William Bennett a virtous man

[DRB]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170840,00.html
"But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down," Bennett said.




That's nice Bill.

[ridetoofast]

hmmm....i wonder what the demographic is of a large proportion of violent criminals???

[fluff]

I guess aborting every white baby would do the same.

[ridetoofast]

only the liberal ones

[Changleen]

"But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to produce world peace, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could kill every American in the world, and your problem level would go down," Bennett said.

[fluff]

only the liberal ones
Yeah, but then the average IQ would drop through the floor...

[fluff]

"But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to produce world peace, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could kill every American in the world, and your problem level would go down," Bennett said.

You forgot your smiley.

[valve bouncer]

You forgot your smiley.
hehehe , any drier and you'd start to splinter Fluffo. ;)

[valve bouncer]

hmmm....i wonder what the demographic is of a large proportion of violent criminals???
Do you really think race causes people to commit crimes?

[Changleen]

Yes he does. And he thinks you can catch teh ghey and it turns you evil.

[Andyman_1970]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170840,00.html



That's nice Bill.

I hope this dufus doesn't claim to be a Christian............otherwise I'm going to have to :nuts:

[DRB]

I hope this dufus doesn't claim to be a Christian............otherwise I'm going to have to :nuts:

William Bennett? Oh yeah he does.

Now, my question now is, is he the victim of soundbiting, because buried in almost every article is something similar to this.

"I was putting forward a hypothetical proposition. Put that forward. Examined it. And then said about it that it's morally reprehensible. To recommend abortion of an entire group of people in order to lower your crime rate is morally reprehensible. But this is what happens when you argue that the ends can justify the means," he told CNN.

"I don't think people have the right to be angry, if they look at the whole thing. But if they get a selective part of my comment, I can see why they would be angry. If somebody thought I was advocating that, they ought to be angry. I would be angry."

"But that's not what I advocate."

I didn't post this part originially to see what the reaction would be to only part of the story.

[Westy]

William Bennett? Oh yeah he does.

Now, my question now is, is he the victim of soundbiting, because buried in almost every article is something similar to this.





I didn't post this part originially to see what the reaction would be to only part of the story.


In other words you baited, cast, hooked and reeled at least one in.

[fluff]

William Bennett? Oh yeah he does.

Now, my question now is, is he the victim of soundbiting, because buried in almost every article is something similar to this.





I didn't post this part originially to see what the reaction would be to only part of the story.

I read the article and noticed that, wondered why you didn't post that bit and decided you must be trolling.

[DRB]

I read the article and noticed that, wondered why you didn't post that bit and decided you must be trolling.

No so much trolling. I do wonder how much of an effect that soundbiting or headlining does have on us. I see the headline and I'm all for running the guy up the flag pole. I read the article get the whole picture and its like "oh I see he was reacting to a caller's comments and then calling them reprehensible."

Some of it has to do with that most journalists do not write their own headlines. And with the advent of TV news and internet news where there is a drive to be the first to get something out there and read. And partisan politics drive politicians to so quickly react to whatever they hear or more importantly think they hear.....

Also I wanted to see if anyone would post the other portions. I really should have let it ride longer to see what happened.

[Andyman_1970]

In other words you baited, cast, hooked and reeled at least one in.

Hold on...........wait a sec, let me get this hook out of my mouth............... ;)

[Silver]

I stopped paying attention to the guy when I found out that the author of "The Book of Virtues" likes to throw millions of dollars into slot machines.

Ever notice how Republicans claim to be race blind until the issue of crime comes up?

[valve bouncer]

To be fair to DRB he did post a link to the article and the bloke was quoted out of context. But, he was a complete f*ckwit to say something like that. How does he think people are going to recieve that comment? He should know better.

[Silver]

True...but he could have said "Abort all poor fetuses, and crime will go down." He didn't because he doesn't believe that is true, apparently.

