So I wonder what “you” you, and from here on that means you personally unless otherwise stated, are referring to. Are you ascribing idiot-shouting behavior to me personally? Or are you referring to the neutral “you,” which can be replaced with “one?”
I was shooting for “neutral you”.
The reason I’m wondering is that I have given no indication that I shout at idiots but your reply could be incorrectly construed in such a way that I do. Which then doesn’t make the motive warning any clearer also. Because it could be a interpreted as meaning I like to be “dominance-humping” and I ought to reflect on that. Or that my reasoning is too Darwinistic. Or that I shouldn’t judge tight calls by small statistical margins. Or that I like correcting people? Etc. It just isn’t clear.
Dominance humping is immensely popular among us humans. I assumed that you were also a fan. Thus any course of action that happens to also serves it warrants scrutiny.
Thus any course of action that happens to also serve it warrants scrutiny.
If that’s what you think I’m surprised you asked the question in the first place considering one of the binary choices you provided is essentially d-humping. Your mind is already made up. I also feel you’re moving the goal posts. You asked who is more idiotic, not whose behavior should be under more scrutiny.
I was shooting for “neutral you”.
Dominance humping is immensely popular among us humans. I assumed that you were also a fan. Thus any course of action that happens to also serves it warrants scrutiny.
I think you missed.
You know what you do when you assume, don’t you?
If that’s what you think I’m surprised you asked the question in the first place considering one of the binary choices you provided is essentially d-humping. Your mind is already made up. I also feel you’re moving the goal posts. You asked who is more idiotic, not whose behavior should be under more scrutiny.