Hacker News Reader

Comment by wynand | Hacker News Reader

Andrew, your comment is correct when literally interpreting dictionary definitions but misses the spirit of the situation.

If we take the current criticisms (of your comment) as being morally representative of the general population (probably a decent approximation) then most people would consider the dictionary definitions of ``shameless'' and ``modest'' to be incomplete and not applicable (at least not to someone that is possibly dying). That is one reason why you see so many upset comments here.

In the end, saving Amit's life is better than not saving it, all else being equal. Especially when the goal is so clearly defined and within reach.

View on HN

> In the end, saving Amit's life is better than not saving it, all else being equal. Especially when the goal is so clearly defined and within reach.

I know...

But he could've had the same result AND acknowledged the fact that millions of people have equally important life-threatening afflictions, that his is no more important, and that his experience has helped him realize the greater good of focusing on promoting a cause like bone marrow transplants.

Instead, he chose to come off very selfish and presumptuous of his own importance to literally everyone he can reach. Just read the promotional materials, it really is shameless.

Back to my original comment though, it would be cool if he continued exactly what he's doing, but for other people, if this works out for him.

Still holding out strong I see :).

Permit me to explain how I see this. You may disagree strongly with me but I hope to convey why your comment aroused so much passion.

I don't see Amit as considering himself to be more important than anyone else. I see a man who is trying to save his own life (with very little time to spare) and I have sympathy with his cause. I don't expect him to take this cause further when he is well, even though I know that many people in the world are suffering.

My position is very different from yours. I find it difficult to agree with the sentiment of your comment because I don't expect Amit to be looking out for anyone else but himself at this moment. In this case, I suspect that many others here have similar views.

>But he could've had the same result AND acknowledged the fact that millions of people have equally important life-threatening afflictions,

He should do nothing to save himself until he's helped cure Cancer; TB; Malaria; HIV/AIDs; Starvation; Poor Sanitation; War; Earthquake prediction; etc etc?

>that his is no more important

I'm guessing (I don't know him) that it's more important to him and his loved ones.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com