Bennett picked black for a reason. He must believe that blacks are genetically predisposed to commit crime.

edit: I saw this yesterday, and was wondering when it was going to come up. :D

[valve bouncer]

True...but he could have said "Abort all poor fetuses, and crime will go down." He didn't because he doesn't believe that is true, apparently.

Bennett picked black for a reason. He must believe that blacks are genetically predisposed to commit crime.

edit: I saw this yesterday, and was wondering when it was going to come up. :D
Not disagreeing there mate. You don't make stupid comments like that, no matter if it's out of context or not, without half believing them.

[DRB]

Not disagreeing there mate. You don't make stupid comments like that, no matter if it's out of context or not, without half believing them.

Really? What about Jonathan Swift?

[valve bouncer]

Really? What about Jonathan Swift?
Haha touche..context mate, context. :thumb:

[Damn True]

Way to go ya lemmings. Or should I say.....frothers?

You took George Soros' divisionist bait - Hook line and sinker. Though you aren't alone. So did Pelozi, Schumer, Kennedy and the vast majority of the media. Context people, context.

From the September 28 broadcast of Salem Radio Network's Bill Bennett's Morning in America:

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 recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all.

BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?

CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.

BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.

CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.

BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --

CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

[H8R]

Context people, context.

From the September 28 broadcast of Salem Radio Network's Bill Bennett's Morning in America:

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

Taken IN context, that is still REALLY REALLY F*CKED UP.

[ohio]

Way to go ya lemmings. Or should I say.....frothers?
You know, even in context it makes me a little sick to my stomach that he thinks that the existence of the black population as a whole causes a net gain in crime.

No, he's not advocating eugenics, but are you telling me you can't see the implicit racism in his (complete) statement?

The closer for a racism argument is that he makes the statement RIGHT after he states that he doesn't believe the inverse correlation between abortion rates and crimes. There's really no way around it. His position is indefensible.

[H8R]

You know, even in context it makes me a little sick to my stomach that he thinks that the existence of the black population as a whole causes a net gain in crime.

No, he's not advocating eugenics, but are you telling me you can't see the implicit racism in his (complete) statement?

The closer for a racism argument is that he makes the statement RIGHT after he states that he doesn't believe the inverse correlation between abortion rates and crimes. There's really no way around it. His position is indefensible.

Yep. he pretty much says, "Aborting all black babies is wrong, BUT your crime rate would go down".

He should eat a big broken glass encrusted dick, then die.

[Damn True]

There is nothing to defend. He is illustrating the absurd by being absurd.

The entire reasoning for saying exactly what he said is to point out the absolute idocy of the position offered by the author of "Freakonomics". You could say that if you aborted all children of single moms all male babies and crime would go down. But that would not have done as much to illustrate his point as the words he chose.

Keep in mind that the man who said it is very very pro-life.

[DRB]

How is what he did different than Jonathan Swift?

[ohio]

There is nothing to defend. He is illustrating the absurd by being absurd.

The entire reasoning for saying exactly what he said is to point out the absolute idocy of the position offered by the author of "Freakonomics". You could say that if you aborted all children of single moms all male babies and crime would go down. But that would not have done as much to illustrate his point as the words he chose.
Actually, if he stated what you just did, it would have been defensible. What he said was not.

I'll lay out the logic for you. He makes two key statements:
1 - Abortion in general does not decrease crime rates.
2 - Abortion of black babies WOULD decrease crime rates.

Therefore, whether or not he believes abortion is morally acceptable (obviously he does not) he DOES believe that the black population causes a net increase in crime rates. This is very straightforward logic. There is no way around it. He very precisely reveals his opinions regarding race, while trying to make a completely different point about abortion.

[ohio]

How is what he did different than Jonathan Swift?
Not familiar... what did Swift do?

edit: I never read Gulliver's Travels, so give me the cliff's notes version.

[ohio]

hmmm....i wonder what the demographic is of a large proportion of violent criminals???
I wonder what the socio-economic status is of a large portion of violent criminals? I wonder what the socio-economic status is of a large portion of teen-mothers?

