Inferences are by definition not as clear as you seem to want. There is no “clear” assertion for an inference by the definition of the word.

If you don’t believe it was inferred then agree to disagree

Inferences may not be clear, but you still need to have some idea, even a guess, of what is implied.

you cant even produce one possible comparison.

>If you don’t believe it was inferred then agree to disagree

You have got to be trolling me. In several posts, you have failed to identify what "it" is. what's the implied comparison being made?

I told you what the comparison is already. He comparing his situation to Rodney Kings. Whether intentionally or not that was the inference.

If you need it more clearly than that, than we aren’t capable of communicating ideas to each other with our personal world views

I guess not. in my mind him and Rodney Kind both having lived situations does not constitute a comparison. Situation is far too vague. There needs to be some feature that is inferred to to be similar.

George Washington once was alive, and people are alive today too.

Take everything you said and then question why the author even referenced the situation.

If you agree that there needs to be a stronger connection to establish a connection, then why even mention the situation? Do you think the author did it out of complete randomness?

They are making a point about conflict, human nature, and that people don't get along. They are using a quote about it and attributing it to the source.

>“Can’t we all get along?” We couldn’t then, and we aren’t, now.

That doesn't mean they think they are a victim like Rodney King. That doesn't mean they think someone is like the cops.

I think the point is that conflict exists as part of the human experience. You can acknowledge that it exists and move forward. It isn't useful to dwell on what could have been.

Again, what do you think they were using the quote to say. Are they claiming to be a victim like RK? You seem to not like it, but have no clue what you think the implication is, which strikes me as wild. "I dont know what you are saying, but I dont like your meaning"

By using a concrete example of a specific point in time, they are conflating that example with their own.

If he had just said something like “Can’t we all get along” without invoking the history, it would not have brought along the comparison.

To put this into the context of software, and assuming he did not intend the conflating, it would be like he invoked a function that updated state on a specific field that he wanted to change, but the function updated other fields as a side effect.

The most charitable interpretation is that it was an accident and he just reached for the first similar example he could think of, the least charitable is that he actually does think it’s the same.

My opinion is that the situations are so wildly different that it was an inappropriate example to invoke

I think the words popped into his head as a fact of life, and he correctly attributed it to the author.

I don't think any completion occurred because I wasn't confused about the two of them being the same. I don't think you were confused that they were the same either.

I don't think there are people out there that would read the paragraph and walk away thinking the author is just like Rodney King. Therefore I think taking offense for possible conflation on behalf of others is overly cynical.

Well I did think so so you’re incorrect by default.

Calling me overly cynical is an opinion I can’t object to, but don’t try and define my opinion