> And just like the author, you merely felt justified to act that way, and would have been able to make do otherwise, but chose not to.
I'm not arguing for tit-for-tat. I think it's dumb. I took the affirmative stance I did, only to match the tone of the article. Adding the same absurdity to the counter point. I think we're both equally wrong for taking an unnuanced stance. The author and I both took stances that exclude important nuance. I was partially hoping partially expecting the remainder of what I said would come across. That idea being, options are better, warnings are better, absolutes are problematic.
> The author feels empowered to tell others they're wrong. So I want to do the same;
It would have been better for me to say "So I guess I'm required to do the same here". I'd much rather just suggest options, you can tell because I said as much
> But if that's a good thing or a bad thing should be reserved, exclusively for you to decide.
I don't want to make your decisions for you. Some of the authors points are compelling, I don't want anyone to die because they missed the tsunami warning either. But I find their specific arguments here needlessly restrictive. They're not warning, or reminding. They're saying your social media posts are wrong if you don't do it this way, and accusing the author of being irresponsible. Something *do* need to be easily readable, but that important nuance wasn't included in the article, just like I didn't include how tsunami warning without a doubt, need to be as accessible as possible.
I'm not arguing for tit-for-tat. I think it's dumb. I took the affirmative stance I did, only to match the tone of the article. Adding the same absurdity to the counter point. I think we're both equally wrong for taking an unnuanced stance. The author and I both took stances that exclude important nuance. I was partially hoping partially expecting the remainder of what I said would come across. That idea being, options are better, warnings are better, absolutes are problematic.
> The author feels empowered to tell others they're wrong. So I want to do the same;
It would have been better for me to say "So I guess I'm required to do the same here". I'd much rather just suggest options, you can tell because I said as much
> But if that's a good thing or a bad thing should be reserved, exclusively for you to decide.
I don't want to make your decisions for you. Some of the authors points are compelling, I don't want anyone to die because they missed the tsunami warning either. But I find their specific arguments here needlessly restrictive. They're not warning, or reminding. They're saying your social media posts are wrong if you don't do it this way, and accusing the author of being irresponsible. Something *do* need to be easily readable, but that important nuance wasn't included in the article, just like I didn't include how tsunami warning without a doubt, need to be as accessible as possible.