@dshipp17: I was taking nothing out of context - you specifically said, in response to my first post on this thread, that I was not using the word "persecution" correctly. You were flat out wrong about that. I was using it correctly, as evidenced by the definitions I provided (though I freely admit that I looked up the verb form "persecute," as the noun form, "persecution," resulted in things like "the act of persecuting," which doesn't really help define the word - I'm sure you'll say that invalidates my claim even though it doesn't - that's simply how language and dictionaries work).
Now you are backtracking and making delusional claims that I used your words out of context. I did not. You specifically claimed that I was wrong to say women have been persecuted, and, to support your claim, offered an erroneously narrow definition of the word persecution. In subsequent posts you continued to push forward your definition of the word to the exclusion of all others. I have now proved that I and other posters on this forum were using the word correctly, and that your claim that we were in error was wrong. That is a perfect example of the inaccurate information upon which you rest your arguments.
Here are my sources, though I think any credible dictionary would back up my claim (and I cut and pasted the definitions verbatim - feel free to check - I admit I didn't include all of the definitions listed, but that is because I don't have to - you claimed I used the word incorrectly, so my use only has to comply with one meaning of the word to have been a correct usage - again, that is simply how language works):
I also freely admit that I did not include the entirety of your posts about Wonder Woman's sexiness. That is why I was careful to include bracketed ellipses ([...]) when I omitted some of your words that were not relevant (and by not relevant, I don't mean that they weakened my claim, I mean they had no bearing on the point one way or another) - that way I make it clear to everyone that I am not including every word that you wrote, and if others are curious about my choices they can look up the original quote and see the full context. This is standard academic practice. I stand by my choices and feel that they were an accurate representation of your claims, and I am confident that if anyone does choose to read your comments in full that he or she will see that I did not do anything to distort your claims. I'm sure you'll disagree, because to do otherwise would be to admit that I'm right and, as I've already predicted, you will never do that no matter how sound my logic is and how flimsy yours.
I only write this response because questioning the credibility of my sources or the accuracy of my quotations is something I take very seriously, and because outlining all of this might help others on these forums realize your complete lack of credibility and you willingness to spout whatever nonsense you think will make your case for you regardless of how that nonsense might contradict what you've said before. I am now done. Have fun crafting your delusional response and most likely adding still more contradictions to your frantic and paranoid ravings.
Clearly you are taking what I said out of context and now you're looking silly doing it by not even citing my source; I defined persecution to you and other posters, though I later clarified with the example of the Romans against people alleged to be Christians between 64 AD and 317 AD to other posters; since you went about extracting some of my posts to cut and slice to fit with what you'd like me to have said, you should have cut and spliced my posts to fit with what I actually said; persecution is also a whole different level of scariness because it involves a government like structure. My credibility is supported by the example you've constantly omitted (e.g. Romans against people alleged to be Christians between 64 AD and 317 AD); my credibility, because it's a real life example, is much more sound than yours, because yours is a text book; such is the case because, in science, a theory will always need to be adjusted to fit with an observation; a scientist who refuses to adjust his theory to fit with an observation is usually referred to as a crack pot. Thus, with this last post, you're a crack pot debate loser, who's trying to embezzle the what little substance his credibility might have once generated by omission to create confusion to anyone who might want to remain confused; in other wards, you've actually proven yourself to be delusional. And for your information, clarifying is not backtracking. My information has substance because I supported my information with a real life example; to continue to overlook that is being deluded into thinking that you have a prayer of still having won the debate. Logically speaking, persecution is going to have a different definition than discrimination, because being discriminated against doesn't necessarily mean that you're being persecuted; I suppose that some of the worse forms of discrimination can overlap into the realm of persecution, but to be persecuted is to be treated with a worse level of torment than discrimination. Thus, I wouldn't broaden the definition of persecution to include discrimination, because discrimination is usually not as bad; because I'm not broadening the definition of persecution to include something else adds to the credibility of what I'm saying rather than reducing the credibility of what I'm saying; just for your information.