What is the Matter with Bill Bennett?????

It is one thing to come put against something that has already befallen a group. Quite another to invent something awful, just for the sake of arguing against it.

But that's not what Bennett did! He was inventing something awful, but not for the sake of arguing against it, but for the sake of demolishing a bad argument for his own position -- that position being pro-life....

how many of you are willing to admit to genocidal fantasies/arguments to cure social ills? Just curious.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Simple math.

Not really, it's more like simplistic math.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

The crime rate among blacks is greater than the crime rate of the combined non-black races in the US. It follows then that if the statistics related to blacks was removed from the overall crime rate calculation, it would decrease.

Only if there was a causal relationship between being black and being a criminal. But you explicitly deny that such a relationship exists (as you state: "In any case, the statistics do not prove that black are, racially, more inclined to commit crime than whites, and neither Bennett, nor I am suggesting they do"), so you need to explain how controlling for a non-causative factor (i.e. race) can have any effect on an independent variable (i.e. crime).

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

A disproportionate degree of poverty and its associated ills among blacks than whites plays a far more important factor than race. In fact I would argue that race only enters the picture in terms of the consequences of oppression directed at a given race.

If poverty causes crime, then we should expect that aborting black fetuses would have no effect on crime, simply because aborting black fetuses would not have any effect on poverty -- unless, of course, you're arguing that being black causes poverty.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Connecting the two is not racism unless one argues that blacks are inherently more likely to be impoverished and therefore (and separately) inherently more likely to be criminals. Again, neither Bennett nor I have made such arguments.

Oh, I guess you're not.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

It is utterly amazing and sadly predictable that so many people allow their reason to be overwhelmed by ideologically fed emotion.

Does that explain why your reason failed you in this instance?

joefromchicago wrote:

In sum, Bennett's statement wasn't immoral or even racist, it was just stupid.

... and that was exactly Bennett's point: He made the statement for the sole purpose of labelling it as stupid.

joefromchicago wrote:

And for someone who was the secretary of education, that's just sad.

In my view, the sad thing is that the sensitivity police isn't bothering with forensics anymore before making their arrests. Here is Bennet's quote in context, as offered by mediamatters.org.

Quote:

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.

Source

Translation: Bennet is saying that just because there may be a correlation between abortion or opposition to it on the one hand, and some uncontroversioal social benefit on the other hand, that shouldn't be used as an argument in the abortion debate -- on either side. Even if the claims are true, they are not what the abortion debate ought to be about. As I see it, Bennet tried a reductio ad absurdum there, and his attempt misfired because he made it on talk radio, an ill-suited medium for the finer points of logic.

Thomas,
You are promoting racial genocide whether you force an abortion on every pregnant woman of that race or sterilize everyone of that race so there are no future children or shoot the kids after they are born.

No matter which route you take it is still racial genocide. You are systematically attempting to eliminate a race. Bennett's hypothetical is pretty dang close to Hitler's solution with the Jews and that is why it is so repugnant; eliminate a race because they cause the most crime.

Thomas wrote:

kelticwizard wrote:

It is one thing to come put against something that has already befallen a group. Quite another to invent something awful, just for the sake of arguing against it.

But that's not what Bennett did! He was inventing something awful, but not for the sake of arguing against it, but for the sake of demolishing a bad argument for his own position -- that position being pro-life, and the argument being "abortion is bad because it destabilizes Social Security". His counterargument was that by the same logic, you could make an argument the other way, which he and his caller agrees is awful. To make this point, he had to make up an awful argument for abortion -- and call the argument a bad one. Bennet tried to quality-check an argument on his own side. He fumbled his wording, which caused a big brouhaha about his alleged racism. In my book, internal quality checks are so rare in America's political climate, and so much needed, that I am very forgiving about the fumbling part.

That's interesting.

I haven't followed this particular story at all, I just came here cos I saw you had posted.


Very interesting indeed.

I have a hard time believing that anyone who would say such things, as a politician, on national radio. is not an inherent racist. I don't care if the statistics match up to what he was saying; it was an idiotic thing to say and Bennett deserves what he is getting.

The truly delicious part of this is that all the Righties defending Bennett don't matter one whit; the man is ruined, and rightly so.

Cycloptichorn

At what point do I discontinue advancing logic to the hordes of emotional partisans?

Your arguments are without logic. The conclusion that aborting black babies will reduce the crime rate is based on the fact that the crime rate among blacks is greater than the crime rate among all other races combined.

We can discuss, until the cows come home, why this is the case, and I suspect that I will agree with your contentions far more than you would expect, but the reasoning for this statistical trend is absolutely immaterial.

Irrespective of causal relationships, if black crime statistics outweigh crime statistics for all other races, then removing black statistics from the mix (aborting black babies) will reduce the overall crime rate. What part of this simple equation do you not understand?

You, and others, continue to insist that causative factors have some bearing on the statistical trends. They do not. They may help to explain them, but they cannot negate them.

Your attempts at a logical refutation of what I have stated are, frankly, pathetic. Obviously blacks do not cause poverty you bloody twit. How anyone could reach such a ridiculous conclusion is beyond me.

Try and follow this simple progression:

Poverty leads to crime.

Systematic oppression has created a disproportionate degree of poverty among black.

Black have a disproportionate degree of crime.

As much as you would like to believe it, there is no judgment associated with this progression. There is no implication that black are, racially, predisposed to crime.

Are you fundamentally incapable of understanding a concept that does not fit within your ideological world view?

Educate yourself on logic and then return to the debate.

It's funny how people jump all over Bennett for a hypothetical he doesn't even agree with...but I couldn't find one thread condemning Farrakhan for his idiocy.

