I think you have trouble differentiating between causes and fault or responsibility. English is not my native language, so perhaps I get the inuendo wrong. But claiming “Cruz’ crime was 100 % society’s fault” absolves the murderer of all his responsibility.
That was the original comment by you that I replied to. The tone of that paragraph was suggesting you were speaking about me specifically.
As English is not your first language, I would suggest next time separating that paragraph into two paragraphs, or adding to the end of that paragraph something along the lines of “as the original article states”.
I would suggest you understand comment hierarchy on Lemmy. You responded to my comment, which was in the tree of a direct response to the topic. Not to you or any other comment.
You can see that by the fact that there’s no line next to my post when you look at top layer of hierarchy:
I would suggest you understand comment hierarchy on Lemmy.
I notice you keep trying to “Kill the Messenger” by challenging my understanding and intelligence level.
I’ve made plenty of posts throughout the decades to understand how it works. Also, English is my primary language.
I stand by my comments to you about how you worded your comment that I replied to.
Finally, a reminder of what I said, since the screen pic that you posted is not referring to the comment that I was replying to, and speaking about…
I think you have trouble differentiating between causes and fault or responsibility. English is not my native language, so perhaps I get the inuendo wrong. But claiming “Cruz’ crime was 100 % society’s fault” absolves the murderer of all his responsibility.
That was the original comment by you that I replied to. The tone of that paragraph was suggesting you were speaking about me specifically.
As English is not your first language, I would suggest next time separating that paragraph into two paragraphs, or adding to the end of that paragraph something along the lines of “as the original article states”.
“Killing the messenger” apparently means to “attack the bringer of bad news”. That doesn’t seem to be a good fit for the situation at all. I suggest you read the definition again. I suppose what you meant to say is an “ad hominem attack”.
Well, I am certainly sorry when it came off as an insult to you. But it’s quite the stretch to assume I wanted to challenge your intelligence by simply trying to understand what could be the underlying cause for you to write something that seemed simply untrue to me.
That was the original comment by you that I replied to. The tone of that paragraph was suggesting you were speaking about me specifically.
As English is not your first language, I would suggest next time separating that paragraph into two paragraphs, or adding to the end of that paragraph something along the lines of “as the original article states”.
I would suggest you understand comment hierarchy on Lemmy. You responded to my comment, which was in the tree of a direct response to the topic. Not to you or any other comment.
You can see that by the fact that there’s no line next to my post when you look at top layer of hierarchy:
I notice you keep trying to “Kill the Messenger” by challenging my understanding and intelligence level.
I’ve made plenty of posts throughout the decades to understand how it works. Also, English is my primary language.
I stand by my comments to you about how you worded your comment that I replied to.
Finally, a reminder of what I said, since the screen pic that you posted is not referring to the comment that I was replying to, and speaking about…
“Killing the messenger” apparently means to “attack the bringer of bad news”. That doesn’t seem to be a good fit for the situation at all. I suggest you read the definition again. I suppose what you meant to say is an “ad hominem attack”.
Well, I am certainly sorry when it came off as an insult to you. But it’s quite the stretch to assume I wanted to challenge your intelligence by simply trying to understand what could be the underlying cause for you to write something that seemed simply untrue to me.