And really? you are defending your argument by exchanging rape with violence and splitting hairs?
No, your (most recent) argument rested on the assumption that the blogger was saying muslims were animals b/c they rape. You said but hey, christians rape so they must be animals too, and that was your (revised) justification for your original comment.
But the blogger didn't say that, nor did you quote them as such. The statement "muslims rape, so they are animals" does imply that christians who rape are animals, but the blogger, if anything, said "muslims are animals, so they rape". That does not in any way imply that Christians are animals when they rape. That's not hairsplitting. It's basic logic.
Re: You've avoided questions over and over.
No, your (most recent) argument rested on the assumption that the blogger was saying muslims were animals b/c they rape. You said but hey, christians rape so they must be animals too, and that was your (revised) justification for your original comment.
But the blogger didn't say that, nor did you quote them as such. The statement "muslims rape, so they are animals" does imply that christians who rape are animals, but the blogger, if anything, said "muslims are animals, so they rape". That does not in any way imply that Christians are animals when they rape. That's not hairsplitting. It's basic logic.