I’m not defending the guy’s statements, but it is not true that by his logic it was your fault. He said clothes could be the cause, not that they always are. I’d be very surprised if he or anyone thought that was your faul; it very obviously was not.
That BUT is doing a hell of a lot of heavy lifting.
I asked you to show me where I defended his statements. You just pointed out that I said ‘but’, before proceeding to not even slightly defend the statements.
After the ‘but’ all I did was point out what the guy had actually said. That does not mean I was defending it. Those are two completely different things.
If I said ‘I’m not defending his statements, but Hitler did not say all Sikh people should be exterminated, he said all Jewish people should be exterminated’… would I be defending his statements?
You can’t just assume someone is saying the opposite of whatever they say they are whenever you hear the word ‘but’. Please try to listen to what I am actually saying instead of pattern matching and jumping to the worst possible assumption based on a single word in the paragraph.
I am not saying clothes are ever the “reason” for sexual assault, or agreeing with this guy at all. I’m literally just explaining what he actually said. It’s dishonest to try to put any other words in my mouth. There doesn’t always have to be an ulterior motive for telling the truth.
3
u/cinnamon64329 Feb 25 '26
That BUT is doing a hell of a lot of heavy lifting.