Thank you for contributing your ridicule of ESL people, and then using that ridicule, as though you had trouble reading what was written, to say something smug about the medium of somebody's argument.
> ...I was not actually judging the book by it's cover...
By the way, since we're in the mood for making fun of people over insignificant matters of syntax, the "its" in "judging a book by its cover" isn't supposed to have an apostrophe in it.
Now I could be charitable, and notice that if you wrote this on an Android phone, it could just be that GBoard was doing that thing where it inserts an apostrophe that you didn't type; but I'll adjust to your standards here and just take it as a sign that you're illiterate, which I guess explains why you stick to reading a book's blurb, and the cover more generally, rather than the content.
> not having a first hand familiarity with American culture is the little nuances of the blurb talking about child labor regulations etc
Dude, I'm American. It's not that your insinuations are too subtle, it's that they're unfounded, given the actual content of the book.
> Perhaps it is unintentional but there are political forces in the U.S that would like to get rid of these and other classes of laws that exist to restrict some things that businesses might otherwise like to do, like having children work in factories and selling food that has been made in unsanitary conditions, and so when I see marketing for something that seems to argue against these classes of law I worry that the book being marketed actually argues against them - I suppose you can see why that might be, right?
Still here impugning the guy's motives, and talking down to me as though you're the only one here who is aware of broad U.S. political themes, with zero knowledge of the actual content of the book, judging it by the blurb... the thing that goes on the cover; you know, judging a book by its cover.
> ...the people who subscribe to the theories that those classes of law are bad things seem to labor under some sort of ahistoricity and as that is a lack of knowledge it would be nice if the lack could be rectified somehow.
If you're so concerned about lack of knowledge, why don't you just read the book? It's about eight bucks on Kindle, it's not that long; maybe your nearest municipal library is open again and you can check it out there when you make your no-doubt-frequent trip. Replace your ignorance and smugness with information and.. well probably you'll keep the smugness, but at least you'll know what you're talking about. :+ )
> This is really why I wrote this overly long reply to correct some of what you wrote, as admirable as it otherwise might have been, because I would hope to keep you from being drawn into a confrontation with one of these combative types, who, as I noted before, seem intent on getting the smallest mistake or deliberate misreading as a tool to spitefully attack your character.
Well we wouldn't want to go attacking anyone's character; for example by insinuating that their primary political motivation is to exploit vulnerable children for hard labour and produce unsanitary food to save money in a manner similar to the fictional characters of a novel about a child born in a 19th century British workhouse. We especially wouldn't want to do that by comparing a piece of mid 20th century philosophical allegory written for a broad audience, a fictional novel; to the genuine account of an independent farmer attempting to sell products that his customers are informed about and excited to buy, in a regulatory environment which restricts activities that no well-adjusted person would consider exploitative, fringe, or immoral.