Indian man convicted for "serial raping" American girls

[Guest American Woman]

And now you're going to throw out of context quotes at me?

There's nothing "out of context" about your quote. If you think "race" is appropriate when blacks commit a crime, then I have to quote you and ask "why is it utterly verboten" when another minority commits a crime?

You look foolish attempting to relate my comments about Mr Alexander to the prior discussion about black-on-white rape in general, because Mr Alexander is in a set of circumstances that hardly apply to rapists in general.

But discussing race when it's "black on white" rape does "apply to "rapists in general." Gotcha.

While I have no statistics to back it up, I strongly believe that a very low percentage of rapists are fashion designers in a position of power over young models. Therefore your effort to apply my comments on this incident to the prior incident is a big fat failure.

Newsflash. You don't have any statistics to back it up in either incident. So no, my effort to apply your comments from black-on-white rape to this incident is not a failure at all; much less "a big fat one." ( ) I find it interesting, though, that you've gone from "this sounds like a pretty familiar story," in this very thread, regarding this very incident, to "I strongly believe that a very low percentage of rapists are fashion designers in a position of power over young models." But in case you missed it, this thread wasn't about a "fashion designer" raping women, but an Indian raping white women.

Is there anything else you'd like cleared up?

No thanks. You've done a bang-up job of *ahem* 'clearing up' everything thus far.

[kimmy]

There's nothing "out of context" about your quote. If you think "race" is appropriate when blacks commit a crime, then I have to quote you and ask "why is it utterly verboten" when another minority commits a crime?

The context of what I wrote is that I was pointing out the media double standard that made a story about whites attacking a black man national headlines, while in a story with black attackers and a white victim, the media did their level best to omit race from their coverage.

So yes, you've taken that statement out of context, and presenting it here to try to misrepresent my views makes you look not just foolish, but also dishonest.

But discussing race when it's "black on white" rape does "apply to "rapists in general." Gotcha.

We're talking about one specific incident here.

In the other thread we were talking about a general topic.

And while I'm sure you're itching to claim that "black on white rape" is not "general" because it is only a subset of the larger issue of "rape", I hope you'll spare us that level of semantic idiocy.

Newsflash. You don't have any statistics to back it up in either incident. So no, my effort to apply your comments from black-on-white rape to this incident is not a failure at all; much less "a big fat one." ( )

My comments about Mr Alexander have no bearing at all on the other thread. Sorry. We're talking about one case where the facts have been published to some extent. That you're trying to spin this moronic argument to try to relate my views on this specific incident to anything in the other thread is just ridiculous.

I find it interesting, though, that you've gone from "this sounds like a pretty familiar story," in this very thread, regarding this very incident, to "I strongly believe that a very low percentage of rapists are fashion designers in a position of power over young models." But in case you missed it, this thread wasn't about a "fashion designer" raping women, but an Indian raping white women.

I explained why I believe this is "a pretty familiar story". If you wish to try to argue that I intended that statement to be some sort of generalization about rapists, then you must be some sort of idiot.

And while the original poster argues that it is about an Indian raping white women, I disagree. I have argued that it is a man in a position of power raping women in a vulnerable position.

No thanks. You've done a bang-up job of *ahem* 'clearing up' everything thus far.

Again, pathetic. You've accomplished nothing here and yet come up with this smug attitude as if you've proven your point. You've produced out of context quotes and faulty logic to produce this trainwreck of an argument and then want to act smart? Hilarious.

You wish to think you've caught me in some sort of contradiction, but in fact all you've caught is a bad case of stupiditis.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

You wish to think you've caught me in some sort of contradiction....

I don't "wish" anything. Facts are facts.

but in fact all you've caught is a bad case of stupiditis.

Ooooowwww. "Stupiditis." Sorry, but I can't argue at that level of "intellect," so I'll just let the facts speak for themselves, while I have myself a good chuckle.

[kimmy]

I don't "wish" anything. Facts are facts.

