 | | 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?
|
|
(...) 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 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?
|
|
(...) It's going to be difficult to get a libel charge to stick, even were he imprudent emough to try, since those were in fact the words he said, albeit out of context. In this day and age, with the media dog pack as bite happy as it is, (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) Here's (URL) the audio> And the transcript: CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in (...) (19 years ago, 4-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) Apart from the slightly sensationalistic title I don't see how this article is a smear at all. It is quite factual and clearly states that he qualified his statement. If you disagree with his anti-choice politics not being spelt out in the (...) (19 years ago, 3-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) Well, let's be fair. Bennett's comments were so hideously ill-considered that only the most far-right of media outlets have come out in support of him. There's a lot of "what he really meant was" going on post hoc, but the bottom line is what (...) (19 years ago, 3-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(URL) Case closed> Nevermind that Bennett is pro-life. What a smear. And even the Bush administration runs for cover from political hack fallout. Brutal. JOHN (19 years ago, 3-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
