Thank you for your elegantly-expressed perspective, Wyatt.
I agree with some of what you’re saying — e.g. “A decent person has no choice but to include the welfare of others in their moral code”
…and would disagree on other points — e.g. “Only someone who (has) no moral sense whatsoever could think they have a blank check to say anything they want no matter how many people object.”
I’m mainly wondering, however, if you are perhaps reading more into the article than it actually says. For example, you say, “A decent person is considerate of others..” -but the article does not dispute this idea.
And you write: “If you hate the notion of having to care for others so be it but don’t embarrass yourself by pretending that’s a compassionate or thoughtful stance that upholds human decency.” I’m not sure what relevance this has to my article — as it doesn’t express any such hatred at all.
So my question is: Is there anything actually in my article that you would like to take issue with?
Thank you in advance for your time! :)