I absolutely cannot support murder in any form, even when it comes from a billion dollar healthcare company.
it states your opinion clearly, and sets the boundary that nobody is exempt.
the way you phrased it and how it was perceived are as follows
I don’t support murder of any kind. but there was no reason to kill the man who expanded and supported medical tribunals that effectively led to the death of tens of thousands of American’s last year. murder is not the answer. now let’s talk about this like civilized people like we’ve been doing for the last 100 years and hope that something changes.
do you see the differences?
the second time around you set your boundary of, “murder bad”. but then move the goal posts in support of continuing the status quo that got us to this point because his company is murdering thousands of its customers.
it’s not that you’re not supporting a murderer, it’s that your commentary is supporting the aristocracy that runs the machine that eats us all.
they don’t hate you, they hate what you support.
Why does not liking killing people mean “supporting the aristocracy”?
I in no way support the CEO, UHC, or any of the predatory insurance companies (which is all of them). I hate them, even.
I still don’t like murder.
I don’t see why those have to be mutually inclusive.
let me show you how to navigate this.
it states your opinion clearly, and sets the boundary that nobody is exempt.
the way you phrased it and how it was perceived are as follows
do you see the differences?
the second time around you set your boundary of, “murder bad”. but then move the goal posts in support of continuing the status quo that got us to this point because his company is murdering thousands of its customers.
That’s definitely a very succinct way of putting it. Thanks. I’ll think on that.
Though, the second example is definitely an intentional misinterpretation, since I never said anything that should be reasonably interpreted that way.
Other than that, does this work too?