[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)

Miller, Jeremy JMILLER at ci.albany.or.us
Wed Jun 19 19:28:52 UTC 2002


> I could introduce you to him.

Even more interesting. :)



> And this is a known result of multiculturalism,  matter of 
> fact Lincoln
> wanted to send all the Africans back to their homeland.

True, that was one of the ideas he entertained.

Other results of multiculturalism:

1.  My own ancestry, and likely most others.
2.  Many good people.  Some that I know.
3.  My near-marriage relationship a nice black woman, about 1.5 years
afterward.  Didn't work out, for unrelated reasons.
4.  The nation we live in today.

I believe that these pros outweigh the listed con.  Even as a recipient of
that con.


> I am using his example to make half my point anyway,  the 
> proliferation of
> black on white violence,  so they showed his face in our 
> local news,  well-
> good.

OK, good.  However your statement said something that was refuted.
Acknowledge the fact and move on.  (Especially consiring that your point
stands just fine without the refuted statement.)

I'd further state that violence is proliferating, period.  Black on white,
white on black.  "name any color 1" on "name any color 2".

So you are technically correct, but your overall assertion is too narrow.


> My problem is with the people who call themselves men who 
> will stand around
> vastly outnumbering the criminals who would beat your sister 
> to death and
> onlook paralyzed by their liberalness
> 
> They are not men by my definition. Not even human.
> Zombies more appropriately.

OK, I'd definitely have a problem with that too.  (If this was your problem
and your point, you could have been more direct and simply stated so.)

I would also say that they were paralyzed by fear, not by liberalness.
Matters of life and death transcend politics.


> fbi.gov will show the massively skewed proportion of black on white
> violence.
> But I know there is both kinds,  and it is all wrong of course.
> But a liberal will not admit it is skewed heavily in one direction.
> This is why I use terms like "mental block".

OK.  (Not bothering to check... I'll take your word for it and assume
someone else will.)

As long as we're acknowledging that there are both kinds.  (Skewing of any
degree in any direction involves way too many variables and I don't have the
time or inclination to get into that.  Again, someone else might.)


> He was 20 years of age and she was 13

If he had consentual sexual contact with her of any kind (which of course I
doubt), then he is by definition a statutory rapist.  (The legal definition
of which depends on the assertion that a person of that age does not have
the capacity to understand what they are doing even if they do consent,
which renders any consent null and void.  In this case, I'd agree with that
assertion.)

If he had non-consentual sexual contact with her of any kind, then he is
also a statutory rapist by definition.  Though this would be considered rape
regardless of the age involved.

> He was a home invader,  he had no permission to be there.

Then he is guilty of tresspassing, and possibly breaking and entering.
(Depending on how he got in.)  That by itself does not make him a rapist of
any sort.  (High potential, yes.  But potential to do something is not equal
to doing it.)



More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list