You've utterly failed to make your point. You've succeeded only in making yourself look dishonest and foolish.

Ooooowwww. "Stupiditis." Sorry, but I can't argue at that level of "intellect," so I'll just let the facts speak for themselves, while I have myself a good chuckle.

Someone who doesn't like being told that what they've written is stupid should refrain from writing as much stupid stuff as you've produced this morning.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

You've utterly failed to make your point. You've succeeded only in making yourself look dishonest and foolish.

Someone who doesn't like being told that what they've written is stupid should refrain from writing as much stupid stuff as you've produced this morning.

Seriously, Kimmy, I couldn't care less if you tell me what I've written is "stupid" or "stupiditis" or whatever childish comeback you use to try to reflect from your double standard.

Like I said, the facts speak for themselves. Obviously, to your may of thinking, when blacks rape, race is an issue. When Indians do, race isn't an issue.

[kimmy]

Seriously, Kimmy, I couldn't care less if you tell me what I've written is "stupid" or "stupiditis" or whatever childish comeback you use to try to reflect from your double standard.

Like I said, the facts speak for themselves. Obviously, to your may of thinking, when blacks rape, race is an issue. When Indians do, race isn't an issue.

What I've written here does not contradict what I wrote in the other thread.

-I have not argued here that Mr Anand's motivations apply to Indians in general, or to anyone other than himself.

-I did not argue in the other thread that black men rape white women out of some desire to get revenge on white people.

-at no point did I suggest that all cases of black on white rape were the same or that the same motives might apply in general.

And so your big fat failure is complete.

-k

[BC_chick]

Seriously, Kimmy, I couldn't care less if you tell me what I've written is "stupid" or "stupiditis" or whatever childish comeback you use to try to reflect from your double standard.

Like I said, the facts speak for themselves. Obviously, to your may of thinking, when blacks rape, race is an issue. When Indians do, race isn't an issue.

Name-calling aside, Kimmy is doing a pretty good job herself in defending her position, IMO. But I would like to add that from an outsider's point of view, I'm with Kimmy on this one. Whether or not I agree with her opinion on either issue, I think she made it clear that you cannot take her statement on a broad issue and apply it to a specific issue.

For example, even though she may or may not believe black men tend to rape a lot of white women, had the fashion designer been black and the model white, she may also be inclined to believe that race was not the deciding factor for the rape and that the power dynamics within the relationship also contributed to the crime.

[Guest American Woman]

Name-calling aside, Kimmy is doing a pretty good job herself in defending her position, IMO. But I would like to add that from an outsider's point of view, I'm with Kimmy on this one. Whether or not I agree with her opinion on either issue, I think she made it clear that you cannot take her statement on a broad issue and apply it to a specific issue.

Yet she was applying it to specific issues in the thread I was referring to. The thread is there for anyone to see -- I don't recall your posting in it -- so I'm not going to defend my position to you here.

For example, even though she may or may not believe black men tend to rape a lot of white women, had the fashion designer been black and the model white, she may also be inclined to believe that race was not the deciding factor for the rape and that the power dynamics within the relationship also contributed to the crime.

I'm not saying she would have thought race was "the deciding factor;" I'm saying, from previous comments, that she would have thought "race was germane to the issue," which is what I've said.

[BC_chick]

Yet she was applying it to specific issues in the thread I was referring to. The thread is there for anyone to see -- I don't recall your posting in it -- so I'm not going to defend my position to you here.

Defend your position to me? You're posting your opinion on a public forum, I'm a member of that forum, and I think you're comparing apples to oranges. I don't need to have read that thread - even if it was a case of speaking about a specific black on white crime, yes, it is very much possible for someone to believe that in one crime, race did play the deciding factor, and in another, there were other, more important dynamics at work. That is not contradictory at all.

[Guest American Woman]

Defend your position to me? You're posting your opinion on a public forum, I'm a member of that forum, and I think you're comparing apples to oranges. I don't need to have read that thread - even if it was a case of speaking about a specific black on white crime, yes, it is very much possible for someone to believe that in one crime, race did play the deciding factor, and in another, there were other, more important dynamics at work. That is not contradictory at all.

