I recently heard "Freedom is the availability of choice." This not only feels like the correct definition, it also includes how poverty strips freedom away by limiting choice. When we say freedom we typically mean political freedom, but I think we should adapt this definition so we can also include economic freedoms.
The argument I'm making is that we should not call them chemicals when they don't have the capacity to make chemical reactions.
An analogy could be how we use the word weed. We call unwanted plants weeds. If there is mint growing in your yard and you don't want it, it's a weed. If you sell your house and the next owner likes it that mint is not a weed anymore. It's still mint (element) but no longer a weed (chemical).
You make a good point. I should have said "things in the plasma state" should not be considered chemicals.
Hydrogen and Helium are elements, I guess it depends on what your definition of a chemical is.
The reason I'm saying plasma is not a chemical is because it is too energetic to make atom to atom bonds which I feel is the basis for chemistry. If something cannot interact chemically I feel we should not consider it a chemical.
Please note that I did not look up any formal definitions, just expressing my reasoning for my argument. (Aka I'm probably wrong).
I think plasma isn't a chemical since the elements can't form molecules. So the sun and lightning aren't chemicals.
Suspiciously timed post, right after they announced a release date for GTA 6.
Humans gotta human!
But we can't get a database for firearms?
Wow, sharks @439mya, Polaris @70mya. They're more than 6 times older! This is NUTS!
Then you plead the 5th. Pretty sure that's exactly what it's intended for.
It is a politically savvy and ethically correct move. Really nice when those line up.