What you are saying that someone's skin color makes them genetically predisposed to crime. Because we're talking about babies here. This is before cultural or social influences factor in. Are you sure you want to make that statement?

[Damn True]

Yep. he pretty much says, "Aborting all black babies is wrong, BUT your crime rate would go down".

He should eat a big broken glass encrusted dick, then die.

Well, it would. It is a true statement. As is:

Aborting all male babies would cause a decrease in crime.
Aborting all babies of single moms would cause a decrease in crime.
Aborting all babies born of parents on public assistance would cause a decrease in crime.

All of those are true statements. The point is (and take off your "I Hate Bush" hat so you can understand this) the author of the book made the correlation between increase of abortion and a reduction in crime. Bennett shot down the theroy by taking an absurd extrapolation and making it more absurd enforcing the fact that correlation does not prove causation.

More from a Bennett interview with Alan Colmes:

COLMES: Might give you an opportune to put them in context and explain.

BENNETT: Sure. Well, the context was a radio show that I was doing yesterday, and the topic was abortion and we were talking about bad arguments in regard to abortion. A caller suggested he was opposed to abortion because he said if there were more babies there would be, eventually, more tax payers and a larger GNP, a smaller deficit. I said you want to be careful with that kind of argument because someone could postulate a situation where child's not likely to be a productive taxpayer. I said, arguments in which you take something that's far out, like the GNP and try to connect it up with abortion are tricky. I said make the case of abortion on the basis of life and protecting life. I said abortion is invoked in another way; you could make an argument that if you wanted to lower the crime rate, you saw the quote; you could practice abortion in very large numbers. You could do it in the black community; you could do it in other places. This is, by the way, the subject of a book for economics by a professor at Yale.

I said, however, if you were to practice that, widespread abortion in the black community or any other community, it would be ridiculous, impossible, and I appreciate you putting it on the screen, morally reprehensible. So I think morally reprehensible, when that is included in the quote makes it perfectly clear what my position is. A number of the people whom you have cited as condemning me have not made the inclusion of that remark, and so they make it seem, Alan, as if I am supporting such a monstrous idea, which of course I don't.

COLMES: Here's my concern. The root cause of crime, one would debate, it seems to be poverty. And from your remarks, I wonder if people might interpret it as saying the root cause of crime is race. And that debate about is it race is it poverty? What really is the root cause? And race affects people of all races and creeds and I think that's why...

BENNETT: Poverty. Poverty affects people of all races. Let me tell you what bothers me first, because I'm always candid with you. What bothers me is that last night on your radio show, you were all over me, Alan. And, you know, I was really surprised. You know me, you've known me for a long time and the fact that you would give credence to the notion that I would believe such a thing is very disturbing. I've had 1,000 opportunities when people have said to me what about that Alan Colmes, isn't he a jerk or a liberal this -- I've always said he's always a gentleman, he's nice to me. I run a radio show in which we don't yell at people, we don't make fun of them. We have liberals and conservatives and we deal with sensitive and important public policies issues and we do it in a responsible way. But people need to follow the argument and the argument I was making here is entirely plausible. The causes of crime are very complicated. But there is a very big literature, as you know, about single parenthood in crime, about race in crime, and about poverty in crime. And we've been talking about all these things lately in the context of New Orleans and other things.

COMES: Let me talk to you...

BENNETT: There are real things in the real world, and there are people who believe we should take such monstrous steps.

COLMES: Let me talk about what I said on my radio show.

BENNETT: I do not.

COLMES: Dr. Bennett -- Bill, because you know, I do consider you someone -- we've been good to each other. I like you. I think you respect me.

BENNETT: Yes sir.

COLMES: I was really shocked.

BENNETT: Have been.

