If a debate is obvious with the charitable interpretation it makes sense to have the debate about the actual reasons why people take the positions they take.
I’m not sure what your point is here but it sounds like you agree with me. The real question to discuss is how much it matters if Zuckerberg is doing this primarily to enhance his reputation and status.
If it’s in your morality to pratice charitable reading at the cost of human lives, feel free to live with that moral decision.
I’m not sure what your point is here but it sounds like you agree with me.
If I misunderstood you and we agree that’s great.
I have no idea what your point is here.
The critical media reaction to Zuckerberg announcement likely cost more lives through reduced donations than lifes were lost in Paris during the recent attacks.
The critical media reaction to Zuckerberg announcement likely cost more lives through reduced donations than lifes were lost in Paris during the recent attacks.
And in what way did the media “practice charitable reading”?
I already said that I might have misunderstood you. You suggested that further explanation is helpful. What do you expect to gain for another answer
I’m trying to understand YOUR point now. Regardless of whether you misunderstood me, you said something and I am trying to understand it.
Here’s what you said:
If it’s in your morality to pratice charitable reading at the cost of human lives, feel free to live with that moral decision.
So you were talking about someone practicing charitable reading at the cost of human lives. When I stated that I did not understand your point, you said this:
The critical media reaction to Zuckerberg announcement likely cost more lives through reduced donations than lifes were lost in Paris during the recent attacks.
So apparently your point is that the media (or some part of the media) “practiced charitable reading” which cost human lives.
So how exactly did the media “practice charitable reading”? It’s not a very complicated question.
I’m not sure what your point is here but it sounds like you agree with me. The real question to discuss is how much it matters if Zuckerberg is doing this primarily to enhance his reputation and status.
I have no idea what your point is here.
If I misunderstood you and we agree that’s great.
The critical media reaction to Zuckerberg announcement likely cost more lives through reduced donations than lifes were lost in Paris during the recent attacks.
Well what did you think I was saying?
And in what way did the media “practice charitable reading”?
That it’s right of the media to say that Zuckerberg made the donation to increase his own reputation and status.
I didn’t say any such thing. Please read what I say carefully before responding.
And please answer my other question:
In what way did the media “practice charitable reading”?
I already said that I might have misunderstood you. You suggested that further explanation is helpful. What do you expect to gain from another answer?
I’m trying to understand YOUR point now. Regardless of whether you misunderstood me, you said something and I am trying to understand it.
Here’s what you said:
So you were talking about someone practicing charitable reading at the cost of human lives. When I stated that I did not understand your point, you said this:
So apparently your point is that the media (or some part of the media) “practiced charitable reading” which cost human lives.
So how exactly did the media “practice charitable reading”? It’s not a very complicated question.