Perhaps you should read my post again ^.^ You missed a pretty important detail within it that make the majority element of your response seem a little pointless and silly.
You can spin it how you like - Friends and charm person are not mind control, and that's been stated, again and again and again. Influence is not control. Magical affectation is not magical domination. It does not compel action, it does not force action and it does not control action, in any way; other spells do. It's not mind control, and it's not a mind control effect, unlike the other spells mentioned, which are. This isn't really open for debate - there's a clear line between what is and isn't mind control, and that is the compulsion of action. It's been ruled on, repeatedly. No-one's saying this cantrip is not invasive, but it's not mind control.
The chance that a target already inclined towards violent response might act violently upon discovering that you attempted to, or did, influence their decision-making is perfectly legitimate and within the definitions of hostile disposition; the spell text is a warning of this, more than anything else. Targets that are not so inclined, however, will not. If we wanted to take the spell entirely literally, then it's actually iron clad that creatures not already disposed towards violence, and not already prone to violence will not attack you from the use of this spell, since, as we know, spells do what they say, and only what they say, and this one says that creatures prone to violence might attack you... it does not carry that caveat for other creatures not inherently disposed towards violence.. so that merchant absolutely should not, just by the wording of the spell, if you want to be entirely literal. Are you suggesting that every NPC in the world is a creature predisposed towards violent reactions and prone to violence, even without magic being involved? I certainly don't accept that as a premise.
I gave a definition for what hostile means, in 5e nomenclature, and that's accurate. That don't discount the spell or its wording, and indeed, if you read my post properly, you'll see I already mentioned the edge cases where individuals prone to violence might, indeed, react violently. It does not change the fact that these spell effects are not mind control, and it's incorrect and misleading to label them as such; please don't.
I'd strongly suggest that you leave off looking for an argument for the sake of it; you've given your opinion that it's working fine and should continue to work that way - I accept that as your opinion, I just corrected you on your definition of Friends as a mind control spell, because it is not - that's all. There's no argument to be had here.
