Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, fair. 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 i…
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 CO…
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?