This is exactly why I hate ultraconservatives...

[Halcyon]

Bennett under fire for remarks on blacks, crime

Friday, September 30, 2005; Posted: 1:08 p.m. EDT (17:08 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congressional Democrats blasted former Education Secretary William Bennett on Thursday for saying that aborting "every black baby in this country" would reduce the crime rate, and demanded their Republican counterparts do the same.

"This is precisely the kind of insensitive, hurtful and ignorant rhetoric that Americans have grown tired of," said Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Illinois.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan told reporters on Friday that President Bush "believes the comments were not appropriate."

Bennett, who held prominent posts in the administrations of former presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, told a caller to his syndicated radio talk show Wednesday: "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 impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down," he said.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, had called on President Bush to condemn the comments by Bennett, who was anti-drug chief in Bush's father's administration.

"What could possibly have possessed Secretary Bennett to say those words, especially at this time?" Pelosi asked. "What could he possibly have been thinking? This is what is so alarming about his words."

Bennett stood by his comments Thursday night.

"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'm not racist, and I'll put my record up against theirs," referring to Pelosi and other critics. "I've been a champion of the real civil rights issue of our times -- equal educational opportunities for kids."

"We've got to have candor and talk about these things while we reject wild hypotheses," Bennett said.

"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."

Asked if he owed people an apology, Bennett replied, "I don't think I do. I think people who misrepresented my view owe me an apology."

Bennett served as Reagan's chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities from 1981-1985 and secretary of education from 1985-1988. From 1989-1990, he served as "drug czar" in the administration of the elder Bush.

Rush called on "my friends, the responsible Republicans" to rebuke the former Cabinet official by backing a House resolution condemning his remarks as "outrageous racism of the most bigoted and ignorant kind."

"Where is the indignation from the GOP, as one of their prominent members talk about aborting an entire race of Americans as a way of ridding this country of crime?" asked Rush, a former Black Panther. "How ridiculous! How asinine! How insane can one be?"

He called instead for "aborting" Republican policies "which have hurt the disadvantaged, the poor, average Americans for the benefit of large corporations."

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said he was "appalled" by Bennett's remarks.

"The Republican Party has recently taken great pains to reach out to the African-American community, and I hope that they will be swift in condemning Mr. Bennett's comments as nothing short of callous and ignorant," said Reid, D-Nevada.

And Bruce Gordon, president and CEO of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, demanded an apology from Bennett and the Salem Radio Network, which airs his radio program.

"In 2005, there is no place for the kind of racist statement made by Bennett," Gordon said in a written statement. "While the entire nation is trying to help survivors, black and white, to recover from the damage caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, it is unconscionable for Bennett to make such ignorant and insensitive comments."

A man who answered the phone at the network said no one would be available to comment until Friday.

Bennett's 1993 repackaging of traditional morality tales, "The Book of Virtues," became a bestseller, and Bennett became a popular lecturer on moral issues. But in 2003, stung by news reports that he had lost millions of dollars in Las Vegas and Atlantic City over the last decade, he publicly renounced gambling and vowed to stay away from the slots from then on.

He is a Fox News contributor and chairman of "Americans for Victory over Terrorism," which his Web site calls "a project dedicated to sustaining and strengthening public opinion as the war on terrorism moves forward."
What a fucking dickhead. I mean come on. Yeah, lets abort blacks from now on so we have less crime, yeah, real moral there you Republican pieces of shit!

Mr "I'm not racist" there thinks that blacks are instinctually violent. End of story. Aborting black children? You just can't defend that!

[Fuego]

I take it you view yourself as a democratic liberal....

[Halcyon]

I take it you view yourself as a democratic liberal....
Independent centrist who leans slightly left. I affiliate myself with no party.

[Fuego]

I take it you view yourself as a democratic liberal....
Independent centrist who leans slightly left. I affiliate myself with no party.

Do you vote? Or actually can you vote?