I realize I'm posting on a public forum, and I realize you're a member of that forum, and I don't think I've ever indicated that I thought otherwise. I also don't recall your posting in the thread I'm referring to, so as I said, I'm not going to get into what was said in that thread to back up my position here. It's a long thread, and I have my reasons for saying what I did here, but again, I'm not going to rehash that with you now. I have neither the time nor the desire to do so.

Again. "race playing a deciding factor" is not what I'm referring to; it's race being germane to the topic.

So if you see race as being "germane" to the topic when it's blacks and whites, but not being germane when it's other minorities and whites, if you don't see that as being "contradictory," that's your right. However, I will continue to see it as contradictory.

Edited September 6, 2009 by American Woman

[Argus]

The Other.

No doubt your anonymity precludes embarrassment at making ludicrous judgments of that sort.

[lictor616]

The Other.

I was right.

I can only deduce from your statement that you think that racists are worst " or moral inferiors" to rapists.

I suppose the conversation is exhausted... and agree to "disagree"

[BC_chick]

I realize I'm posting on a public forum, and I realize you're a member of that forum, and I don't think I've ever indicated that I thought otherwise. I also don't recall your posting in the thread I'm referring to, so as I said, I'm not going to get into what was said in that thread to back up my position here. It's a long thread, and I have my reasons for saying what I did here, but again, I'm not going to rehash that with you now. I have neither the time nor the desire to do so.

Again. "race playing a deciding factor" is not what I'm referring to; it's race being germane to the topic.

So if you see race as being "germane" to the topic when it's blacks and whites, but not being germane when it's other minorities and whites, if you don't see that as being "contradictory," that's your right. However, I will continue to see it as contradictory.

You don't have the time or desire to clear your position when you're posting on a public forum. I see.

As for playing semantics about race being the deciding factor or being 'germane' to a crime... so be it. Every issue merits an individual analysis, kudos to Kimmy for doing that.

[Argus]

Seriously, Kimmy, I couldn't care less if you tell me what I've written is "stupid" or "stupiditis" or whatever childish comeback you use to try to reflect from your double standard.

Like I said, the facts speak for themselves. Obviously, to your may of thinking, when blacks rape, race is an issue. When Indians do, race isn't an issue.

No, she's right. You're using bizzaroland logic. The previous discussion was about Black crime in general, revolving around US government statistics which appeared to show a grossly disproportionate amount of interracial sexual assaults were Black on White. As I recall, Kimmy's main contributions were to point out what frantic efforts at illogical you people on the Left were going through to try to excuse or explain away this statistical information - while in the "hate crime" thread you'd all been eager to jump on the single incident there as an example of how racist whites were.

Your attempts to equate the two positions, especially given the complete absence of any general statistics on East Indian crime, is just plain silly and apparently arises from indignation you still feel that anyone would dare suggest there was anything to be concerned about with regard to the previous discussion topic. But that's just Political Correctness.

Now if the OP had presented government statistics on "third world men" committing crimes against white women in Canada and Kimmy dismissed that as unimportant you'd have a case for her treating the two situations differently. But of course, that was not the case.

I am not saying, btw, that it might not be true that "third world men" ie, visible minority immigrants/refugees who come to Canada do commit sexual assaults on White women out of some sort of cultural idea on the desirability/sluttiness or whatever, of White women. There seems to be some statistical evidence that this happens with Muslim refugees/immigrants in nordic countries, for example. But in the absence of statistics or evidence there is simply no equivalence between the two topics as they were presented here.

Edited September 6, 2009 by Argus

[Guest American Woman]

Your attempts to equate the two positions, especially given the complete absence of any general statistics on East Indian crime, is just plain silly and apparently arises from indignation you still feel that anyone would dare suggest there was anything to be concerned about with regard to the previous discussion topic. But that's just Political Correctness.

