3 ms·

> Did you read the citation carefully? It seems very obvious to me. Your pullquote doesn't even really invalidate my point. Forgive me, but it looks to me like

> Did you read the citation carefully? It seems very obvious to me. Your pullquote doesn't even really invalidate my point. Forgive me, but it looks to me like you'd never actually read this article but you went looking through it for the very first quote that met your exoneration criterion, without regard to how it fit into the whole rhetorical structure. I've read it numerous times, thank you very much, paying close attention to the rhetorical structure and trying to understand the overall point he was trying to communicate. Clearly, you and I are inclined to interpret his overall intent differently. It does not help your case to put words in his mouth that are patent contradictions of what he actually said.

KirinDave 8y ago
> I've read it numerous times, thank you very much, paying close attention to the rhetorical structure and trying to understand the overall point he was trying to communicate. What do you think it is? Because I felt like his very clear definition of what he was challenging and why made his intent pretty clear. Your argument seems to be, "He doesn't want to redefine rape in all cases, just in THIS case which was pertinent to him at the time." Unless you think there is a broader conclusion that somehow doesn't invalidate his (admittedly confused) post, please lay it out more clearly.