Thanks for explaining your perspective. I hope most people will instead vote based on whether they think the comment will add to or detract from the understanding of most readers. To briefly explain why I donāt think the two factors you point to are indicative of a low-quality comment:
(1) A comment may be āwritten in good faithā and yet have the effect of being misleading, unfair, or otherwise harmful. If a comment does have these effects, and especially if it is being highly upvoted (suggesting that many readers are being taken in by it), then I think it is important to be clear about this. (Note that I made no claims about Teoās motivations, nor did I cast any personal attacks. I simply criticized the content of what was written, in a clear and direct way.)
So I would instead ask readers to assess whether my objections were merited. Is it true that Teoās comment ā[made] it sound like the author favours causing a net increase in suffering for his own personal gainā? If so, that would in fact be extremely misleading, not remotely fair or accurate, etc. So I think itās worth being clear on this.
Of course, if you think Iām being idiosyncratic and no casual reader would come away with the impression Iām worried about here, then by all means downvote my comment for simple inaccuracy.
(2) Certainly, you donāt have to defer to the opinion of moral philosophers if you donāt trust that weāre well-placed to judge the matter in question. Still, the info may be helpful for many, so (imo) sharing info about an expert consensus should not be viewed negatively.
Thanks for explaining your perspective. I hope most people will instead vote based on whether they think the comment will add to or detract from the understanding of most readers. To briefly explain why I donāt think the two factors you point to are indicative of a low-quality comment:
(1) A comment may be āwritten in good faithā and yet have the effect of being misleading, unfair, or otherwise harmful. If a comment does have these effects, and especially if it is being highly upvoted (suggesting that many readers are being taken in by it), then I think it is important to be clear about this. (Note that I made no claims about Teoās motivations, nor did I cast any personal attacks. I simply criticized the content of what was written, in a clear and direct way.)
So I would instead ask readers to assess whether my objections were merited. Is it true that Teoās comment ā[made] it sound like the author favours causing a net increase in suffering for his own personal gainā? If so, that would in fact be extremely misleading, not remotely fair or accurate, etc. So I think itās worth being clear on this.
Of course, if you think Iām being idiosyncratic and no casual reader would come away with the impression Iām worried about here, then by all means downvote my comment for simple inaccuracy.
(2) Certainly, you donāt have to defer to the opinion of moral philosophers if you donāt trust that weāre well-placed to judge the matter in question. Still, the info may be helpful for many, so (imo) sharing info about an expert consensus should not be viewed negatively.