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.
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.