Sign in to follow this  
KScience

Church Clothing - Ethics & Sustainability

Recommended Posts

Just now, Mores said:

And what does that have to do with my question?

It answers it.

If you don't feel it does, then ask another question, clarify the question, or just say it doesn't answer the question.  I spent a good 2 minutes on writing that for you.  You're welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It answers it.

If you don't feel it does, then ask another question, clarify the question, or just say it doesn't answer the question.  I spent a good 2 minutes on writing that for you.  You're welcome.

I asked

1) WHAT is a "chemical bleaching process" by her definition?  -- you didn't say what constitutes a "chemical bleaching process".
2) Is there a "NON-chemical bleaching process"?  -- You didn't say if there was a process of bleaching something without using chemicals.

Instead, you talked about not using bleach at all.  How on earth does that even come close to answering the questions?

That's like saying:This is how you cook an egg.  First, you go vegan..

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
43 minutes ago, mdfxdb said:

you can drink it  its biodegradeable

First, "being able to drink" does not mean "biodegradable" nor vice versa.

Second: How does that make it a non-chemical?  Perhaps you have a problem with dihydrogen oxide because it is too "chemically"?  How about 9-Dihydro-1H-purine-2,6,8(3H)-trione?  Would you drink that?

It is not healthy to drink urine.  It may not kill you.  But it is not healthy.  If you're one who does, then I'd advise you to stop it.  Think about it for a minute.  Your body just got rid of the stuff.  And you're trying to put it back in?

And urine itself was not used as bleach by the Romans.  It was fermented with other substances.  It ended up creating a mixture that was mainly ammonia.  Do you want to drink ammonia?  Again, not healthy.  Possibly deadly.

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, mdfxdb said:

you can drink it  its biodegradeable

biodegradable

ADJECTIVE

(of a substance or object) capable of being decomposed by bacteria or other living organisms and thereby avoiding pollution.

 

Just a real definition.  Found in a real dictionary.  If anyone was interested...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mores said:

I asked

1) WHAT is a "chemical bleaching process" by her definition?  -- you didn't say what constitutes a "chemical bleaching process".
2) Is there a "NON-chemical bleaching process"?  -- You didn't say if there was a process of bleaching something without using chemicals.

Instead, you talked about not using bleach at all.  How on earth does that even come close to answering the questions?

That's like saying:This is how you cook an egg.  First, you go vegan..

So... let me summarize this.  You asked a question and then you attack me for trying to answer it because it does not meet your "answers standard".   I'm sorry if I'm stupid. 

I answered your questions - even after you reworded it above. 

WHAT is a chemical bleaching process - You remove the color using chemicals.  I extended the answer to explain why this is needed because it ties into the answer of the next question.  There's no such thing as non-chemical bleaching process other than to "not bleach".  

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So... let me summarize this.  You asked a question and then you attack me for trying to answer it because it does not meet your "answers standard".   I'm sorry if I'm stupid.  

That's ok.  Lots of people are.  

No, really.  I did not attack you for trying to answer my question.  I attacked you for attacking me.  My first response was asking you to connect how your response was related to my questions.  Instead, you attacked me for being to demanding.  So, I felt the need to spell it out for you.

Now it's escalating.  Fine.  

Quote

WHAT is a chemical bleaching process - You remove the color using chemicals. 

I'm glad you understood.  I still don't see an answer in your earlier post.  Yet, you claim you did.  Here you finally answer.  But is that HER answer?

Quote

I extended the answer to explain why this is needed because it ties in the answer of the next question.

And again, I'm finding myself not understanding the connection.  Instead of accusing me of attacking you, just help a brutha out and make the connection for me.  I still don't see it answering my question.

Quote

There's no such thing as non-chemical bleaching process other than to "not bleach".

That is exactly my point.  It's a kind of virtue signalling to say it's wrong to use "chemical bleaching methods".  Why not simply say "bleaching"?  Because she was trying to use virtue signalling.  This entire thread is one big virtue signalling.

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, mikbone said:

biodegradable

ADJECTIVE

(of a substance or object) capable of being decomposed by bacteria or other living organisms and thereby avoiding pollution.

 

Just a real definition.  Found in a real dictionary.  If anyone was interested...

Biodegradability doesn't make it non-chemical.  Biodegradability is a feature/function of certain chemicals.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mores said:

That's ok.  Lots of people are.  

No, really.  I did not attack you for trying to answer my question.  I attacked you for attacking me.  My first response was asking you to connect how your response was related to my questions.  Instead, you attacked me for being to demanding.  So, I felt the need to spell it out for you.

The way you phrased that response to my question made me perceive it as snark.  If that was not your intent then I apologize for throwing the snark right back at you.

I have no intention to engage in the topic anymore because, frankly, I don't find it pleasurable anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The way you phrased that response to my question made me perceive it as snark. 

