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.