I think you may be assuming a position I have been very clear not to make. I'm responding explicitly to this exchange:
'ada1981> Or maybe also people who have religious views about stem cell research?
'nawgszy> I find this hilarious. Not knocking your comment or anything, just fairly sure religious texts didn't say 'thou shall not induce artificial stem cell growth'
You're right in that the comment by 'ada1981 requires more meat, but that doesn't mean you dismiss it because it's not there: if you want to engage you ask for it or at least assume the most charitable interpretation and acknowledge where you're making charitable assumptions. Neither 'ada1981 nor myself have aligned ourselves with the positions of those that hold these religious views (and 'ada1981 has commented further down that they don't hold this opinion). And that's getting to the heart of my point: we can understand others opinions without necessarily agreeing with them.
You're exactly right: we're not mind readers. And I've tried very hard to be clear what mine is: that to have earnest, meaningful, and constructive discussion we need to strive to understand other's points of view.
I've found Daniel Dennett's explanation of Rapoport's Rules to be very helpful, and explains the position much better than I:
https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo...
FWIW, a similar tenet has been recently added to the HN guidelines:
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This is what I'm pushing against. I would argue that assuming the simplistic immediate assumption of literal interpretation is uncharitable.
If you're reading into my comments that I hold any particular views with respect to stem cell research or treatment, please point them out, because that's not my intent and I've tried my best to not include any (and to see explain various points of view fairly), and I don't think you can find such a claim. My interest is much more in figuring out how people can productively discuss contentious topics. And that's something I can work on as well.
Regardless, I've derailed this much more than I ever intended, so I'll sign off this thread. Best, and I hope you have a good day!
Edit to add: FWIW, I understand where you're coming from with respect to the article and its implications regarding some past ethical concerns. That doesn't obviate how one discusses the topic with others. Almost by definition when we disagree with someone we're going to find something prima facie unreasonable.