But I'll also respond to your questions: my purpose is to show that your claim that the original comment was "free from judgement" is wrong. I'm not neutral, I'm attempting to show that your claim is obviously false, that it's not plausible at all. Of course I'm trying to judge a comment that seems wrong.
So now that I've replied honestly to your questions, will you reply honestly to mine? Repeating:
> So you think the commenter was neutral? No judgment? Again, what was the purpose of the comment then?
Because if the purpose wasn't to shame the person for their carbon footprint, I can't imagine what else it possibly could have been.
But you see: not one comment here is neutral. It would be silly to expect a comment to be neutral, such a comment wouldn't be written in the first place. I think the original comment expressed the point while staying as neutral as possible.
> So you think the commenter was neutral?
Yes, it stated some facts.
> No judgment?
Yes, it contained no explicit value judgement. Any value judgement we bring into it is our own.
> Again, what was the purpose of the comment then?
How would I know the purpose of someone else's comments? I don't even really know what my purpose is debating here with you. I certainly don't see myself persuading you of anything :)
What you write doesn't make any sense. You say it's "silly to expect a comment to be neutral" but the comment is "as neutral as possible" and then answer if the commenter was neutral with "yes". Those aren't consistent.
I don't know what definitions of neutral or value judgment you're using, but I hope you can use this as a learning opportunity. The original comment has the obvious implicit judgment that a greater CO2 footprint is a bad thing. This is shared context. It is so obvious it doesn't need to be explicitly stated, any more than "murdering people is bad". The purpose of the comment is clearly to shame the person for having such a high carbon footprint, otherwise there's no purpose in bringing it up. I don't know what your purpose was in trying to deny that. But if you genuinely didn't understand before, I hope now you do, and that this has been helpful in improving your reading comprehension or understanding of shared/implicit context.
> The original comment has the obvious implicit judgment that a greater CO2 footprint is a bad thing.
No it did not contain any judgement. That is your reading and not the comment.
> This is shared context.
The world is a large place and different people share different context.
> The purpose of the comment is clearly to shame the person for having such a high carbon footprint, otherwise there's no purpose in bringing it up.
Informing perhaps?
I wonder what your gripe is: Do you think it's inappropriate to mention the CO2 at all? Or do you think that the poster should have said it in a different way? In what way?
> That is your reading and not the comment... different people share different context.
That makes as much sense as saying that the comment being written in English is just my "reading" of it, and that in a different context all the words could have entirely different meanings. That is technically true, but also completely useless when you're engaged in a real-life conversation with the rich context of the year 2026 on planet Earth... I tried to explain to you the shared context in case you were somehow ignorant of it. If you insist on denying that, then you're going to have a very hard time communicating with others, as you seem to be having with this conversation. Good luck.
But I'll also respond to your questions: my purpose is to show that your claim that the original comment was "free from judgement" is wrong. I'm not neutral, I'm attempting to show that your claim is obviously false, that it's not plausible at all. Of course I'm trying to judge a comment that seems wrong.
So now that I've replied honestly to your questions, will you reply honestly to mine? Repeating:
> So you think the commenter was neutral? No judgment? Again, what was the purpose of the comment then?
Because if the purpose wasn't to shame the person for their carbon footprint, I can't imagine what else it possibly could have been.