>>23
Blah, Blah, Blah, you should've just copy-pasted what you wrote before. All that anyone with a mind built on a foundation of reason cares about is that you're speculating about inter-racial relationship when you have never been in one and frankly, you don't know anybody in one. You're stupid and easily manipulated. If anyone's been brainwashed. It's you.
For Example: The Anecdotal evidence part was not me meeting half way with your theory of 'assumed abuse'. But instead seeing how far you'd be willing to take an argument where you absolutely refuse to provide anything but "a gut feeling" for the base of your arguments.
You did half of the work for me, by admitting that your argument is based (Like EUGENICS, on psuedoscience and heresy).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
You can flail your hands about and shout nonsense about hyperliberalism or whatever 'til you're blue in the face. It's just another logical fallacy of yours. I can just as easily say that you've been brainwashed by conservatives via...hahaha..."anecdotal evidence" to see an inter-racial couple as something 100% different than any other couple. When you don't treat them on equal standing that's prejudice no matter who you start calling a liberal. If you can't see how your assumption is external force on them then you're retarded. The only thing internal about their relationship is that it exists in the first place!
And frankly it's not a coincidence that in discussing inter-racial relationships- a subject in which you are not well versed- that the first thing that comes into your mind is 'black men abusing white women'. Of course I'm going to seem "aggressive" when you're being challenged over and over with no suitable reply. I think unless you've got some cold hard facts about this, then you should probably step back and take a breather. This is done.