Pseudo-Righteous Bases for Wicked Responses Due to Implied Meaning from Non-Shared Phrasal Conventions

A matter of phrasing seems to impart wildly different implied meanings, though the surface text retains identical meaning.  This implication system seems to be a gotcha-type of surface reasoning that becomes the basis for pseudo-righteous extreme reactions to it.

Consider the difference:

    Why?
    What purpose does that serve?

The first is taken to be a challenge and the second respectful inquiry.  Now, consider a person with simple speech who uses the first form as a matter of necessity.  The pseudo-righteous nature is revealed in such a case of the response by those inclined to base wickedness on implications that are not given by the speaker.  Those who practice this false basis of pseudo-righteous response only allow themselves to see what they want and do not regard the necessity of the speaker to use this shortened syntax, where no disrespect was intended.

Popular Posts

What the Church Should Know and Do

The Problem of Evil

Notes on Paw Creek Video about Heresy in TBN

Analysis for a Baby Christian - On Women Pastors

A Special Forces Demon Attack in a Dream

The Strange Meanness of Christians

Countering the Concept that the Bible Does Not Help with Everything in Modern Life

The Semantic Trickery in the 'Bring the War Home' Book Blurb

Track the Basis of Your Preaching Message, Dear Church - Psychology Based and Inverted Reading of Scripture

Answers about Gender Dysphoria