I'm going to say this one more time, and then I'm going to quit repeating myself before I start hitting my head against the wall in frustration ...

You don't have any statistics on black-on-white crime, either. You have a series of polls from which you take one year's results to back your claim that blacks-rape-whites but whites-don't-rape blacks; one year's poll/statistics which you then applied to all years; polls/statistics that lump together rape, sexual assault, and threat of sexual assault; one year's poll/statistics which you and Kimmy both used to proclaim the the Department of Justice says blacks rape whites by the thousands but whites rape blacks so rarely that there's basically no statistics available, which couldn't be more false.

Ok. I've said it. I don't expect it to make any more difference than it did the first time I said it, or the second, or the third, or ......

Edited September 6, 2009 by American Woman

[lictor616]

I'm going to say this one more time, and then I'm going to quit repeating myself before I start hitting my head against the wall in frustration ...

You don't have any statistics on black-on-white crime, either. You have a series of polls from which you take one year's results to back your claim that blacks-rape-whites but whites-don't-rape blacks; one year's statistics which you then applied to all years; one year's statistics which you and Kimmy both used to proclaim the the Department of Justice says blacks rape whites by the thousands but whites rape blacks so rarely that there's basically no statistics available, which couldn't be more false.

Ok. I've said it. I don't expect it to make any more difference than it did the first time I said it, or the second, or the third, or ......

argus did point out to very relaible data, and cited his material...

we've quoted the recent 2006, 2005 figures, here are some additional report years for "perceived race" of the offender.

U.S. Justice Department 2006 rape statistics URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0602.pdf

Scroll to Table 42. --> 32,443 White women raped by black men, zero black women raped by White men.

U.S. Justice Department 2005 rape statistics URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0502.pdf

Scroll to Table 42. --> 37,460 White women raped by blacks, zero black women raped by White men.

U.S. Justice Department 2004 rape statistics URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0402.pdf

Scroll to Table 42. --> 11,611 White women raped by black men, zero black women raped by White men.

U.S. Justice Department 2003 rape statistics URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0302.pdf

Scroll to Table 42. --> 20,309 White women raped by Black men, zero Black women raped by White men.

U.S. Justice Department 2000 rape statistics URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0002.pdf

Scroll to Table 42. --> 13,955 White women raped by Black men, 2,364 Black women raped by White men.

U.S. Justice Department 1999 rape statistics URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus9902.pdf

Scroll to Table 42. --> 20,003 White women raped by Black men, zero Black women raped by White men.

U.S. Justice Department 1998 rape statistics URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus9802.pdf

Scroll to Table 42. --> 22,307 White women raped by Black men, 3,414 Black women raped by White men.

U.S. Justice Department 1997 rape statistics URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus9702.pdf

Scroll to Table 42. --> 18,784 White women raped by Black men, zero Black women raped by White men.

Edited September 6, 2009 by lictor616

[lictor616]

No, she's right. You're using bizzaroland logic. The previous discussion was about Black crime in general, revolving around US government statistics which appeared to show a grossly disproportionate amount of interracial sexual assaults were Black on White. As I recall, Kimmy's main contributions were to point out what frantic efforts at illogical you people on the Left were going through to try to excuse or explain away this statistical information - while in the "hate crime" thread you'd all been eager to jump on the single incident there as an example of how racist whites were.

Your attempts to equate the two positions, especially given the complete absence of any general statistics on East Indian crime, is just plain silly and apparently arises from indignation you still feel that anyone would dare suggest there was anything to be concerned about with regard to the previous discussion topic. But that's just Political Correctness.

Now if the OP had presented government statistics on "third world men" committing crimes against white women in Canada and Kimmy dismissed that as unimportant you'd have a case for her treating the two situations differently. But of course, that was not the case.

