Finn d'Abuzz wrote: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.
ROFLMBO at this one Finn. I talk about a hypothetical used by Bennett and you now claim I blamed Bennett for advancing genocide. The irony is too sweet. You do the exact thing you are excoriating "liberals" for doing.
Bennett's hypothetical if performed as stated would be racial genocide. That doesn't equate to he is promoting it and I never said Bennett was promoting it.
Will your defense be you quoted me exactly? Will you really ignore the context of my statement? I can hardly wait....
Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said, "I heard from a reliable source who saw a 25-foot-deep crater under the levee breach. It may have been blown up to destroy the black part of town and keep the white part dry."
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.
Good posts Finn. I think you hit this one out of the park.
Thomas wrote: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.
Godwin's law notwithstanding, forced abortion of a class of people, and forced sterilization of "defectives" as advocated by a German Chancellor in an autobiographical book written in prison and subsequently put into practice, achieve exactly the same result, so the comparison is an apt one. Furthermore, in Bennett's own moral scheme, abortion is murder, and therefore mass abortion would constitute mass murder. Finally, Roe v. Wade has no relevance to this discussion, because that decision pertains to a woman's right to choose to terminate her own pregnancy, whereas Bennett is talking about society deciding to terminate a woman's pregnancy against her will.
parados wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote: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.
ROFLMBO at this one Finn. I talk about a hypothetical used by Bennett and you now claim I blamed Bennett for advancing genocide. The irony is too sweet. You do the exact thing you are excoriating "liberals" for doing.
Bennett's hypothetical if performed as stated would be racial genocide. That doesn't equate to he is promoting it and I never said Bennett was promoting it.
Will your defense be you quoted me exactly? Will you really ignore the context of my statement? I can hardly wait....
Sorry to keep you on tenderhooks, but your statement (whatever it might actually have been[You quoted it but now feign ingorance of what it was?]) is so inconsequential that I must insist on igoring it, as well as what you perceive its context to be.
Arrogant I know, but I am so overwhelmed by the stupidity expressed on this thread and simply cannot find the energy to continue engagement in a such a depressing example of ideological idiocy.
I know, I know... this proves something or the other, but frankly I couldn't care less.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:parados wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote: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.
ROFLMBO at this one Finn. I talk about a hypothetical used by Bennett and you now claim I blamed Bennett for advancing genocide. The irony is too sweet. You do the exact thing you are excoriating "liberals" for doing.
Bennett's hypothetical if performed as stated would be racial genocide. That doesn't equate to he is promoting it and I never said Bennett was promoting it.
Will your defense be you quoted me exactly? Will you really ignore the context of my statement? I can hardly wait....
Sorry to keep you on tenderhooks, but your statement (whatever it might actually have been[You quoted it but now feign ingorance of what it was?]) is so inconsequential that I must insist on igoring it, as well as what you perceive its context to be.
Arrogant I know, but I am so overwhelmed by the stupidity expressed on this thread and simply cannot find the energy to continue engagement in a such a depressing example of ideological idiocy.
I know, I know... this proves something or the other, but frankly I couldn't care less.
You are what you despise.
....And so it goes....
You don't seem to care.
Since most people that speed have drivers licenses if we only eliminated drivers licenses we could reduce speeding.
Bingo! Now you understand Bennett's argument. Eliminating all drivers licenses will reduce speeding violations. It is ridiculous and impossible, and not to be advocated by anyone who is rational.
Makes as much logical sense as your logic about aborting blacks would reduce crime. Without a proven cause and effect simply eliminating a correlation won't eliminate the effect.
Utter nonsense!
Let's take it to an even more stark example, hoping that clubbing you over the head will help you understand.
Men rape women.
Kill all males and you will greatly reduce rape.
Killing all men is a ridiculous, impossible and morally reprehensible solution for the crime of rape, but it will work.
Still struggling?
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:parados wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote: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.
ROFLMBO at this one Finn. I talk about a hypothetical used by Bennett and you now claim I blamed Bennett for advancing genocide. The irony is too sweet. You do the exact thing you are excoriating "liberals" for doing.
Bennett's hypothetical if performed as stated would be racial genocide. That doesn't equate to he is promoting it and I never said Bennett was promoting it.
Will your defense be you quoted me exactly? Will you really ignore the context of my statement? I can hardly wait....
Sorry to keep you on tenderhooks, but your statement (whatever it might actually have been[You quoted it but now feign ingorance of what it was?]) is so inconsequential that I must insist on igoring it, as well as what you perceive its context to be.
Arrogant I know, but I am so overwhelmed by the stupidity expressed on this thread and simply cannot find the energy to continue engagement in a such a depressing example of ideological idiocy.
I know, I know... this proves something or the other, but frankly I couldn't care less.
You are what you despise.
....And so it goes....
You don't seem to care.
Since most people that speed have drivers licenses if we only eliminated drivers licenses we could reduce speeding.
Bingo! Now you understand Bennett's argument. Eliminating all drivers licenses will reduce speeding violations. It is ridiculous and impossible, and not to be advocated by anyone who is rational.
Makes as much logical sense as your logic about aborting blacks would reduce crime. Without a proven cause and effect simply eliminating a correlation won't eliminate the effect.
Utter nonsense!
Let's take it to an even more stark example, hoping that clubbing you over the head will help you understand.
Men rape women.
Kill all males and you will greatly reduce rape.
Killing all men is a ridiculous, impossible and morally reprehensible solution for the crime of rape, but it will work.
Still struggling?
Cycloptichorn wrote: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
Why is this not hard to believe?
The fellow who advocated a "niggardly" approach to the DC budget must have been a racist. He, like Bennett, should have known that a large segment of the population haven't the intelligence, or education to understand his point, and therefore because he, nevertheless, made his comments; he must be a racist.