Just because it was snark, does not make it an invalid request.  BTW, I don't consider "snark" an "attack".

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mores said:

Just because it was snark, does not make it an invalid request.  BTW, I don't consider "snark" an "attack".

Does not make it invalid.  Just makes it annoying when you're not in the mood for it.  Snark is intentional.  There's trolling snark, there's being-funny snark, there's attack snark.  I perceived yours as the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
12 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Does not make it invalid.  Just makes it annoying when you're not in the mood for it.  Snark is intentional.  There's trolling snark, there's being-funny snark, there's attack snark.  I perceived yours as the latter.

Well, at least it wasn't trolling.  Thank you for that.

No, I consider what I was doing a "less polite" way of saying "Gee, I'm not sure what that means.  Could you please enlighten my intellectually deficient mind and walk me through it."

That is just a LOT more wordy.  And there is a difference between being "less than polite" vs. "attacking".  I never intended an attack.  But I wasn't in the mood for being overly polite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and re-engage with your questions again @Mores because, @KScience might be virtue signalling but the environmental impact of the textile industry is a valid concern that has solutions for those interested in one.

 

42 minutes ago, Mores said:

I'm glad you understood.  I still don't see an answer in your earlier post.  Yet, you claim you did.  Here you finally answer.  But is that HER answer? 

Here's my answer from the earlier post:

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Natural fibers, therefore, go through a chemical bleaching process to remove the color

This is textbook answer.  This is not an opinion question which would make HER answer matter over the textbook answer.  

 

Quote

And again, I'm finding myself not understanding the connection.  Instead of accusing me of attacking you, just help a brutha out and make the connection for me.  I still don't see it answering my question.

The connection:  The reason you chemical bleach the fiber is so that you can apply uniformity standards on the resulting color through the use of dyes or absence thereof.  Your garments is white.  You can't get that color without the chemical bleaching process.  Bypassing the chemical bleaching process, therefore, (the answer to your 2nd question), will make it so that the Church will need to change the standards of what White means - because natural cotton is varying shades of moldy-cream.

All of that is in my first answer.

 

Quote

That is exactly my point.  It's a kind of virtue signalling to say it's wrong to use "chemical bleaching methods".  Why not simply say "bleaching"?  Because she was trying to use virtue signalling.  This entire thread is one big virtue signalling.

Chemical Bleaching is what the Textile Industry calls that step in the textile manufacturing process.  It's not a term created by environmentalists.

The reason chemical bleaching is the target process for environmental impact studies is because this is the root of the process that causes the Textile industry waste product to be a pollutant.  The chemical bleach process is also where they put chemical additives to remove impurities and harmful microbes and also improve natural fiber integrity, softness, etc.  Not only are the chemicals used in this process exit into waste water that ends up disposed of in the environment, the dyes used to put color back into the fibers could also end up back into the environment through laundry waste water, perspiration, fabric shedding, etc.  Besides bypassing the process entirely, other solutions are also being studied such as biodegradable alternatives, etc.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHOA I go to dinner and come back to an angry thread!!

In the UK there is currently a big push for a more sustainable clothing industry, so I have been considering my options. My conscience has been pricked by a number of the issues associated with textile production.  I was just looking for information about the sustainability of clothing that I wear and have struggled to find anything at all about the production of church clothing. 

Mikbone I have mixed up the issues associated with all of the textiles used. I am in no way implying that the church is single handedly causing environmental havoc or contributing to fast fashion - I was talking about the considerations for my whole wardrobe. Sorry for the confusion I caused by mixing these details.

Mores Sorry if you saw my posting as virtue signalling (I had to go Google what that meant), It was an honest question on a forum where I was expecting a pointer to gather information rather than what I have regrettably started. I do not post regularly but have contributed often enough for you to see that I am a genuine poster. The terminology of chemical bleaching is used by the textile industry as opposed to enzymatic processes. I agree  it is an ill used phrased bandied around poorly and associated with many topics.

 

Sorry for getting everyone so fired up on what I genuinely thought was an innocuous topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no preference for the garment color.  Im sure that Joseph Smith’s and Adam’s garments were not bleached white.  And my wife’s creative clothes washing techniques occasionally turns them off white.  Pink is ok with me.

You can buy military brown Gs if you care to.

And, I’m pretty sure that the majority of underclothing is bleached...

What is the point of the outrage in this topic?  Are we upset with the leadership because they are not embracing the Green new deal?  Are we to discard our Gs and go commando?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KScience said:

WHOA I go to dinner and come back to an angry thread!!

In the UK there is currently a big push for a more sustainable clothing industry, so I have been considering my options. My conscience has been pricked by a number of the issues associated with textile production.  I was just looking for information about the sustainability of clothing that I wear and have struggled to find anything at all about the production of church clothing. 

