The vast majority of Muslim men in France dress “Western” so you can’t dictate to them specifically what to wear.

Yes, he did. He even admitted that he though that the person was talking about Lot, when the person who originally posted stated that she was talking about Judges 19 in her first sentence. He did not even bother to read what she posted and already jumped down her throat.

He’s not having an academic discussion. He did not even bother reading the passage the person posted and already started arguing with them.

Angels are not my type.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.

It is your narrative.

Nothing? I doubt that you will ever admit that the reality of the story does not fit your narrative.

Earlier comment:

I am not discussing the point or morale of that story. I’m pointing out that the guy is wrong when he says that gender has nothing to do with women being offered for rape by other men.

So...it’s a gender thing?

You said that that story was not a “gender thing” and now say:

I know. But the guy is trying to argue that story had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they were women.

Except that your “it’s not a gender thing but a guest thing” narrative doesn’t make sense since the man and his concubine were also travelling with a male servant if you read Judges 19 in full.

I know which comment you’re replying to, which is precisely why I asked you the question I asked.

I don’t know whether you didn’t see my reply or just simply choose to ignore it, but I’m going to try again:

Why is the man’s concubine not considered a guest too? She came with the man (who is a guest) and stays at that house too but is for some reason not considered a guest worthy of protection and is offered to be raped instead of the man she came with.

Why was the man’s concubine not considered a guest and offered protection too?

I don’t know you or your dad so I can’t comment on your example.

What does “putting their money where their mouth is” means to you?

1/10 tbh.