Of course you don't care that the statistics match up to what Bennett is saying. He is a conservative, therefore he is wrong!
Notwithstanding the fact that this flap has hardly ruined Bennet, it is telling that the primary point you distill from the matter is that it is "delicious" that a conservative might be involved in a faux pas. To hell with logic and truth...if it can hurt the damned Righties, Cyclo is all for it.
The utter stupidity expressed in this post and others is truly depressing, notwithstanding my already low opinion of Liberals.
Bennett Quits K12 Board After Remarks
By Annys Shin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 4, 2005; Page D04
Former education secretary William J. Bennett over the weekend resigned as chairman of the board of education company K12 Inc., which he co-founded in 1999, following the controversial remarks he recently made associating black Americans with crime, the company said yesterday.
"The opinions expressed by Dr. Bennett on his radio program are his and his alone," the McLean-based company said yesterday in a news release. K12 sells curriculum and distance-learning products to schools and home schoolers and serves 50,000 students in 13 states, said spokesman Bryan Flood.
In an interview, Bennett said he resigned because he does not "want to distract the company from the work it is doing," especially as K12 is making efforts to sell its material in inner-city markets.
Bennett also resigned from his job as a part-time employee of the company, responsible for making about a dozen promotional appearances a year, Flood said.
The former Cabinet official came under fire following a Sept. 28 broadcast of his call-in radio show, "Morning in America," in which he said aborting black babies would result in a lower crime rate. Though he also said that was a "morally reprehensible" idea, his remarks were condemned by civil rights groups and rebuffed by the White House.
Bennett, the author of "The Book of Virtues," said his remarks were taken out of context and misinterpreted. He called his comments "a thought experiment about public policy" that "should not have received the condemnation it has. Anyone paying attention should be offended by those who have selectively quoted me," he said in a statement posted last Friday on the "Morning in America" Web site.
Citing continuing fallout from his remarks, Bennett yesterday postponed an upcoming appearance at the University of Cincinnati.
Bennett continues to own shares in K12, which is privately held. He declined to say how large his stake was, but Flood described it as "minor equity stake." Bennett said he continues to sit on one other corporate board, but he declined to identify the company. A search of filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission did not turn up directorships for Bennett at any public companies. He had previously served on the board of cyber retailer Value America Inc., which filed for bankruptcy in 2000.
So far, none of the companies and organizations that sponsor the "Morning in America" Web site have withdrawn their support, said Bennett, despite what he said were efforts by "the left" to "flood the phone lines of our sponsors and scare them."
One advertiser, the Camarillo, Calif., franchise of Carlson Wagonlit Travel, had to reschedule an ocean cruise with Bennett that it was promoting on Bennett's Web site, but owner Larry Tatelman said it had nothing to do with the controversy over Bennett's radio remarks.
Bennett said he had previously offered to resign from K12 two years ago, after news reports that he was a regular at the gambling tables at several Atlantic City casinos. But the company declined his offer, he said.
My bet is that any passage in Mein Kampf that discusses the forced abortion of a class of people, was not followed by the author's expressed opinion that such a plan would be ridiculous, impossible and morally reprehensible.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:My bet is that any passage in Mein Kampf that discusses the forced abortion of a class of people, was not followed by the author's expressed opinion that such a plan would be ridiculous, impossible and morally reprehensible.
i haven't managed to read it in its entirety--have you?--but you probably win the bet. that doesn't change the fact that forced abortion of black babies is a genocidal idea--the 'hypothetical' is 'close' to a 'final solution' as parados put it. the comparison is with Bennett's proposal, not between Bennett and a historical figure.
I would say that anyone who speaks as Bennett does would have difficulty keeping even a low-level job dealing with the public, such as selling slacks in a Sears menswear department or selling wrenches in a hardware store.
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.
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)
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.
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.
"Bennett called it ridiculous, impossible and morally reprehensible?" But, but, but then he said, "but your crime rate would go down". Sounds like he thinks there's a silver lining.
kelticwizard wrote:I would say that anyone who speaks as Bennett does would have difficulty keeping even a low-level job dealing with the public, such as selling slacks in a Sears menswear department or selling wrenches in a hardware store.
And yet with that disability he managed to become the Director/Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, Secretary of Education, the National "drug czar," and now an author, speaker, and host of the weekday radio program. Ain't America great?
Simple math.
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.
Whites may commit a greater number of crimes than blacks, but that is because they outnumber blacks. Whites may commit, in raw numbers, three times as many violent crimes as blacks, but their total numbers exceed that of three times the number of blacks.
Ticomaya wrote:kelticwizard wrote:I would say that anyone who speaks as Bennett does would have difficulty keeping even a low-level job dealing with the public, such as selling slacks in a Sears menswear department or selling wrenches in a hardware store.
And yet with that disability he managed to become the Director/Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, Secretary of Education, the National "drug czar," and now an author, speaker, and host of the weekday radio program. Ain't America great?
He wouldn't be the first person in America to have risen far beyond his or her level of incompetence. Many of them didn't even attend Yale.
Bingo! Now you understand Bennett's argument. Eliminating all drivers licenses will reduce speeding violations. It is ridiculous and impossible, and not to be advocated by anyone who is rational.
Makes as much logical sense as your logic about aborting blacks would reduce crime. Without a proven cause and effect simply eliminating a correlation won't eliminate the effect.
Utter nonsense!
Let's take it to an even more stark example, hoping that clubbing you over the head will help you understand.
Men rape women.
Kill all males and you will greatly reduce rape.
Killing all men is a ridiculous, impossible and morally reprehensible solution for the crime of rape, but it will work.
Still struggling?
Why are you ignoring that Bennett called it ridiculous, impossible and morally reprehensible?
