Subject:
|
Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Oct 2005 22:07:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1287 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
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.
|
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).
| |
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.”
|
That would be an example of that “different discussion”. Remember, the topic
was arguing for/against abortion based on economics.
| |
Q: Did Bennett say that aborting all black babies would reduce the crime
rate?
A: Yes.
|
In theory, arguing reductio ad absurdum? Yes. Did he for even one nanosecond
advocate it? Absolutely not. If you and I are debating gun control, and I say,
“What if I broke into your house and replaced your Mega-Blok collection with
LEGO, wouldn’t it be nice to have a handgun around?”, I doubt you honestly
believe that that is what I intend to do IRL. It is a hypothetical, pure and
simple. I may or may not actually hate Mega-Bloks. You just can’t say. So
the topic is gun control, and the headline reads, “AFOL suggests committing
crime against clone owners”. It’s simply irresponsible-- unless it was the
desire of the writer to tar AFOLs. Then they might think it was their duty to
society to expose those whom they believe to be pompous and self-righteous RFs--
by any means.
| |
| |
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.
|
First, may I inquire as to your cite for the 100,000 civilian cite (I hope it’s
not Mayor Nagin;-) Second, if Bush actually believed that SH would assist in
proliferating WMDs to terrorists which could be used against us in our major
cities, killing perhaps millions, then I think the numbers are in his favor.
When the stakes are that high, I don’t fault him for erring on the side of
American safety. I take it that you thought dropping the bombs on Japan wasn’t
a good idea? I see this situation as closely analogous.
| |
| |
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.
|
Even so, is it news? Does it justify such a headline? Or are there axes to
grind, parties to be smeared, agendas to be driven? The thing is not the thing.
| |
| |
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.
|
Objection, your honor. Irrelevant.
| |
As an outspoken public figure, Bennett is fair game.
|
That does not excuse libel. And besides, it is remarkably unfair to expect
someone to be perfect before they speak about morality. But it is really
unfair for a realitive moralist to hold a moralist to a standard beyond which
even they are willing to go, is it not? Is that not in the have your cake and
eat it, too, department?
| |
We can discuss the
problems with the Guardian article and Bennett’s problems simultaneously,
for that matter.
|
I don’t have any interest in discussing any individual’s personal problems--
suffice it to say that we all have them. How’s that sound for moral
relativism:-0 Of course, some are much worse than others...
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
