brazil84 comments on Mark Zuckerberg plans to give away 99% of his facebook wealth over his lifetime - Less Wrong

5 Post author: ChristianKl 07 December 2015 12:28AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (50)

Comments (50)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: brazil84 09 December 2015 11:58:24PM 1 point [-]

If I misunderstood you and we agree that's great.

Well what did you think I was saying?

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"?

Comment author: ChristianKl 10 December 2015 12:15:30AM 0 points [-]

Well what did you think I was saying?

That it's right of the media to say that Zuckerberg made the donation to increase his own reputation and status.

Comment author: brazil84 10 December 2015 01:11:32AM 1 point [-]

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"?

Comment author: ChristianKl 10 December 2015 01:30:47AM *  0 points [-]

I didn't say any such thing. Please read what I say carefully before responding.

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?

Comment author: brazil84 10 December 2015 02:50:58AM 1 point [-]

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.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit