So wait, first you go with the "I was only saying he claimed 'immigrants are the only ones capable of rape' as a ridiculous statement" excuse for your strawman, and then in the very next sentence you go ahead and claim that the article he posted does in fact claim that "immigrants are the only ones capable of rape" anyway?
Eh? You are making some outlandish inferences, bro. You need to explain that one.
I didn't say that the article said it, I said that it was what Covenant's point, as opposed to "only immigrants rape" or "we shouldn't take immigrants because they will rape people" that you are reducing it to.
But the article was used as support for Covenant's point, which has been my point all along. His point being that we need to protect our womenfolk from the dirty brown people:
Why should my sisters, daughters, friends and co-workers live in fear of violent sexual assault such as in Germany, like the many, many examples I linked to in my last post?
This is the ridiculous statement to which I'm referring. How do we interpret that?
I'm quite willing to be corrected, but it looks like what Covenant is saying is "immigrants are rapists, look what's going on in Germany, this article will provide supporting evidence", but I've already said the article doesn't say that. A very basic gist of it is "German authorities are letting immigrants get away with sexual violence."
My ridiculous statement of "immigrants confirmed as only beings capable of rape" was irony. I perhaps should've spent an extra few moments typing out "not all immigrants are rapists, not all rapists are immigrants" as well to illustrate that's what I meant, but I didn't. The question "why do we have to protect our womenfolk from immigrant rapists but not native rapists?" may also have helped. Sorry.
Hopefully that has explained what inspired the irony and where I was coming from.