My friends often get themselves into situations of the following form:
- Person A states a sentence.
- Person B reads and interprets A's sentence. B states that the sentence has conveyed a meaning which both A and B would disapprove of. Based on this shared disapproval of the conveyed message, B requests that A apologize and admit that A should not have said the sentence.
- Person A states their own interpretation of the sentence. Neither A nor B disapprove of the content of A's stated interpretation. Based on this shared lack of disapproval, A feels that it was not wrong to say the original sentence.
- Person B responds: "You intended to convey a certain meaning, but your intent doesn't matter, only the outcome matters. In actual fact, you conveyed to me a meaning that we both disapprove of. Since doing that is not something you would approve of, you should still admit you shouldn't have said the sentence."
- Person A still doesn't agree, but usually stops responding at this point.
How should I evaluate this argument? Can we determine who is in the right from only the information provided, or is outside information required to resolve it?