COLMES: And I plaid what you said and the whole context of what you said. Frankly, I was just shocked by it. I don't believe you're a racist. I don't think that you believe those things. I was just shocked by what I heard and I -- basically there was a lot of callers calling up and commenting on it after I played your comments. And a lot of other people were shocked that you would have -- in the context you said it, say the things you said.

BENNETT: Well, you know, to put forward a hypothesis, a morally impossible hypothesis to show why it is morally impossible and reprehensible seems to me is a standard way of talking about public policy and a standard way of teaching. You know, I've taught philosophy for years and one argues in the hypothetical all the time. People have said such outrageous things, Alan, about race and this is not unknown to our history. It's certainly not unknown to our history -- to the history of Europe, recently. It's not unknown to the history of Islam. And what we have -- you've got to be able to make an argument and say look, you may be thinking you're going to achieve some good end, but you can't use a monstrous means to do it. You know, this is like a Swift's modest proposal for people who remember their literature. You put things up in order to examine them. I put it up, examined it, and said that is ridiculous and impossible no matter who advances that idea.

COLMES: All right, we got -- Sean will be with you in the next segment. There are some statistics, you know, that talk about how African- Americans are treated disparagingly in the criminal justice and, you know, we could debate whether or not there really is a greater prejudice against African-Americans and whether they are incarcerated disproportionately.


....and it's hard to lend any credibility to you when you use a phrase like "He should eat a big broken glass encrusted dick, then die.". It hardly places you on high ground in terms of human compassion.

[H8R]

....and it's hard to lend any credibility to you when you use a phrase like "He should eat a big broken glass encrusted dick, then die.". It hardly places you on high ground in terms of human compassion.

I never asked you to lend me any credibilty, but thank you for trying.

:)

I'll say what I think at the moment. I wish the same crass, horrible sentiment on any racist.


He attempted to talk his way out of it, didn't really work IMHO, by what I'm reading. There is a line that was crossed.

[ohio]

Aborting all male babies would cause a decrease in crime.
Aborting all babies of single moms would cause a decrease in crime.
Aborting all babies born of parents on public assistance would cause a decrease in crime.

Ah, but Bennett specifically stated that he did NOT believe that the abortion of unwanted babies (which overwhelmingly fit into your above categories) would decrease crime rates. THEN he specifically stated that he DID believe aborting black babies would decrease crime rates. Ignore the argument around abortion for a second, and have a look at what he said.

I realize he is trying to defend a pro-life stance by demonstrating that allowing abortion on the basis if crime-reduction is absurd. It's what he reveals in the way he tries to make that argument that is appalling. No one here believe he's advocating the killing of black babies. What he is revealing, though, is that he believes black babies (and we're talking the general black population here) cause crime.

Please stop agreeing with him. You're lowering my opinion of you by the minute.

[DRB]

Not familiar... what did Swift do?

edit: I never read Gulliver's Travels, so give me the cliff's notes version.

Not Gulliver. A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People from Being a Burthen to their Parents, or the Country, and for Making them Beneficial to the Publick.

Take some of the children of the poor. Fatten them up. Then sell them to the rich. To be, here is the kicker, eaten. Helps provide income to the poor while lessening the economic burden of the additional children. Provides a cheaper source of meat for the rich.

Written in the early 18th century. He goes into great detail in regards to the economics of the whole thing. But did Swift really think it was a good idea? Or that he hated Irish children because he used them?

[H8R]

BTW, (and WTF????!!!)

Apparently I'm agreeing with the Whitehouse on this one.


Wait....


AHGGHHH!



http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/30/national/a103100D35.DTL

[Silver]

....and it's hard to lend any credibility to you when you use a phrase like "He should eat a big broken glass encrusted dick, then die.". It hardly places you on high ground in terms of human compassion.

Hahaha.

Whooo...you were just lecturing someone on compassion? What did you do today, actually read your Bible or something?

