3 ms·
If 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 t
by mattcwilson 5y ago
If 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.