Kope quoted an e-mail which stated that Western women were all sluts who were asking to be raped and molested. I responded by saying that the author of the e-mail was a nutter from the Sex Offenders Register, and you responded with...
Nah, they're just kids with an imaginative mind. You can tell by their approach; if you come up with a random explanation which seems possible (how likely or unlikely it is is not considered) then it is true, no other explanation need be considered. Indeed, you can think of a random explanation for anything, and it's probably possible. For example, Cows circle the earth at night time making sure stars are evenly spread out in the sky to make it look pretty from below. It's possible, therefore it's true.
We all used to think like that.
It certainly looked to me like you were saying that such opinions are merely childish trifles of the type we all once believed in - like Santa Claus maybe, or the Tooth Fairy.
However, people can read the exchange themselves and make up their own minds whether or not you were misunderstood, and if so whose fault that misunderstanding was. I have nothing further to say on the subject.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/911dc/911dc1643e973eb3c5931287ea77f1e0d14a3bf9" alt="parrot"
Ok, what I'm saying is that it is a very childish way of thinking to conjure up a hypothetical explanation of something, evaluate whether it is possible or impossible, and if you evaluate it as possible, then you automatically take it to be true, without the next consideration of whether it is probable.
Now when a child or someone who still thinks in such a way explains something in this way, he or she may come up with conclusions that are trivial, such as Santa, or quite disturbing, such as that provocatively dressed women should be blamed if they are raped.
I NEVER said that all the conclusions that such a person comes out with in this way are of equal importance, as some people have misinterpreted. Have I explained myself properly this time?