 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) But the "out of context" charge doesn't work, either, because Bennett's comments are little redeemed even if you read the entire transcript. For him to claim "not guilty by reason of quoting out of context," he would have to show that his (...) (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)
|
| |
| | Re: The Guardian unworthy of toilet paper?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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)
|
