John, why did you ignore the important part of my comment? Would you care to respond to this bit?
It appears other than that, though, you agree with my point; you do believe the person that held the door is not responsible, the woman that feels minimized by the action is responsible.
So, again, that means you believe we can act however we want, or say whatever we want, as long as we have good intentions, without concern for how our words and action affect others.
I used your terminology, without using judgement, even though, as I said, I believe it’s disingenuous.
Going all the way back to your first comment that I responded to, this is the key point. It appeared to me, and still appears to me, that you are saying we don’t have to concern ourselves with a person’s feelings if we believe those feelings have come about not out of what we believe to be a natural response but because the person has been indoctrinated.
Am I stating that correctly and clearly?