Mikbone I have mixed up the issues associated with all of the textiles used. I am in no way implying that the church is single handedly causing environmental havoc or contributing to fast fashion - I was talking about the considerations for my whole wardrobe. Sorry for the confusion I caused by mixing these details.

Mores Sorry if you saw my posting as virtue signalling (I had to go Google what that meant), It was an honest question on a forum where I was expecting a pointer to gather information rather than what I have regrettably started. I do not post regularly but have contributed often enough for you to see that I am a genuine poster. The terminology of chemical bleaching is used by the textile industry as opposed to enzymatic processes. I agree  it is an ill used phrased bandied around poorly and associated with many topics.

 

Sorry for getting everyone so fired up on what I genuinely thought was an innocuous topic.

Im not fired up.  Intrigued perhaps.  It is obvious when I get fired up... 

What are your proposals?  Or are you one of those that believe in the importance of awareness campaigns.

 

The breast cancer awareness campaign for example drives me nuts.  Yes breast cancer exists.  Yes you like pink.  Yes you look pretty with your cleavage enhancing dress.

Is there any evidence that throwing $$ (for awareness - not practical purposes) or sincere feelings toward an issue makes a difference?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I for one am convinced that I need to pee on my garments to make them white.  It will save me the trouble of drinking my chemical pee.......

 

(in the interest of clarity I am just kidding.  This has to be one of the funniest threads in a while.....)

Edited by mdfxdb
clarity not to be misconstrued as snarky or an attack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mikbone, my proposal is to be informed. I obviously have to wear the clothing, but if I am aware that there are potentially environmentally damaging processes involved I can fill in the feedback form on LDS.org.   I am not one who does outraged and certainly not upset with church leaders and sorry if any of posts have come across that way.  I am aware that here in europe there is a lot of support for environmental causes and anything that can be construed against these can be taken out of context and used negatively against the church.

Awareness campaigns certainly work in the UK, thinking vaccinations, breast screening, reduction of using plastics, increased recycling, prostate cancer, cervical cancer screening, blood donation, organ donation.  NO idea about the US

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LiterateParakeet
28 minutes ago, KScience said:

Sorry for getting everyone so fired up on what I genuinely thought was an innocuous topic.

You don't need to apologize. Sometimes people have responses to things for reasons entirely their own. For example, we know that Christ was perfect. And yet people got angry enough with Him to push for His death. Even if you're perfect, you will never please everyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, KScience said:

WHOA I go to dinner and come back to an angry thread!!

Dunno why you think it's an angry thread.  Just because Mores and I exchanged snark doesn't mean we're angry.  

 

45 minutes ago, KScience said:

Sorry for getting everyone so fired up on what I genuinely thought was an innocuous topic.

Why would you be sorry for a fired up thread?  Especially when it comes to environmentalism that can only benefit from discussion.  I'd think a fired up thread would be a good thing.  That means people are engaged in the topic of discussion and not just simply to help you with your wardrobe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Dunno why you think it's an angry thread.  Just because Mores and I exchanged snark doesn't mean we're angry.  

 

Why would you be sorry for a fired up thread?  Especially when it comes to environmentalism that can only benefit from discussion.  I'd think a fired up thread would be a good thing.  That means people are engaged in the topic of discussion and not just simply to help you with your wardrobe.

I think it might be a cultural thing, I guess I am not used to the directness. I am also naturally a very reserved person and don't like to rile people, especially those I don't know.

British sarcasm is a thing to be enjoyed with friends and with the benefit of vocal tones and facial expression. Its difficult to judge peoples tone and intention from the written word; and trying not to offend people as I am not a regular poster

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
3 hours ago, mdfxdb said:

you can drink it  its biodegradeable

Mountain Dew also fits that description and it's full of chemicals.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KScience said:

I think it might be a cultural thing, I guess I am not used to the directness. I am also naturally a very reserved person and don't like to rile people, especially those I don't know.

British sarcasm is a thing to be enjoyed with friends and with the benefit of vocal tones and facial expression. Its difficult to judge peoples tone and intention from the written word; and trying not to offend people as I am not a regular poster

 

I can understand that.  I'm Bisaya.  It's a direct culture - the polar opposite of the refined English culture.  In Bisaya, you mean what you say and say what you mean in the least number of syllables possible which the English think is "so tacky".  But we do have something in common with the English - we thrive on sarcasm.  But the English have this strange ability to dish sarcasm in dulcet tones whereas the Bisaya is just brass and crass.  Hah hah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KScience said:

In the UK there is currently a big push for a more sustainable clothing industry,

Ah crap... I’m already at the bottom of the woke chain, being a Straight white Christian republican carnivore pro-gun pro-life male...add polyester wearing to that list and what do I have left?

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this