3 ms·
It's a direct reference to the essay called "Photographing Evil" that is discussed in the next paragraph. If you want to bridge the gap from your article to som
by DenisM 5y ago
It's a direct reference to the essay called "Photographing Evil" that is discussed in the next paragraph. If you want to bridge the gap from your article to someone else's it helps to use the same terminology.
It's a bit awkward, though, and I would use the word sinister myself as a compromise, but I certainly see why they did what they did.
- kodah 5y agoI guess the summary fails to explain why this qualifies as evil as opposed to early industry or lack of knowledge. I tried to look up whether the industry knew whether these were harmful fumes and whether there were reasonable alternatives to iron production back then but couldn't find anything.
- DenisM 5y agoYou seem to believe that evil requires a priori knowledge or intent. I think there is enough wiggle room in that word to allow otherwise. Merriam Webster offers causing harm or injury to someone which would fit the article. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil
- kodah 5y agoThat definition is a bit dated. Evil as a result does not relate to evil with intent, and using it in that context is odd in modern times. To make my example a bit more concise, if your financial planner lost you money on the market would you ever tell them, "You did an evil thing"? Of course not, but it did result in harm to you, regardless of their intent.