... I couldn't find one thread condemning Farrakhan for his idiocy.

parados wrote:

Thomas,
You are promoting racial genocide whether you force an abortion on every pregnant woman of that race or sterilize everyone of that race so there are no future children or shoot the kids after they are born.

No matter which route you take it is still racial genocide. You are systematically attempting to eliminate a race. Bennett's hypothetical is pretty dang close to Hitler's solution with the Jews and that is why it is so repugnant; eliminate a race because they cause the most crime.

Well, Thomas I guess you are now tainted.

Is it not amazing (albeit predictable from my point of view) that the Liberals on this thread, despite all evidence to the contrary, want to blame Bennett for advancing genocide?

This is a perfect example of why I found it necessary to disassociate myself from Liberals, and Liberal dogma.

Third, Bennet's wasn't talking about genocide. He was talking about mass abortions. Abortion is not murder! And with apologies for painting with a broad brush, the very people who fail to make this distinction when accusing Bennett get outraged at Christian conservatives when they fail to make the same distinction in other contexts, such as debating Roe v. Wade.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

At what point do I discontinue advancing logic to the hordes of emotional partisans?

I don't know. When did you start?

How glib of you Joe. Perhaps you might make the effort to show how my arguments are not logical, but then there is no indication that you are are capable of recognizing logic.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Your arguments are without logic. The conclusion that aborting black babies will reduce the crime rate is based on the fact that the crime rate among blacks is greater than the crime rate among all other races combined.

We can discuss, until the cows come home, why this is the case, and I suspect that I will agree with your contentions far more than you would expect, but the reasoning for this statistical trend is absolutely immaterial.

Why would the reason behind the statistical trend be immaterial?

They are immaterial as respects the question at hand: Is it true that aborting black babies will reduce the crime rate in America? Irrespective of why this may be the case, it is the case. You and your fellow Liberals are insistent upon introducing sociological explanations for a statistical fact. This would be perfectly material if the question was why is the statistical truth so? But it is not ... at least in the context of this thread.

It is predictable that Liberals will attempt to transform any discussion of race into one which can result in an allegation of racism. It is one of their favorite and most effective weapons. Unfortunately, for you Joe, this is not such a debate (unless of course you don't a sh*t about context and logical sequence --- which I strongly suspect you do not)

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Irrespective of causal relationships, if black crime statistics outweigh crime statistics for all other races, then removing black statistics from the mix (aborting black babies) will reduce the overall crime rate. What part of this simple equation do you not understand?

Well, we can start with the part about black fetuses causing crime.

My God are you really so logically challenged?

It is absurd to attempt to translate the argument in question to "Black fetuses cause crime."

Consider for a moment, if you possibly can, the statistical dynamic involved. I realize this will stretch your intelligence to the breaking point, but, for you own sake, please try.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

You, and others, continue to insist that causative factors have some bearing on the statistical trends. They do not. They may help to explain them, but they cannot negate them.

That is, without a doubt, one of the dumbest things I've ever read on A2K. And I just finished reading some of foxfyre's posts.

And you have revealed yourself to be, without a doubt, one of the dumbest participants in A2K. Frankly, I 'm surprised. I thought you were well beyond the level of sheer stupidity that you are demonstrating.

I know this is pedantic, but you are in desperate need of a teacher. Causative factors explain statistical trends, they cannot alter them. Is this really so hard for you to understand?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Your attempts at a logical refutation of what I have stated are, frankly, pathetic. Obviously blacks do not cause poverty you bloody twit. How anyone could reach such a ridiculous conclusion is beyond me.

Before this thread gets shut down because you violated the TOS, let me just respond in kind: you are a poopyhead.

I apologize for allowing my frustration to result in a violation of the TOS, but it is impossible for me to believe that anyone who can, through the development of this thread, conclude that an argument is being made that blacks cause poverty is not of a nature quite akin to that of a bloody twit.

But then what should I expect from someone who has introduced the argument that black fetuses don't cause crime into this debate?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Try and follow this simple progression:

Poverty leads to crime.

Systematic oppression has created a disproportionate degree of poverty among black.

I don't disagree.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Black have a disproportionate degree of crime.

I said the same thing myself earlier in this thread.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

As much as you would like to believe it, there is no judgment associated with this progression. There is no implication that black are, racially, predisposed to crime.

There is if you believe that aborting black fetuses would reduce the crime rate. After all, if race didn't have any causative effect on crime rates, then aborting black fetuses would not lower crime rates.

For the, absolutely, last time... There may be a thousand different reasons why a reduction in the black population will, necessarily, result in the reduction of the crime rate in America. It could be that all members of the black race are inclined to be criminals. It could be that black fetuses are somehow robbing banks and mugging tourists at an alarming rate. It could be that blacks have been so systematically oppressed that there societal norms have been perverted and crime is therefore a prevalent and even logical response within their community. It could be that evil white men are paying them to be criminals. It could be an amazing coincidence reflective of nothing more than a statistical anomaly. Whether or not the reason is one or more of the above, a combination of them, or something all together different, it will not change the fact that a reduction in the African-American population will result in a reduction in the crime rate.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Are you fundamentally incapable of understanding a concept that does not fit within your ideological world view?

Educate yourself on logic and then return to the debate.

I'll let others judge whether my arguments are logical or not. As for you, you remain a poopyhead.

No need, this latest twitish response has made it clear that you have not a clue as to what logic entails. Again I am surprised that you are so clueless, but when I think on it I see the power of ideology at work.

Not much of a difference between your response and that of the folks who believed Galileo a heretic because he could prove the Sun, and not the Earth was the center of the solar system.