3 ms·
Again, that doesn't justify it, in fact, if your interpretation is correct, it no longer even explains it. The implication still remains that "hey, we're insult
by julianmarq 6y ago
Again, that doesn't justify it, in fact, if your interpretation is correct, it no longer even explains it. The implication still remains that "hey, we're insulting your religion, but there are people of multiple backgrounds here so it should be okay"... which really doesn't follow at all.
And I didn't say that the decision was expressly made by non-christians.
- throwaway894345 6y agoI agree that it doesn’t justify it, but to be quite clear, the argument isn’t that there are many backgrounds represented but specifically that some of those backgrounds are Christian and they were presumably okay with it. Again, this is terrible logic because one or two Christians don’t speak for the lot. > And I didn't say that the decision was expressly made by non-christians. I don’t know what else you could’ve meant by “the decision was made by someone of a different background” (paraphrased because copy/paste on HN mobile is tedious).
- tomp 6y agoNo, the implication is, "we (some of us) are insulting our religion, and we're OK with it".