4 ms·
I think you're being a bit too charitable -- to the point of spinning his overall message to something different from what he plainly said. Of course he wasn't
by vanusa 5y ago
I think you're being a bit too charitable -- to the point of spinning his overall message to something different from what he plainly said.
Of course he wasn't saying they should be our "only" solutions to these problems. But he definitely did not merely say they should be components of a broader strategy (which I do agree with), or that they shouldn't be "written off".
He specifically said they should be our best and primary approaches to these problems -- which again, strikes me as over-idealized, if not outright naive and fanciful.
- mattcwilson 5y agoIf we’re niggling over specifics: * He didn’t use the word primary anywhere in the post. * He didn’t say that GMOs are the best response, just that “he wants to [end world hunger] with them.”
- vanusa 5y agoWhether the actual word "primary" was used or not irrelevant. It was a fair enough characterization of what he was saying. He didn’t say that GMOs are the best response, just that “he wants to [end world hunger] with them.” Look, when someone says "I want to solve problem X with Y" and mentions no other approaches -- then clearly they are saying that Y is the best response to X.
- tempestn 5y agoExcept in the context where there's a significant segment of society arguing against using them at all, in which case I think it could easily be taken as an argument against that faction. I mean, these were all just point form; there are multiple ways to interpret them, so absent clarification, we should assume the most reasonable.
- vanusa 5y agoThe "most reasonable" interpretation to go with, in my book, is by what was actually said -- not what the guy might have said, had he thought about the matter through a bit more. That's how I do these things. You can do whatever you want of course.