I feel rather uncomfortable at seeing someone mention that he donated, and getting a response which indirectly suggests that he’s being irrational and should have donated more.
It is indirect, but I believe David is trying to highlight the possibility of problems with the Slate article. Once we have something to protect (a donor) we will be more motivated to explore its possible failings instead of taking it as gospel.
I feel rather uncomfortable at seeing someone mention that he donated, and getting a response which indirectly suggests that he’s being irrational and should have donated more.
It is indirect, but I believe David is trying to highlight the possibility of problems with the Slate article. Once we have something to protect (a donor) we will be more motivated to explore its possible failings instead of taking it as gospel.
I don’t think that, as I have noted. I’m not at all keen on the essay in question. But it is popular hereabouts.
Okay, good. But it still kinda comes off that way, at least to me.