiddish weaseling liars who always re-invent whatever they said to avoid an argument at the moment will always contradict themselves. This is evidence that you are not communicating honestly.
_The first statement addresses reactions involving acids. The second one does not._
Lets look at those two statements then. The first one says, "the term salt refers to any ionic compounds resulting from a reaction involving salts". That doesn't involve acids, at least not directly. It is a tautological statement that essentially states salt refers to salts.
So lets look at the second statement which you say doesn't address reactions involving acids, "In this context the term salt refers to any ionic compound resulting from a reaction involving acids". That is a glaring contradiction.
And no I didn't overlook it. To paste again what I wrote above...
_______
_the term salt refers to any ionic compounds resulting from a reaction involving salts. [that is a false statement, and something that i've never stated]_
LOL... to quote, "In this context the term salt refers to any ionic compound resulting from a reaction involving acids."
I should also remind you that the context is your own analogy.
________
I'm emphasizing it now because you apparently overlooked it before.
I simply dismissed your attempt to divert the discussion with an altered quote "involving salts" and returned to the original statement. I'm not sure why you made that diversion, but other than the fact that you mistook the quotes in your reply there really isn't anything noteworthy about it.
Your definition places acid as a necessary component of the reaction. Your definition of a salt is, "the term salt refers to any ionic compound resulting from a reaction involving acids."
Would you say that your definition is not true for NaCl which although called salt can be produced without an acid nor base from just elemental Sodium and Chlorine?
Would that prove your definition to be false?
Make that "The second statement addresses reactions involving acids. The first one does not. " here
DeleteI've restated on numerous occasions, and never recanted, that all salts have an ionic bond. Never said otherwise. This should be very easy for you to comprehend.
DeleteI wrote: "Salt refers to ANY ionic compound resulting from a reaction involving acids. I didn't say that salt refers ONLY to those compounds."
I wrote: "All salts DO have ionic bonds."
As I've said before, salt can also be formed from reactions between two salt solutions. Wikipedia suggests that salt can be formed by directly combining the elements, in some cases.
Oh, and BYW, what you refer to as my definition is actually Launceston College's definition. I posted it after a very clear citation of the source, so that should have been clear to you.
And just to put this all in perspective: the fact is that an ionic bond is present in every salt compound. No salt exists that lacks an ionic bond. It wouldn't matter if salts form in only one way or in 1,000 different ways - all still have that ionic bond. Dispute that.
_Wikipedia suggests that salt can be formed by directly combining the elements, in some cases._
DeleteSuggests? That is an awfully ambiguous word for something that is a widely accepted and verified fact of chemistry since its earliest days.
But lets go see what the definition of a salt is according to that same Wikipedia... "In chemistry, salts are ionic compounds that result from the neutralization reaction of an acid and a base."
Salt is an example of what different components (acid and base) create through hydrogen ion exchange.
And that makes it like marriage, which combines the different genders man and woman, but different than same sex marriage.
To repost what you seem to have overlooked in your comedy routine of trying to say salts are not defined by their components ... but produce a definition based on the "acid" as a component of the reaction ... all while complaining that a definition with acid+base must be wrong because salts can be formed without a base ... without realizing that they can be formed without an acid either.
I hope you've learned something about Chemistry. Its clear you really knew nothing about it coming in here, running into error after error in true comedic fashion.
It is amazing how wrong you get things at so many levels. I literally have never met anyone on the internet so prolific in error that wasn't a self-humiliating troll.
But I digress...
Salts and Marriage.
What makes salt unique? Salt is NaCl, and is used as a flavor enhancer. A unique taste is named after it, and also a class of chemicals.
Can you describe how salt tastes without using the word salt? When people ask how marriage is between a man and a woman, it is like explaining what salt tastes like. You can describe it, but most readily you can point to something you can see, feel, and experience to really relay what it is.
Marriage is a legal relationship and commitment between a man and a woman. That isn't tautological, that is referential, like describing what salt tastes like by calling it "salty".
Salt, in chemistry, is also unique. Are salts unique among compounds because they have an ionic bond? No, not only do salts have ionic bonds, but they can often include many different types of bonds. And not all ionic bonds create salts (for instance any oxidized metal like sodium oxide) are ionic bonds, but they are not salts.
What makes a salt unique is that it is produced by the reaction of an acid and a base. An acid and an acid doesn't make a salt. A base and a base do not make a salt. You see where I'm going with this. Like marriage, the real classification hinges on the combination of two complementary pieces which combine to create something new between them.
So as an analogy to marriage, salts once again point to the fact that two unique and complementary things are particularly important to creating something very distinct and useful. And how unique things can be defined by simply the fact that two complementary components come together.
To change to include all ionic bonds simply denies the usefulness of why science classifies them as salts anyway. It is effectively removing the understanding and category we now call "salt", even though you recycle the name to be used in a different category.
Your analogy is simply misguided and wrong. Salts are not salts because they have the same bond or even the same characteristics of a bond, because there are many compounds with the same bond or characteristics that aren't salts. There are also many characteristics of those bonds which are not true for all salts.
So except the fact that you learned chemistry (kind of) it really is a waste of time.
Your analogy is based on aspects of chemistry which are simply not accurate, and Playful's analogy works perfectly with salts as an analogy according to the facts of what salts are.
you're repeating yourself.
DeleteOn Lawn: "Your analogy is simply misguided and wrong. Salts are not salts because they have the same bond "
No, not "because". Neither is a relationship marriage because it involves one man and one woman. Many different kinds of relationships have that characteristic, yet are not marriage.
And yet, the ionic bond is a characteristic of each and every salt, with no exception. That is an indisputable fact.
_you're repeating yourself._
DeleteI find I have to quite a bit with you.
_Neither is a relationship marriage because it involves one man and one woman._
True, there are many relationships that a man and woman can be a part of. Marriage is just a subset of them.
_the ionic bond is a characteristic of each and every salt_
True, so are the components. Salts are defined by their components. The point being that the components create the bond, not the other way around :D
Because the acid+base always produces a salt, and no salt exists that is not regularly (reproducibly) made with an acid and base.
But the ionic bond is too broad to describe what a salt is accurately.
Hence your analogy does not accurately reflect chemistry.
If you ignore that there is a difference between "salt" and the category of "salts", and if you ignore that not all similar compounds are salts, and not all salts have similar bonds, and if you ignore that the definition of salt is based on the composition of the compound, then your analogy could work.
Instead, however, salt is just one member of a salt category. And that category designated by its complementary pairing of salts and bases, even though it might share similar bonds with other compounds. That sure illustrates Playful's argument, "The union is different because men and women are different". The compound is different because acids and bases are different.
No, your point doesn't work. It may exist in your imagination, but sadly it can only do so as a product of ignorance.
So yes, sure, you can maintain your analogy as your own illustration if you wish, if you think the analogy is more important than reality. And apparently you do. But salts are a far more apt analogy of what Walrus pointed out.
As is quoted from Star Trek, you have illusion and Walrus has reality. May your way be as pleasant.