"Penberriss Wendy S." wrote:
In fact, your entire argument rests on _your interpretation_ of the material - which is okay! - except that you seem to want to present it as fact, while denying others the right to interpret the available material in another way.
No. I presented my opinion, which I backed up using facts from the story. Other people presented their opinions, which they similarly backed up with facts from the story. I then responded in kind by pointing out what I saw as the holes in their arguments, just as they had done for mine. This is NOT denying people's right to interpret the material in their own way; it's just saying that I see certian problems in their reasoning on SOME of the points.
This is what's called a debate.
No, I'm all in favour of a good debate - if it were being conducted as you say above. But you've accused several people of reading things into the story that weren't there while you continue to do the same thing yourself without apparently being aware of it.
If, for example, you said that _the story doesn't tell us_ that Meegat and her people were asked if they would like to be relocated, that's a fact, and I'd agree with it. There might even be some scope to talk about the implications of the fact that we're not told; whether it's unconscious sexism or societism, bad writing, or a hard choice dictated by the limited airtime.
Or if you said that _you don't believe from context_ that Meegat and her people were asked, there might be scope to discuss why you don't believe the context supports the idea that they were told, and why others believe that it does. That's certainly more productive than saying someone who believes they must have been told is making up things in order to comfort herself about the nasty, cruel, sexist plot.
But instead, you choose to say that Meegat's people were not asked. That's simply _not_ accurate. The story doesn't tell us either way, therefore, it's an interpretation. But when, as with many of your other points, you simply keep repeating 'they weren't asked' as if it were a fact and without any supporting evidence -
That's not a debate. It's a shouting match. I *like* debates; they grow and develop and make one think new thoughts. Shouting matches are just loud and dull. So, I agree, let's not.
Mistral