[ohio]

the author of the book made the correlation between increase of abortion and a reduction in crime. Bennett shot down the theroy by taking an absurd extrapolation and making it more absurd enforcing the fact that correlation does not prove causation..
Actually, no. Bennett tried to shoot down the theory by pointing out the moral absurdity of it even in the case that there IS causation. Actually a good argument, because it agrees with the statement by the author (as I understand it) that the book is not about moral judgements, but more an interesting game of economics and statistics. This is an excellent argument against those that are trying to draw moral conclusions from the book, because it doesn't force him to argue economics/stats.

What he unfortunately stated is that he doesn't believe is causation between abortions and crime, but DOES believe in causation between black population and crime. Its not what he intended to say, and I'm sure he doesn't realize the logic of it, but it is what he revealed anyway.

[DRB]

Well, you know, to put forward a hypothesis, a morally impossible hypothesis to show why it is morally impossible and reprehensible seems to me is a standard way of talking about public policy and a standard way of teaching. You know, I've taught philosophy for years and one argues in the hypothetical all the time. People have said such outrageous things, Alan, about race and this is not unknown to our history. It's certainly not unknown to our history -- to the history of Europe, recently. It's not unknown to the history of Islam. And what we have -- you've got to be able to make an argument and say look, you may be thinking you're going to achieve some good end, but you can't use a monstrous means to do it. You know, this is like a Swift's modest proposal for people who remember their literature. You put things up in order to examine them. I put it up, examined it, and said that is ridiculous and impossible no matter who advances that idea.
.

William Bennett reads the monkey. Who knew?

[Damn True]

Actually, if he stated what you just did, it would have been defensible. What he said was not.

I'll lay out the logic for you. He makes two key statements:
1 - Abortion in general does not decrease crime rates.
2 - Abortion of black babies WOULD decrease crime rates.

Therefore, whether or not he believes abortion is morally acceptable (obviously he does not) he DOES believe that the black population causes a net increase in crime rates. This is very straightforward logic. There is no way around it. He very precisely reveals his opinions regarding race, while trying to make a completely different point about abortion.

In making the above statements (1&2) you are doing precisely what George Soros' dipwads are trying to get the media to do. Ignore the context and meaning of the statement within a totally hypothetical philisophical discussion in which his intent was to illustrate the absurdity of the claims made by the author of "Freakonomics".

In fact, the black population does cause an increase in crime. But then so does the white population, Asian, Hispanic, Jew and Eskimo. If you take any one of them out of the equation at birth you have a lower crime rate do you not?

How about we try this:

"Jews are responsible for everything vile, including modern art, pornography and prostitution."

Whoa! Holy crap. I sound like quite the anti-semite don't I? Well you'd think so if that's the only part of the following that somone told you I 'd said when in fact the entire quote should have been:

In Adolf Hitler's book "Mein Kampf Hitler said that, "Jews are responsible for everything vile, including modern art, pornography and prostitution." Hitler also alleged that the Jews had been responsible for losing the First World War. Hitler also claimed that Jews, who were only about 1% of the population, were slowly taking over the country. They were doing this by controlling the largest political party in Germany, the German Social Democrat Party, many of the leading companies and several of the country's newspapers. The fact that Jews had achieved prominent positions in a democratic society was, according to Hitler, an argument against democracy: "a hundred blockheads do not equal one man in wisdom."

That little excercise is precisely what Soros and his ilk have done over the last couple of days. You are being played like a fiddle and it almost seems like you don't mind.

[ohio]

Not Gulliver. A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People from Being a Burthen to their Parents, or the Country, and for Making them Beneficial to the Publick.

Take some of the children of the poor. Fatten them up. Then sell them to the rich. To be, here is the kicker, eaten. Helps provide income to the poor while lessening the economic burden of the additional children. Provides a cheaper source of meat for the rich.

Written in the early 18th century. He goes into great detail in regards to the economics of the whole thing. But did Swift really think it was a good idea? Or that he hated Irish children because he used them?