I am not saying, btw, that it might not be true that "third world men" ie, visible minority immigrants/refugees who come to Canada do commit sexual assaults on White women out of some sort of cultural idea on the desirability/sluttiness or whatever, of White women. There seems to be some statistical evidence that this happens with Muslim refugees/immigrants in nordic countries, for example. But in the absence of statistics or evidence there is simply no equivalence between the two topics as they were presented here.

Exactly right, as usual the liberal elements are just plain too conspicuously selective and self-contradiciting... they deplore white on non-white violence, and will be vocal about it and have no trouble at all talking about the racial angle and are usually very confident that crime perpetrated against non-whites BY whites are committed for racial reasons and or hatred...

yet switch the races around... and its deny, reject and for heavens sake don't talk about the racial angle...

and they think they,re fooling people on top of it... they really do exhibit bottomless contempt for us.

[Guest American Woman]

argus did point out to very relaible data, and cited his material...

we've quoted the recent 2006, 2005 figures, here are some additional report years for "perceived race" of the offender.

Thanks, but I already posted figures from those surveys here. Note that I used percentages of white women raped who were raped by black men and percentages of black women raped who were raped by white men, which shows a different story than your flat-out numbers show. Of course a lot more white women were raped by black men than black women raped by white men because more white women were raped; but there are years when the numbers show that a higher percentage of black women were raped by white men than white women raped by black men, and years that the percentages were the same.

Now ... one .... more ... time for your benefit. Those figures aren't for rape; they are for rape, sexual assault, and threats of rape and sexual assault all lumped together. Furthermore, they are a poll; not "crime statistics." So all of your claims regarding "black women raped/white women raped" are inaccurate.

Edited September 6, 2009 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

You don't have the time or desire to clear your position when you're posting on a public forum. I see.

No, I don't have the time or the desire to rehash a 37 page thread that you didn't post it. You came into this thread defending Kimmy's position without having participated in the thread I was referring to, so I don't see it as my responsibility to spend my time explaining the thread to you; ie: why I made the references I did. As I said, it's there for everyone -- including you -- to read.

As for playing semantics about race being the deciding factor or being 'germane' to a crime... so be it. Every issue merits an individual analysis, kudos to Kimmy for doing that.

One isn't "playing semantics" when "race being the deciding factor" and "race being germane to discussing a crime" are clearly two different things. In the first scenario, race is "the deciding factor" while in the other, "race may be a factor/the deciding factor." If you see the two situations as nothing more that "playing semantics," then we'll just have to disagree on that point.

Edited September 6, 2009 by American Woman

[BC_chick]

No, I don't have the time or the desire to rehash a 37 page thread that you didn't post it. You came into this thread defending Kimmy's position without having participated in the thread I was referring to, so I don't see it as my responsibility to spend my time explaining the thread to you; ie: why I made the references I did. As I said, it's there for everyone -- including you -- to read.

One isn't "playing semantics" when "race being the deciding factor" and "race being germane to discussing a crime" are clearly two different things. In the first scenario, race is "the deciding factor" while in the other, "race may be a factor/the deciding factor." If you see the two situations as nothing more that "playing semantics," then we'll just have to disagree on that point.

Oh God, "deciding factor" vs. "may have played a role" - who gives a crap, that's exactly the semantics game I'm talking about. You're implying that just because in xyz situation she did believe race played an issue (sorry, I should say MAY HAVE played a role), she should prescribe the same belief to a completely different situation where other dynamics came into the equation. Otherwise she's hypocrite contradicting herself.

As for your perception that I cannot possibly show an objective opinion without having read the other thread, please. I'm forming my opinion based on what I read on this thread.

Besides, it seems people who were on that thread are here also agreeing that Kimmy's position is not contradictory as they seem to agree that the two issues are completely different.

When you see someone like me agreeing with people like Argus, Kimmy and lictor, and *nobody* agreeing that you have a point, maybe, just maybe, you might want to consider that you really are not making very much sense.

