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

[diwana]

@ravage

You are free to believe so.

No. I am not free to. You made me believe it. Remember, I even quoted the actual word of success in the article when you questioned the word?

@ravage

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.

Humm, so now I have lost the language skill? Care to explain or you are running out of your excuses?

Girls back on street as title is wrong and hence criticized correctly.

@ravage

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

No the article does not suggest they are exploited. It suggests they WERE victims when displaced.

@ravage

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.

Everything is wrong in emphasizing. Again the word I always used was emphasizing. I never denied the fact they returned, the article tried to make believe people that it was such a great thing that they are back in to dancing.

@ravage

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.

Aaah! So now I have problem with comprehension. Try something else other than copying me. I am flattered already by your admittance before.

@ravage

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.

So now you resorted to cheap shots. Great!

You respond too quickly and even though I edited my post, I never backtracked with what I wrote. Still standby what I edited and did not ask you to ignore.

Only reason I edited was to make it simple and to the point for you to understand.

@ravage

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.

Well, where did I say I feel sad for them? I said the article tried to make people feel sad for them. Read agin my statements.

@ravage

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?

No I don’t see the article suggested it. It glorified their acts. Only reason it made those comments about them was that the writer wanted people to feel sorry for them.

@ravage

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

I am sorry, again, I fail to see exploitation suggested in the article.

@ravage

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.

Well, now you agree again there was no prescription in article and you made it up on your own. Earlier you suggested the opposite. Thanks.

@ravage

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

Fairly well reported?

The writer is pervert and wanted to emphasize of dancing girl on street with age of 16 years now free to entertain people. Bravo!