 | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper? —Avery Christy
|
| | | (...) Am I correct in seeing another fallacy here, not necessarily one on Bennett's behalf, but more of one in general? That being that it is instead economics that drives or motivates crime, not race as Freakonomics seems to put forth and that then (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Freakonomics puts forth the idea that most crime is caused by the poverty-stricken segment of society (excluding massive corporate fraud, which is pervasive and carried out by the wealthiest segment) and further postulates that most of the (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper? —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) The whole "race issue" is a throwaway. I think what statistic Bennnett is picking up on is that the crime rate is disproportionately greater among black people (which is fact). So if you hypothetically aborted all black babies, then yeah, (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper? —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | | (...) While I agree in principle with what you are saying I don't actually see you debating the 'smear' in the article at all. You have repeatedly stated that it is a smear and you have provided a transcript and you have (debatebly incorrectly) (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) I'm not John. But I think the title of the article is the smeary (or 'sensationalist' if you prefer) part, not the body. But then, so's the title of this thread (as John chose it), it smears the Guardian, doesn't it? It does so in the name of (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper? —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | | | (...) In fact, John is not only metaphorically smearing it, he is proposing literally smearing it as well ;) Tim (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Not at all! In fact, I state that the rag is even unworthy of smearing:-) JOHN (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper? —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | | | (...) I stand corrected. I should have read the title better :) Tim (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Sorry to butt in when you were on a roll:-D JOHN (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper? —Leonard Hoffman
|
| | | | | (...) The headline doesn't suggest one way or the other that Bennett is advocating anything. It is reporting what he said, then goes on to chronicle the incident itself and the reaction to it. Giving abbreviated but accurate headlines is what the (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Really? "Abort all black babies and cut crime, says Republican". That doesn't come off as a proposal? Please. (...) Therein lies the rub-- "accurate". (...) That's my whole point, Lenny! It is a non-story. The "story" comes as a result of the (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) That is an accurate summary of what he said. It's not up to the headline to provide the context; that's what the article and the original transcript are for. I suspect that you're taking issue with the use of "Republican" here, and that's not (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Bennett should have said "the crime rate would go down if you aborted all babies." The absurdity would have been more succinctly demonstrated, and he would have avoided any perception of racism. The fact that he explicitly singled out an (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper? —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) Fair enough. But the link to crime and being black (in Bennett's mind) is merely from drawing on statistics. Blacks do account for a disproportionate amount of crime in our country, regardless of reason (which is a different discussion). (...) (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Hey, something just occurred to me. With your above statement in mind, would you say that it is appropriate or inappropriate to have a citizen's private extramarital affair dragged through the media for months on end? Just curious... As (...) (19 years ago, 7-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper? —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) Appropriate? Don't know if I use that word. Listen, most of the news churned out by the media is pure pulp. Think Hollywood. I couldn't care less about a star's private life; in fact, the less I know about it, the better for them, because I (...) (19 years ago, 7-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper? —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) Heston should keep his mouth shut, then? (...) $40,000,000 to discover a non-crime seems a bit excessive. Other than such a criminal waste of money, I must admit I'm with you in saying I couldn't care less (the only time I care is when some (...) (19 years ago, 8-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
