4 ms·
You created a 'should' from a 'would', and therefore implied that 5F36B5F62640 had ill-feelings towards Indians. I'm not attacking you personally, nor am I spe
by lhnz 10y ago
You created a 'should' from a 'would', and therefore implied that 5F36B5F62640 had ill-feelings towards Indians.
I'm not attacking you personally, nor am I speaking to you personally. I am just pointing out to anybody reading this, that you just tried to smear somebody.
Of course, whether you did so on purpose is another matter.
- zardgiv 10y agoYou're grasping a bit on this. Logic does not dictate that there were implied ill-feelings on 5F36B5F62640's behalf. In fact, I can categorically state that from the one post I've read from them I do not believe they have any such ill-feelings! To restate, then: "Wait, so your argument is that only Native Americans would feel unwelcome in this community? Is this supposed to be in his favor?" I appreciate your dedication to accuracy, and I must assume this satisfies your complaint.
- lhnz 10y agoIt wasn't a grasp. The rhetorical effect of your comment was to imply some sentiment from 5F36B5F62640 on 'what ought to be'. Yes, that is no longer accusatory; and it is correct: there are other sets of people that would no doubt feel unwelcome in such a community. I think in a practical sense their fear is overblown as 'Code is law'. However people generally make decisions based on consensus reality.