Do you think that comparing someone's CO2 emissions with the average and pointing out that it is much higher is value-free, just a totally neutral observation for no reason? That the commenter is fine with it? Or even that it's a good thing?
But I'll also respond to your questions: my purpose is to show that your claim that the original comment was "free from judgement" is wrong. I'm not neutral, I'm attempting to show that your claim is obviously false, that it's not plausible at all. Of course I'm trying to judge a comment that seems wrong.
So now that I've replied honestly to your questions, will you reply honestly to mine? Repeating:
> So you think the commenter was neutral? No judgment? Again, what was the purpose of the comment then?
Because if the purpose wasn't to shame the person for their carbon footprint, I can't imagine what else it possibly could have been.
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 is our own.
> Again, what was the purpose of the comment then?
How would I know the purpose of someone else's comments? I don't even really know what my purpose is debating here with you. I certainly don't see myself persuading you of anything :)