If you know what I mean.

The word twisting you are doing, however, seems to be little more than an ad absurdum argument beginning from a strawman of my position.

I’d ask if you thought that Reagan’s speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi was an example of “dog whistle” politics. Perhaps Bush’s references to “Dred Scott”.

If you are willing to agree that, maybe, it’s possible to send a message without saying anything explicitly, then, maybe, we can discuss whether it’s reasonable for such a conclusion to be reached here.

Perhaps your opinion is that if transcripts are all we have, we owe it to the transcripts to “not read between the lines”. Is that your position?

Or is it only your position when it suits you?

This one person can think that a lifestyle without children is the best lifestyle while that one can think that a lifestyle with kids is the best way. They can both show up at a pokergame and say “you don’t know what you’re missing” and walk away shaking their heads at the folly of the other guy… and both of them can have made the right decision for themselves. They, despite any of their own claims to the contrary, are not exactly engaging in libertarianism-in-practice. “I’m doing it the right way, you, who disagree with me, are doing it the wrong way” is a very, very unlibertarian sentiment.

While we can discuss matters of taste vs. matters of morality and which is which and what is what and so on and so forth, I would hope that we would agree that, in this instance, how I live my life is a matter of taste.

The question is whether it is reasonable to question whether a signal was being received by the audience, whether a signal was intended by the speaker, and whether those signals (if they exist, of course) line up.

I have come to the conclusion that the signals between us are not lining up and suggest that it may be appropriate to take words at face value in this particular case.