Do people actually disapprove of and disagree with this comment, or do they disapprove of the use of said ‘poetic’ language in the post? If the latter, perhaps they should downvote the post and upvote the comment for honesty.
Perhaps there should be a react for “I disapprove of the information this comment revealed, but I’m glad it admitted it”.
As I said, I think it’s not just that the language is poetic. There is an implicit inference that goes like
People who would not voluntarily undergo surgery without long-term adverse effects on their health to improve the life of a stranger are evil.
Most researchers who would be in a position to know the state of the evidence on the long-term adverse health effects of kidney donation don’t personally donate one of their kidneys.
Most researchers are unlikely to be evil.
So it’s unlikely that most researchers believe kidney donation has no long-term adverse health effects.
I’m saying that there is no definition of the word “evil” that makes statements (1) and (3) simultaneously true. Either you adopt a narrow definition, in which case (3) is true but (1) is false; or you adopt a broad definition, in which case (1) is true but (3) is false.
This is not a point about stylistic choices, it’s undermining one of the key arguments the post offers for its position. The post is significantly stronger if it can persuade us that even established experts in the field agree with the author and the hypothesis being advanced is in some sense “mainstream”, even if it’s implicitly held.
Do people actually disapprove of and disagree with this comment, or do they disapprove of the use of said ‘poetic’ language in the post? If the latter, perhaps they should downvote the post and upvote the comment for honesty.
Perhaps there should be a react for “I disapprove of the information this comment revealed, but I’m glad it admitted it”.
As I said, I think it’s not just that the language is poetic. There is an implicit inference that goes like
People who would not voluntarily undergo surgery without long-term adverse effects on their health to improve the life of a stranger are evil.
Most researchers who would be in a position to know the state of the evidence on the long-term adverse health effects of kidney donation don’t personally donate one of their kidneys.
Most researchers are unlikely to be evil.
So it’s unlikely that most researchers believe kidney donation has no long-term adverse health effects.
I’m saying that there is no definition of the word “evil” that makes statements (1) and (3) simultaneously true. Either you adopt a narrow definition, in which case (3) is true but (1) is false; or you adopt a broad definition, in which case (1) is true but (3) is false.
This is not a point about stylistic choices, it’s undermining one of the key arguments the post offers for its position. The post is significantly stronger if it can persuade us that even established experts in the field agree with the author and the hypothesis being advanced is in some sense “mainstream”, even if it’s implicitly held.