[wasteofelectron]

This is an account of a woman’s husband and the father of her children being severely ill and dying by suicide, not “some hardship” or a “topic”. Have some respect for goodness sake. You never know when you’ll need someone to do the same for you.

[AmericanChopper]

This is exactly the type of irrational, emotional reaction the active is designed to elicit. The article is advocating for a public policy position, it relates to the topic of suicide, and it describes the hardships of the author. The merit of the position is irrelevant to the fact that this article has been so effective in evoking an emotive response from you, that simply a rational description of its content has managed to offend you.

[wasteofelectron]

To me your reaction is just as emotional. Your emotions require you to attempt to be analytical, dispassionate and transcend the issue. It's possible to have empathy for the author and be agnostic to any perceived rhetorical goals.

[5F7bGnd6fWJ66xN]

I'm curious if you know of anyone in your family and friend circles with this disorder? If so, have you talked to them?

[AmericanChopper]

I have made 0 comments ITT on the merit of the ideas put forward by the author. I have exclusively commented on the use of rhetorical devices to persuade the audience of their policy positions. So I’m curious why you’re asking me about the merits of the points advocated in the article. Are you truly incapable of seeing the difference between those two things?