I respect your interpretation. I am just saying that there are indeed people out there who don't agree. Of course you are free to disagree with them. Being pro-democratic, we respect each others' differences in opinion.
What's your interpretation of her panicked crying? You just spent 4 paragraphs outlining how you think her allegation is ambiguous. Now you're attempting to outright dodge a perfectly valid counterpoint.
Others can listen to me in they are interested. If they are not interested, that is fine too.
>[...] I don't find it more useful to English speakers than the version I linked. The version you linked also has some things I disagree with: I disagree with note 4 [...] My reading of that paragraph [...] is that that was consensual, or at least not unconsensual. My reading is that at the time she met him for the 2nd time, she was still heartbroken [..] The translation you linked to also misses an important note on the phrase "逼我和你发生关系". Presumably the "rape allegation" narrative is based on this phrase. The problem however is that 逼 could mean either “to pressure [to have sex]” or “to force [to have sex]”; its meaning is ambiguous.
Now you are categorically ignoring the contradicting evidence presented by the other poster. This is not how civilized debate works. YOU made a claim. YOU should respond to the contradicting evidence, not disown it as soon as your claim is challenged.
And also, sex is either consensual or not. It's binary. It can not be "consensual, or at least not unconsensual". Whatever that means.
Given that we are talking about sexual assault/rape here. I find what you are doing here absolutely abhorrent and shameful.
Whats your interpretation of her social media post when taking into account the panicked crying? Does it change your opinion of her claim being ambiguous? Yes, or no?
The fact that you have repeatedly dodged that question is what will cause myself and other readers to jump to conclusions. Nothing else.
Using "interpretation" and "pro-democratic" here is pretty dishonest. You can either contest the interpretation of those specific words of Peng Shuai using concrete arguments, or not say anything. Democracy isn't relevant when it comes to the facts - it doesn't matter how many votes a lie gets, it's still a lie.
I didn't say "that's just your interpretation" (implying I am downplaying that opinion), I said "whatever interpretation you hold is fine, it's not up to me to decide" (implying respect). That's something totally different.
Oh, come on. You offered your opinion. You presented yourself as an authority (which is somewhat fair, given you are a native speaker). But, your opinion can only be seen as biased if you won't even respond to a well-intentioned, well-reasoned, and completely factual counterpoint.
Any idiot reading this can see what you're doing. It won't work. It's so obvious that you are engaging honestly.