I read the chain, and it’s 2 comments long, and that one person randomly brought up healthcare systems as a total non-sequitor.
The original comment is about her damaging the machine. It stands to reason this person thought she was on the hook for the damages, which is never discussed in the article, nor is damage confirmed.
I agree that part was a non-sequitur. I even thought so myself when I first passed over it.
But the other part of the exchange is not confusing at all and there’s zero indication that anyone thought she is actually on the hook for any damages. I’m more-so confused how you could not pick up the meaning even after a re-read.
They’re responding to a comment dude, click the context button.
I read the chain, and it’s 2 comments long, and that one person randomly brought up healthcare systems as a total non-sequitor.
The original comment is about her damaging the machine. It stands to reason this person thought she was on the hook for the damages, which is never discussed in the article, nor is damage confirmed.
“Should” being the operative word here. The top level comment using should “in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency.”
The next poster says that this is “not a good response” because it would destroy her life.
They are disagreeing over what should happen, not what is happening.
Right but then also this
I’m just not sure how people aren’t getting why someone might be confused by this entire exchange
I agree that part was a non-sequitur. I even thought so myself when I first passed over it.
But the other part of the exchange is not confusing at all and there’s zero indication that anyone thought she is actually on the hook for any damages. I’m more-so confused how you could not pick up the meaning even after a re-read.
Dude until your above comment I was confused as fuck.
Maybe I need more coffee.
lol It happens. To your credit, most people wouldn’t admit it.