I had a quick look at it, and my take is that Swift's statement is far less explicit because he doesn't make it clear whether he believes the Irish children are predisposed to poverty. It's implicit, and I'm inclined to guess that he did have some level of racism towards the Irish. However, unlike Bennett, there is no statement that he doesn't think this would work with the general populations of the poor, but would work with the Irish. Without that, there's not really a good way to divine his underlying opinions.

[Silver]

Ignore the context and meaning of the statement within a totally hypothetical philisophical discussion in which his intent was to illustrate the absurdity of the claims made by the author of "Freakonomics".



Yeah, but why did Billy pick on the coloreds?

Also interesting you seem to be dismissing Levitt's claims. You've looked at his data and have something solid to base your dismissal on, or are you (and Bennett) just talking out of your asses?

[ohio]

In fact, the black population does cause an increase in crime. But then so does the white population, Asian, Hispanic, Jew and Eskimo. If you take any one of them out of the equation at birth you have a lower crime rate do you not?

Again, this is NOT what Bennett stated. He specifically stated that he didn't believe a reduction in births (and low income, single or teen mom, births at that, though that's only implicit) would cause a reduction in crime. You're the one ignoring the context of this comments. Read his comments leading up to the statement about black babies.

Read my posts carefully. I just stated he makes an EXCELLENT case against the use of Freakonomics as justification for abortion. It's just that he accidentally reveals something else (a completely secondary argument, unrelated to the abortion issue) in the process. I don't know how many different ways I can explain this to you.

[ohio]

the white population, Asian, Hispanic, Jew and Eskimo. If you take any one of them out of the equation at birth you have a lower crime rate do you not?
And actually no, no you do not. Not only are you wrong, but you just claimed a causation that a few posts ago you said was correlation but NOT causation. So which do YOU believe?

[narlus]

BTW, (and WTF????!!!)

Apparently I'm agreeing with the Whitehouse on this one.


Wait....


AHGGHHH!



http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/30/national/a103100D35.DTL


dude, william bennett IS whitehouse (http://www.sonic-boom.com/interview/whitehouse.interview.html)

[Damn True]

Again, this is NOT what Bennett stated. He specifically stated that he didn't believe a reduction in births (and low income, single or teen mom, births at that, though that's only implicit) would cause a reduction in crime. You're the one ignoring the context of this comments. Read his comments leading up to the statement about black babies.

Read my posts carefully. I just stated he makes an EXCELLENT case against the use of Freakonomics as justification for abortion. It's just that he accidentally reveals something else (a completely secondary argument, unrelated to the abortion issue) in the process. I don't know how many different ways I can explain this to you.

See we disagree here. I don't think he is "revealing" (as he twists his snidley whiplash handlebar moustache) anything. I think he is using an absurd hypothetical situation as an illustration.

[Damn True]

And actually no, no you do not. Not only are you wrong, but you just claimed a causation that a few posts ago you said was correlation but NOT causation. So which do YOU believe?



Ding ding ding! We have a winner. You broke the code.

I just presented an absurd argument (not at all different from Levitt's) and you shot it down by pointing out the holes in the logic. Just as Bennett did.

It took me a few tries to do it, but I baited you. Sorry, that wasn't a nice thing to do, but the point was to illustrate how Soros, The Dem leadership and portions of the media are playing the public.

[DRB]

I had a quick look at it, and my take is that Swift's statement is far less explicit because he doesn't make it clear whether he believes the Irish children are predisposed to poverty. It's implicit, and I'm inclined to guess that he did have some level of racism towards the Irish. However, unlike Bennett, there is no statement that he doesn't think this would work with the general populations of the poor, but would work with the Irish. Without that, there's not really a good way to divine his underlying opinions.

Read it again.

I think this is less about Bennett being a racist and more about some folks wanting him to be so they can point a finger at him.

[Silver]

You know, there is one thing I don't get about the Swift comparison.

Swift was a well known satirist. Now, if you're arguing that Bennett is also, then the gambling and moralizing makes sense.

