To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 27330
27329  |  27331
Subject: 
Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 4 Oct 2005 14:06:05 GMT
Viewed: 
1160 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Avery Christy wrote:
   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

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 abortions that have occurred since Roe v. Wade have prevented additional births within that poverty-stricken segment. The argument, then, is that the decreased crime rate correlates with the increased rate of abortion among the poverty-stricken, which is to say that additional (ie., non-aborted) births may have fomented the crime rate among the poverty-stricken.

Freakonomics makes no claim, as far as I’m aware, regarding the race of those in poverty. That addendum is entirely Bennett’s.

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, crime would go down. But so what? It is an absurd proposition. He is saying that arguing against abortion from an economics angle is absurd.

The caller was saying that, “Hey, if there hadn’t been so many abortions, we’d have more taxpayers paying into the system and the deficit wouldn’t be as bad”. Bennett, although against abortion, argues against this idea. He is only interested in arguing against abortion on moral grounds.

So just as an utilitarian idea of reducing crime by aborting black babies is wrong, the utilitarian argument against abortion based on having more taxpayers is wrong. In any case, he is certainly not advocating in any way, shape, or form what the headline read. You must acknowledge that.

And the smear works like a charm. For instead of debating the sleezeball journalism practiced by the Guardian (which was the topic of my post), we are talking about Bennett, and whether he’s a racist, and when was the last time he beat his wife.

Brilliant.


JOHN



Message has 3 Replies:
  Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
 
(...) 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?
 
(...) 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?
 
(...) 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)  

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
 
(...) 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)

31 Messages in This Thread:







Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR