>>212268371
Okay, I'lll teach you how to read and interpret English text. Let's start with the root posts:
>>212266552
>>212267262
In these posts, a critique is leveled at the movie Elio for "sexualizing" an 11 year old character by portraying him as having a crush. The thesis of these posts is that an 11 year old is too young to have a determinate sexuality and that there's something wrong with casting them in this light. By quoting these two posts together, we can infer that the through line of the two is what the replier is critical of. In this case, both posts mention the age of the character.
>>212267331
Here, the replier critiques the two aforementioned posts by asserting that it is normal for a child to have a crush on another child. Applying basic logic and an understanding of the world, this would necessitate that the child have what the previous posters referred to as a "sexuality" (ie. a gender preference,) given that the crush would have to have a gender of their own. If the thesis that an 11 year old can have a crush holds true, this poster will have accomplished his objective of refuting the two posts he was replying to.
>>212267374
In this post, the replier does not refute the thesis of the poster he was replying to (ie. that it is normal to have a crush at 11 years old, and thus an implicit gender preference.) Because this poster did not refute this argument, it can be inferred that he is attempting to change the point of debate to one about sexuality as a whole, casting homosexuality in an inherently dark light without regard for the age of the character in question, retreating from the original point of discussion and changing the topic entirely to a point that is easier to defend, it relies on an ontological belief that one sexuality is good and the other is evil.
Did that clear things up?
