I'd like to know how you can make the obnoxious claim that I'm afraid of hearing foreign languages, when I read foreign language at uni. I mean, do you really think I could have a degree in a foreign language (Japanese, if you're curious) if I were in any way afraid of hearing foreign languages?
You had no business whatsoever putting such ignorant and hateful words in my mouth when you knew bloody bugger all about what I think, never mind what I actually know, of foreign languages.
Furthermore, in your rush to misrepresent what I said by putting words in my mouth that I didn't say, you failed to recognise that the reason I condemned the lack of subtitles is because I know, better than you realise (thanks to numerous required cross-cultural courses to achieve my degree), how they did it to dehumanise those speaking Persian. Someone deciding the content of those films made the wilful decision to render the words those characters spoke incomprehensible to the viewers, simply to make those characters seem more frightening or even wholly evil. If they had translated the subtitles, we would have gotten something other than a cartoon representation of the characters.
Do you understand that point--at all?
By the way, the font in which I present my words has zero bearing on the validity of what I said. Saying 'THE SKY IS BLUE!' doesn't change that the sky is indeed blue. Attacking how one says something rather than addressing what one says is a cheap rhetorical device known as the style over substance fallacy.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Style-Over-Substance
So you were guilty of not one, but two logical fallacies in one post. I hope you realise that's not a good thing.
= new reply since forum marked as read