Subject:
|
Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Oct 2005 15:40:56 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
1432 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
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.
|
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 entire racial group (future criminals and future non-criminals
alike), rather than a specific subset of that group (future criminals only),
especially when he could have made a blanket humanity-wide statement, implies a
significant link (in Bennett’s mind) between race and propensity for crime.
Sure, there’s no way to know which baby will grow up to be a criminal (i.e. in
the real world we can’t abort only those babies), but we’re talking about a
deliberately absurd hypothetical example, so that objection is no obstacle.
Additionally, Bennett could have said “provide quality, affordable education for
impoverished black children, and those children would be less likely to commit
crimes later.” Or “provide quality, affordable housing for impoverished black
children, and those children would be less likely to commit crimes later.” Or
“provide quality, affordable healthcare for impoverished black children, and
those children would be less likely to commit crimes later.”
Q: Did Bennett say that aborting all black babies would reduce the crime
rate?
A: Yes.
| |
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.
|
Interestingly, the current administration has performed this calculation and has
decided that we can justify mass murder on economic grounds. It has been
judged more economical to invade Iraq and kill 100,000 civilians and ~2,000
Americans than it would be to continue to contain Saddam within Iraq.
Before the abortion/economics argument can be dismissed, someone has to explain
to me why the illegal-war/economics argument is more acceptable.
They’re not separate issues, really; if our fearless leader seeks to foster a
culture of life, then you can’t simply abandon that culture once the cord is
cut.
| |
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.
|
Having read the transcript and seen the video, I am unable to overlook the fact
that underscored his point by concluding with “but your crime rate would go
down.” By that point he’d already proposed his “absurd” alternative, and he’d
already given his “abortion is bad” disclaimer, but then he repeated his thesis.
Even if his example were meant innocently, it’s inexcusable that an experienced
commentator should make such a clear rhetorical blunder.
| |
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.
|
I don’t know when he last beat his wife, but I do know when he last
condemned our immoral nation while he himself was dumping millions into his
immoral gambling habit.
As an outspoken public figure, Bennett is fair game. We can discuss the
problems with the Guardian article and Bennett’s problems simultaneously,
for that matter.
By the way--before anyone attacks me for using the term “race,” let me state
that I do know that the term lacks any genetic basis and instead represents
an artificial cultural-ethnic distinction. Nonetheless, it is the lingua
franca, so that’s the word I’ve used here.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
