Finn d'Abuzz wrote: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.
I already did that
in this post. For the benefit of those who might be inclined to agree with you,
Finn (I harbor no illusions that you will be able to profit from this), let me set out, in small words, just why the position that both you and Bill Bennett espouse is flawed.
Suppose statistics reveal that criminals, on average, wear hoodies (i.e. hooded sweatshirts) far more often than does the general population. On that basis, could we conclude that, by destroying all hoodies and banning their importation, manufacture, sale, and use, we would thereby reduce crime?
My guess is that even you,
Finn, would say "no." The reason that we could not confidently predict a reduction in crime as a result of our crusade against hoodies, even though there is a statistical link between crime and hoodie-wearing, is that we cannot establish any kind of
causal link between the two. Indeed, most of us would regard any attempt to establish a causal link as absurd.
Now, let's return to Bill Bennett. He
knows that if all black fetuses are aborted, that would lead to a reduction in crime. How does he know that? Apparently (it is not explicitly mentioned by Bennett) it's because blacks, on average, commit more crimes than non-blacks. But to conclude, on the basis of a statistical correlation alone, that eliminating blacks would reduce crime is about as persuasive as concluding that eliminating hoodies would reduce crime. The statistical correlation means
nothing except that two things correlate with each other. It does not mean that one
causes the other.
Your attempt, therefore, to ignore, or even to dismiss, the notion of causation is simply ludicrous. If we cannot say that blacks
cause crime (and you have said repeatedly that there is no causation here), then we cannot predict, on the basis of statistical correlation between race and crime, that eliminating blacks would reduce crime. That's why your statement:
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.
is so astoundingly dumb. Causation is the
only thing that can account for statistical trends. Correlation explains only one thing: correlation. So repeat after me, class: correlation does not equal causation!
Finn d'Abuzz wrote: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)
If you would take the effort to read my previous posts in this thread, you'll note that I was one of the first to say that Bennett's remarks were
not racist. I know that your knee-jerk reaction is to tar all "liberals" with the same brush, but in this instance the tar won't stick.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote: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.
Aborting black fetuses would not have any effect on crime unless one assumes that black fetuses cause crime. Now, one could argue (and you and Bennett probably
do argue) that aborting black fetuses would
eventually reduce crime. That's a different argument, and it's one that maybe you'd like to make. But that argument suffers from the same problems of correlation-versus-causation that I outlined above. In fact, it suffers from an additional problem, because it also relies on the assumption that the statistical correlation between race and crime that obtains today would be the same in the future. I see no reason to agree with that assumption.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote: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.
Only if being black
causes crime. Otherwise, we'd do just as well to eliminate hoodies.