Of course, that seems to be a silly argument for Bennett to try to make, since he seems to take himself very seriously. So, is Bennett a satirist, or a self-appointed moralizer?

[ohio]

It took me a few tries to do it, but I baited you.
heheh, you're welcome to pat yourself on the back. Unfortunately you don't even understand Bennett's argument, let alone mine. You're actually arguing against Bennett, so if you think you've "won" an argument, it would be against him.

Reread what I wrote about Bennett's argument being a good one. Spend some time thinking about it. Then spend some more time. Then come back.

[ohio]

Read it again.

I think this is less about Bennett being a racist and more about some folks wanting him to be so they can point a finger at him.

It may be more about people wanting to point the finger at him, but he slipped up in his argument in a way that paints him as a racist, and his explanations that follow don't address that correctly, which makes me think that he doesn't realize WHY what he said was racist.

I'll lay it out again:
BENNETT:...But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.
If this were ALL that Bennett said, he would be correct (by 3rd order causation) and I would have a hard time labelling him a racist. This is the portion DT is focusing on, and though he doesn't understand the nature of the argument, he is correct in defending Bennett based on this alone. This is similar to Swift's statement as well, in pointing out the MORAL absurdity, not the statistical absurdity (which it is not).

Unfortunately, he led into it with this:
BENNETT:...one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --

CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know.
What he states here is that he doesn't believe in the 2nd order causation that the book points out. Now if he doesn't believe in that 2nd order causation, but does believe in the 3rd order causation, than he MUST believe that being black itself is a 2nd or 1st order causation. This may have been a slip of the tongue... my guess is he didn't properly explain himself when he agreed with the caller. If he were to properly address the racist comments, he would have to go back and admit a 2nd order causation between abortion and crime... which would be political suicide because the general public doesn't understand logic or statistics, and the political parties prey on that.

So he is either a racist because he doesn't realize why what he says is wrong or he's doing the best he can to salvage himself politically by pandering to people that don't understand statistics. My hope is the second. My preference is that he actually walk through why the book is correct, but abortion as a SECOND order causation is not the correct way to approach crime reduction, but rather through the FIRST order causations such as poverty and lack of education.

[ohio]

Last post: the amazing thing to me is, is that the Freakonomics argument is actually making a very compelling case AGAINST abortion, but pointing out that in our society, legal abortion is, statistically speaking, a form of eugenics. Because abortions are statistically skewed towards the poor and uneducated, and poverty and lack of education is skewed towards certain cultural groups, abortion is essentially self-regulating fascism.

Of course, if pro-lifers REALLY wanted to reduce abortions, they would eliminate the demand through better education and opportunity programs to lift people out of poverty. But they're too busy punishing those people for being poor (for their own good, of course) to actually help them.

[DRB]

It may be more about people wanting to point the finger at him, but he slipped up in his argument in a way that paints him as a racist, and his explanations that follow don't address that correctly, which makes me think that he doesn't realize WHY what he said was racist.


Oh I see exactly what you are talking about but NOT one of the pundits, Democrats, nor anyone else I have seen calling for his head has picked up on what you are saying. That's why I was very careful not to point to you when I said what I said.

I don't agree as I think it is more likey a slip up on a radio program then some indicator of racist feelings by Bennett. I just don't see a pattern of it from him and he is in the news and public enough that he would have most likely slipped up before.

[DRB]

So, is Bennett a satirist, or a self-appointed moralizer?

A well rounded person uses a variety of tools and thought processes to get his point across. His mistake was using it on a radio program where controlling it was far too difficult.

[Silver]

A well rounded person uses a variety of tools and thought processes to get his point across. His mistake was using it on a radio program where controlling it was far too difficult.

A satirist generally has some stuff in the past to fall back on. Find me a bit more of Bennett being satirical (he's written enough that if he has any satirical accomplishments, they should be easy to find) and I'll be much more inclined to see it the way you do.