Of course you intend that this assertion serve as a moral trap, like the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
And "of course" you know exactly what I intended... because inferring purpose and meaning from a single sentence written by someone you don't know and have never communicated with is bound to yield an unerringly accurate characterization of that person's intent.
There's no good answer. Either one agrees with you, in which case WDW1974's racist assertion stands unchallenged, or one is automatically guilty of the crime you're accusing him of having committed.
To the contrary -- there are plenty of good answers. Responding to my comment isn't a matter of either agreeing with me, or being automatically found "guilty" of anything. This is a message board, not a tribunal or a deposition or some other forum where one might theoretically encounter the kind of cliched loaded question that, in a legal TV show at least (but not in any actual American court of law), epitomizes the quintessential "gotcha!" moment that snares the culprit and, deliciously, proves his complicity beyond any reasonable doubt. Because this is a discussion forum of another kind entirely, people are free and encouraged to do just that -- discuss and explain. There are no damning, entrapping responses (or a telling lack of response), just discourse.... which, incidentally, tends to be halted dead in its tracks when the suggestion is thrown out that any possible response to a comment would necessarily be a "bad" one or a "wrong" one.
Philosophically, it's nothing more than begging the question (the fallacy of suggesting a proposition that assumes its answer among its premises), but it's a clever piece of rhetorical judo--disingenuous, but clever.
I don't really know where this thread is headed anymore, but if we've wandered into taking people's vacationing proclivities and performing bizarre, contortionist, psychological analysis of them in order to prove that subjective preferences are objectively disordered based on an underlying subtext of latent antisocial bias, then perhaps we should take this discussion to graduate school.
I find it highly amusing that you would depict my comment as "disingenuous, but clever" when you then follow that up with a paragraph full of doctoral language that probably sounds extremely clever to most people reading it, but in fact is largely devoid of the meaning that you seem to be ascribing to it.
That said, I'd rather not take this discussion to graduate school (or anywhere else), both because I've been there, done that, and don't much feel like engaging in that kind of academic rhetoric again (and certainly not on a message board where there are more interesting things to discuss, like... you know... Disney parks), and also because I really don't want to take away from the actual meaningful discussion on this thread about Disney parks issues.
And on that note, we return to our regularly-scheduled programming...