Do opinions become somehow more correct just because they are contrary to the 'popular' view? Statements like:
I realize that my comment flies in the face of
the opinion of radical environmentalists.
are not part of a constructive conversation. Did the parent post claim to be a radical environmentalist? Are you trying to passive-aggressively claim that the poster is a radical environmentalist? If neither of these are true, then what was the point of that statement?
Since my objection to the very premise of the article (that premise being that a reduction in environmental exposure to lead caused a drop in crime rates) seems to be his primary objection to my comment, yes, I am saying he or she is quite invested in radical environmentalism.
