> 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.
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.