Irrelevant to the article, perhaps, but not irrelevant to your first post.
Post number 5 thought there was a black angle to this story. He was wrong. In your reply, you did NOT say, “There is no black angle here, therefore your post is irrelevant.”
What you DID say was, “I know white women who (your term) “mated with” (married) blacks with no particular negative repercussions. In my church in fact. You deride people for their skin color?”
It SEEMS!!!! as if you are saying there is no difference whatsoever between chances of violence in a white/white couple vs. a white/black couple. I apologize sincerely if that was NOT your point. WHAT WAS your point, please?
Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify this: completely untrue.
I neither said nor implied this. I did not comment at all, neither directly nor obliquely, on the comparative risks of white/white vs while/black couple violence.
"I apologize sincerely if that was NOT your point. WHAT WAS your point, please?"
Let me say this: the article was neither about black/white relations (there's no "black" in this murder situation) nor about couple violence (there's no couple-violence in this murder situation: it was a son killing his mother and brother); so #5 (now removed by moderator) was just an annoying non-sequitur which Red_Devil 232 will have to explain for himself.
My point can be read at #16.
Mr. McCann Utu just lost his ex-wife and both of his sons. Deriding him by insinuation, at this point, for his skin color, is un-called-for.