The very phrase 'denying the speaker's internet' posits and assumes such a thing which is beyond the speaker's pure self-conception. I would say the problem he

The very phrase 'denying the speaker's internet' posits and assumes such a thing which is beyond the speaker's pure self-conception. I would say the problem here is that, in a vacuum, what establishes the speaker's intent as any more authoritative than the assumptions of the listener? The right to choose what it is you meant and to choose what it is you interpret are equally weighted here. Any additional weight that is to be applied must be applied within the context of a specific interpersonal relationship at a particular point in time. Therefore generalized mappings of the weighting of such interactions cannot likely be established preemptively through a process of pure reason. The divorce of intent (or lack thereof) in various scenarios exactly points out that there is not some unified notion of the necessity of intent (or lack thereof) being applied in order to come to judgement, but instead the conceptualization of when intent (or lack thereof) should matter is deployed, seemingly, on the very fundamentally subjective basis of 'I know it when I see it' or in terms of society: 'when it has been culturally deemed such'. So the friction here would not seem to be one of the misapplication of a schema, but the friction of running against a social more.