Fine, I acknowledged that they had every right to disregard my advice, and feel however they chose about it. But I also argued that they did not have the right to go the further step of literally vilifying me, assaulting my character, and hinting at deep ethical problems which they then declined to elaborate upon. Apparently they felt justified in reenforcing a double-standard with regards to accountability and public office, but they never explicated the details, nor allowed any clarification on my end. I was suggesting a method, but they were getting intensely personal.
I at least give people some benefit of doubt that they have real motivations and bases for making their decisions in life, and not presuming what they may be, rather than pulling the plug on discussions as soon as they get outside of my comfort zone. Because most people don’t and aren’t obliged to know what those boundaries are. That’s something that, if were honest, we would need to negotiate explicitly - or else risk the easier option of projecting our assumptions or preferences upon others.
