Pak Military wins... the dancing girls are back!

[ravage]

@diwana

And you have been confirming that.

You are free to believe so.

Well, the criticism since the beginning was on emphasize of girls back on street to be continued to be exploited.

Why worried about this criticism unless YOU wish them to be exploited?

This is such bad logic, not helped by your sudden loss of language skills. What do you mean why am I worried about this criticism unless I wish them to be exploited. There is no connection there.. just hand waving.

You could have agreed with anyone condemning the exploited but you did not. I wonder why?

I took it as read that the are exploited, although I wouldnt necesarily condemn the exploited, but the exploitation.

No. Not that this article says. It put emphasis on returning on girls by the actions of army. Again, read the article title.

The part where it is criticized is where it says, return of dancing girls.

And I ask you once again, what exactly is wrong in saying that the girls have returned after the army’s operation or the title ‘Dancing girls of Swat back in business’. Both are statements of fact. Would you rather they not report the fact that the dancing girls of Swat are back in business/returned? Explain the criticism.

There you go. Glad to see you now mentioned after seeing full copy that there was absolutely nothi9ng to suggest anything about NGO or making any prescription what to do with these girls.

You are mistaken in your belief. I have been generous in not pointing out your inadequacies of comprehension. Nowhere in me saying “heres what I took from the article” and saying that the local govt/ngos etc should play a role in curbing the exploitation is it logically necessary that this latter will also be explicitly stated in the article. Heres why: If I have a pre-existing belief that civil governments/political establishment/NGOs have a responsibility to counter exploitation, and an article reports exploitation, I will take from the article that civil governments/political establishments/NGOs should play a role in countering this exploitation.

Please play close attention to this particular argument. I believe you are responding too quickly to the posts, before you have time to understand what the other person is saying, and before you can even type your posts correctly. Then you go back and edit things everytime. Take your time, think a little bit, and then reply.

In fact, the way the article was written it showed sad picture of these girls and tried to make people feel sad for them and indirectly feel supportive of army action to do the ‘right thing’ to let them go on their business. Nothing to suggest if these girls were indeed wrong or what to do to hep them.

Why would anyone feel ‘sad’ for the girls? Do you understand the logical conflict between you unequivocally saying that the article doesnt mention any exploitation and you saying that the article wants people to feel sad about these girls? People feel sad and sympathise with the girls because the exploitation is noted.

And no, it did not suggest any exploitation and no treatment or prescription.
..
Like I said, there is nothing in article which suggest exploitation of these girls.
..
All this means gaining some sympathy for these girls without pushing forward any real solution for them in the days where peace is established.

So for you there is no exploitation in the fact that these girls are born into this life, and have no choice but to join the trade when they are children (one was aged 15 when she started, the other was 16 now), that the beautiful 16 year old girl has deadened eyes, and dances apathetically/boredly because she is sick of overweight smelly old men making advances towards here. that after 9 years her feet are caked with dead skin, that she feels there is nothing of interest in her identity except her flesh?

Strange, most would regard that as a picture of exploitative. But maybe we feel differently about these things.

As for prescribing no treatment or prescription, it isnt necessary for reporters to always suggest a solution to the problem too. Ideally reporters would report the facts, and leave value judgements to the reader, and solutions to those responsible for making decisions.

I have no idea why would you even defend the stupid writer?

Because its a silly, dreamed up interpretation of a fairly well reported article.