What struck me the most about this post was the feminist horoscope-science. She refers to the dog as "she" for one thing. But dogpill aside, what really stood out to me was this:
I think he was drunk and I KNOW he had bad intentions
Yikes, let's unpack this:
I
think he was drunk (quality with objective markers like slurring speech, drunk facial expression, walking unsteadily, smell of alcohol if he got close enough, by all means something you can have some degree of certainty about)
I
KNOW he had bad intentions (quality that, based on the info given in this case, is completely internal to the other person and unknown to her, for example he was not described as brandishing a knife, speaking menacingly, or even as having a hostile facial expression).
So of the two ways she described this person:
- She
thinks he was the
knowable quality
- She
knows he was the
unknowable quality (the one she can only think he is but not know)
1.2 thousand heckin updoots for "me see man. Man bad."