> You're a well-meaning person, and you want to avoid causing unnecessary harm with your words.
I don't like the weaselly binary assumption here. You are implying "You are either a well-meaning person or you are not." That's an unbelievably narrow (and, honestly, childish) view of human interactivity. It also implies that you alone hold a monopoly on how "well-meaning" is defined and that it is your sacred duty to impose that doctrine on others.
You're basically attempting to confuse people into accepting your moral ethos as a candidate for common assumptions of what "well-meaning" should be.
This is underhanded and not well-meaning at all.
Perhaps you should try avoiding causing unnecessary harm with your words next time.
I don't like the weaselly binary assumption here. You are implying "You are either a well-meaning person or you are not." That's an unbelievably narrow (and, honestly, childish) view of human interactivity. It also implies that you alone hold a monopoly on how "well-meaning" is defined and that it is your sacred duty to impose that doctrine on others.
You're basically attempting to confuse people into accepting your moral ethos as a candidate for common assumptions of what "well-meaning" should be.
This is underhanded and not well-meaning at all.
Perhaps you should try avoiding causing unnecessary harm with your words next time.