I never thought that you did. You've continually accused me in this thread of thinking things I don't think, and it's getting really old.
Actually, these were not accusations, they were exclamatory explanations, due to the abundant misunderstandings to what I've written before. Just putting a little extra security behind what I write.
And really? you are defending your argument by exchanging rape with violence and splitting hairs?
Well okay then: blogger says THIS IS ISLAM (meaning violence), Look what happens when you experience it for yourself! (you get raped), "now she (Lara Logan) knows what Islamic revolution is all about (rape), after being the chief cheerleader (meaning Logan) for this revolution by "animals" (meaning muslims).
You can exchange rape for violence if you wish, it doesn't change my point.
She's talking about (threats of) violence, not rape specifically. It's blogger: "they rape b/c they're animals", not "they're animals b/c they rape".
Well, your interpretation makes her points even more flawed, and my points even clearer. I don't disagree, you just want to shift the focus from rape, which, whether it is true in this text interpretation or not, I don't argue with. My point still stands when it comes to the blogger's flawed logic, and my ironic example is applicable, in a slightly more positive interpretation of her meaning than yours. Possibly you'll want to have it that since she is a complete screaming racist, meaning that Muslims are animals regardless of the violence/rape factor (i.e. they rape/threaten/use violence because they're animals, not the other way around), my ironic counter example is useless. In which case, ironically comparing to other societies having violence, threats and rape is useless because the blogger is a screaming racist to the point that she states that Muslims are complete innate animals and they just beat, rape and kill because of this trait, while in other societies, violence is only made by exceptions among a society of humans.
In any case, your hair-splitting analysis only makes the contents of that blog post dance on a scale between really bad and fucking awful, where my original interpretation was on the better part of "really bad".
Re: You've avoided questions over and over.
Actually, these were not accusations, they were exclamatory explanations, due to the abundant misunderstandings to what I've written before. Just putting a little extra security behind what I write.
And really? you are defending your argument by exchanging rape with violence and splitting hairs?
Well okay then: blogger says THIS IS ISLAM (meaning violence), Look what happens when you experience it for yourself! (you get raped), "now she (Lara Logan) knows what Islamic revolution is all about (rape), after being the chief cheerleader (meaning Logan) for this revolution by "animals" (meaning muslims).
You can exchange rape for violence if you wish, it doesn't change my point.
She's talking about (threats of) violence, not rape specifically. It's blogger: "they rape b/c they're animals", not "they're animals b/c they rape".
Well, your interpretation makes her points even more flawed, and my points even clearer. I don't disagree, you just want to shift the focus from rape, which, whether it is true in this text interpretation or not, I don't argue with. My point still stands when it comes to the blogger's flawed logic, and my ironic example is applicable, in a slightly more positive interpretation of her meaning than yours. Possibly you'll want to have it that since she is a complete screaming racist, meaning that Muslims are animals regardless of the violence/rape factor (i.e. they rape/threaten/use violence because they're animals, not the other way around), my ironic counter example is useless. In which case, ironically comparing to other societies having violence, threats and rape is useless because the blogger is a screaming racist to the point that she states that Muslims are complete innate animals and they just beat, rape and kill because of this trait, while in other societies, violence is only made by exceptions among a society of humans.
In any case, your hair-splitting analysis only makes the contents of that blog post dance on a scale between really bad and fucking awful, where my original interpretation was on the better part of "really bad".