Edited September 6, 2009 by BC_chick

[Guest American Woman]

Oh God, "deciding factor" vs. "may have played a role" - who gives a crap, that's exactly the semantics game I'm talking about. You're implying that just because in xyz situation she did believe race played an issue, she should prescribe the same belief to a completely different situation where other dynamics came into the equation. Otherwise she's hypocrite contradicting herself.

Oh God. Saying "race is the deciding factor" and "race might be a factor," ie: "race is germane to the topic," ARE two different things, whether you can see that or not, whether you "give a crap" or not; so no, I'm not "implying" what you have decided that I'm implying. And I never said she was a "hypocrite." So please stick to what was said, ok?

As for your perception that I cannot possibly show an objective opinion without having read the other thread, please. I'm forming my opinion based on what I read on this thread.

Yes, I realize that you're basing your opinion on what you read in this thread. Yet I'm basing my comments on what was said in the other thread. So yes, it is my "perception" that since you haven't read the thread I'm referencing, you can't possibly show an objective opinion. I guess I'm funny that way, because I think people who haven't read a thread don't really have an informed or objective opinion about it.

When you see someone like me agreeing with people like Argus, Kimmy and lictor, and *nobody* agreeing that you have a point, maybe, just maybe, you might want to consider that you really are not making very much sense.

Oh ..... well ..... if "someone like you" is agreeing with Kimmy, Argus, and lictor, I guess it has to me not making sense, because how could it be you when evidently you usually don't agree with them, but this time you are? In other words, they're wrong unless you're agreeing with them, then you're all right, and whoever is disagreeing better "consider that they are the one not making very much sense."

Got'cha.

again.

[BC_chick]

Oh God. Saying "race is the deciding factor" and "race might be a factor," ie: "race is germane to the topic," ARE two different things, whether you can see that or not, whether you "give a crap" or not; so no, I'm not "implying" what you have decided that I'm implying. And I never said she was a "hypocrite." So please stick to what was said, ok?

I said "Otherwise she's hypocrite contradicting herself."

Let's recap what you said, shall we?

There's nothing "out of context" about your quote. If you think "race" is appropriate when blacks commit a crime, then I have to quote you and ask "why is it utterly verboten" when another minority commits a crime?

But discussing race when it's "black on white" rape does "apply to "rapists in general." Gotcha.

Right, I can see clearly how you are in so shape or form claiming that she's contradicting herself. Oh right, you didn't say the word hypocrite... but then again what is a hypocrite if not someone who contradicts herself.

Oh ..... well ..... if "someone like you" is agreeing with Kimmy, Argus, and lictor, I guess it has to me not making sense, because how could it be you when evidently you usually don't agree with them, but this time you are? In other words, they're wrong unless you're agreeing with them, then you're all right, and whoever is disagreeing better "consider that they are the one not making very much sense."

Now you're really making me laugh. No, they're not 'right' because I'm agreeing with them. I'm only pointing out that when you got, count them, *four* people who normally don't agree on anything agreeing on something, and *zero* people agreeing with you.... you just MIGHT want to consider that your accusation is baseless.

[Guest American Woman]

I said "Otherwise she's hypocrite contradicting herself."

Let's recap what you said, shall we?

No, thanks. I guess I should have added that I'm not interested in wasting any more time on this, rehashing it over and over, because I'm not....

Edited September 7, 2009 by American Woman

[BC_chick]

No, thanks. I guess I should have added that I'm not interested in wasting any more time on this, rehashing it over and over, because I'm not....

Ya, it's difficult to argue that you did not accuse of her of contradicting herself when I quote you directly doing so, isn't it?

[Guest American Woman]

Ya, it's difficult to argue that you did not accuse of her of contradicting herself when I quote you directly doing so, isn't it?

Oh, good Lord. I didn't say I didn't accuse her of contradicting herself. I said I didn't call her a hypocrite. Believe it or not, I don't think everyone who contradicts him/herself is a hypocrite. This inability of yours to respond to what is actually said here is totally annoying, and as I said, a complete waste of time. However, if you consider it to be a productive use of your time to pursue this one-sided, go for it.

Have a good night.