3 ms·
Do you mean no evidence of his motivation, or no evidence that they've been committing miscegenation?
by jyounker 4y ago
Do you mean no evidence of his motivation, or no evidence that they've been committing miscegenation?
- morelisp 4y agoThe latter, but if I'm wrong please don't link to it.
- hirako2000 4y agoYou have problems eating thinking of "`races` mixing" ? What about this: the entire humanity is, that is all specimen, including yourself, is the outcome of in and outbreeding between countless ethnies, groups of different skin colors, cultures and even religion/folklore followers. If you have a digesting problem with this, we may just call it nature but your comment is what could put many not at ease. That being said, I would at least guess we agree on the ruling that it gets us closer to nature and some commonly accepted ethic with regards to human life and procreation.
- cplanas 4y agoI think he meant particularly Ginny and Clarence Thomas, not people of different races in general.
- morelisp 4y agoI'll compromise. Justices can miscegenate or plot to overthrow an election, but not both.
- checker 4y agoI support your position, but I'm pretty sure he was cracking a tasteless joke at the thought of the specific people of Clarence and Ginni getting it on rather than all people of mixed races. It's a reddit-level comment that doesn't add anything to the discussion.
- morelisp 4y ago> It's a reddit-level comment that doesn't add anything to the discussion. That still makes it a rhetorical step up from Thomas's concurrence.