Correlation was your choice. It is being disputed, by an example implying generality for those of us familiar with the type.SAM said:Indeed. And correlation is not causation.
But I'm willing to fill in a bit of your argument for you, hinting at mechanism of causation:
It's debatable how far lower on the scale of priority it is, considered as a symptom of the actual situation in which it is possible.SAM said:Probably, as I already acknowledged. But its far far faaaaar lower on the scale of priority for any woman than the invasion and occupation of her country to bring her "backward" society into line
That was you, denigrating what you presume few women want as no aspect of freedom for the rest.SAM said:It would unless you think what women want is irrelevant to their society.
The blamers of victims tend to seize on the victims' wrong-doing for justification of their own evils. That doesn't excuse the victims' wrong-doing - if any, a separate issue.SAM said:Ever notice how the men most against the veil are also likely to be the ones who blame the victims for having brought it upon themselves?
And this is still hanging:
Where did porn come into this?
Why was that irrelevancy your chosen comparison?