> Now I'm wondering if you read my previous comment. I already stated: all things are defined by what they include and exclude. Excluding and including is amora

> Now I'm wondering if you read my previous comment. I already stated: all things are defined by what they include and exclude. Excluding and including is amoral. Yes I did, and at no point did I even assign a moral value to the exclusion because it's not relevant. Even the original poster didn't. It can be necessary for the group, inherent in groups, whatever. You don't need to argue around the balance of good Vs bad and can leave it at simply "this part in isolation is a shame". That's it. It's not a big revelation, or shouldn't be, but it may help you with not reacting like such a simple statement is an attack on a larger part of your identity. > No. No, I didn't. And the rest of your final paragraph doesn't make any more sense to me You called it obvious yet didn't understand it. This isn't Reddit and I don't want to contribute in turning it into that, if you don't want to read my banal points then don't - I have nothing to win or lose here. If you want to try and understand I think I've framed it as best as I can, so try reading it without assuming it's an attack, responding further after a few misunderstandings is futile because either I can't explain it to your further satisfaction. Much like the balance of emotions, there does not need to be some winning think out of this.