[Halcyon]

I take it you view yourself as a democratic liberal....
Independent centrist who leans slightly left. I affiliate myself with no party.

Do you vote? Or actually can you vote?
Sure. I vote. I disliked Bush so much I gave my vote to Kerry despite me living in California.

[Fuego]

:arrow:

[Fuego]

I know what you mean democrats need to find a strong candidate for the next presidential election or I dont know what we normal people will do.

Whats your take on the apppointed new judge?

Edit.....I ate a word

[Superficial]

WTF I'M NOT READING ALL THAT

[Halcyon]

I know what you mean democrats need to find a strong candidate for the next presidential election or I dont know what we normal people will do.

Whats your take on the apppointed new judge?

Edit.....I ate a word
I think he's going to waste a lot of time on issues that have been decided upon and need no revisitation.

[Halcyon]

WTF I'M NOT READING ALL THAT
:roll:

[Fuego]

I dint read it either :oops: but I thought my questions were rather good.

[Halcyon]

I dint read it either :oops: but I thought my questions were rather good.
I bold things for a reason, people. :shock:

[Fuego]

I know what you mean democrats need to find a strong candidate for the next presidential election or I dont know what we normal people will do.

Whats your take on the apppointed new judge?

Edit.....I ate a word
I think he's going to waste a lot of time on issues that have been decided upon and need no revisitation.

According to the news he has no intent on changing anything that was previously been resolved (Roe Vs Wade) he was only going to interpret and work on whatever new issues come up.

One last thing is it just me or some reason people have been mixing politics and religion when it came to making a decision on the new judge.

[Halcyon]

I know what you mean democrats need to find a strong candidate for the next presidential election or I dont know what we normal people will do.

Whats your take on the apppointed new judge?

Edit.....I ate a word
I think he's going to waste a lot of time on issues that have been decided upon and need no revisitation.

According to the news he has no intent on changing anything that was previously been resolved (Roe Vs Wade) he was only going to interpret and work on whatever new issues come up.

One last thing is it just me or some reason people have been mixing politics and religion when it came to making a decision on the new judge.
The news reports what he says but mark my words, he will perform a full court press against a number of issues. The reason why people mix it is because we obviously have a Jesus freak in the court and thats no good.

[Equality 7-2521]

I'm just going to chime in here...
Neo, did you even read the entire article? He was quite obviously not advocating the abortion of black children. Moreover, it is somewhat unfair to suggest that he was. That is the kind of thing that you can scream really loudly about, and it won't matter that it has nothing to do with what was actually said. Simply unfair, and not at all surprising

[Fuego]

I'm just going to chime in here...
Neo, did you even read the entire article? He was quite obviously not advocating the abortion of black children. Moreover, it is somewhat unfair to suggest that he was. That is the kind of thing that you can scream really loudly about, and it won't matter that it has nothing to do with what was actually said. Simply unfair, and not at all surprising

Please share your interpretation of the article with me.

[Halcyon]

I'm just going to chime in here...
Neo, did you even read the entire article? He was quite obviously not advocating the abortion of black children. Moreover, it is somewhat unfair to suggest that he was. That is the kind of thing that you can scream really loudly about, and it won't matter that it has nothing to do with what was actually said. Simply unfair, and not at all surprising
I read the article and heard the entire clip. I even bolded up the part where he defends himself. I know he believes it immoral to cease the procreation of an entire segment of humanity, but really, his comment equated blacks with crime. I mean come on. He was talking about abortion and crime on the show, no mention of blacks and he brought it into the mix himself with no provocation. I'm sorry but the guy can't defend that. The guy is still saying that crime has to do with race.

[Equality 7-2521]

I'm just going to chime in here...
Neo, did you even read the entire article? He was quite obviously not advocating the abortion of black children. Moreover, it is somewhat unfair to suggest that he was. That is the kind of thing that you can scream really loudly about, and it won't matter that it has nothing to do with what was actually said. Simply unfair, and not at all surprising

Please share your interpretation of the article with me.

Well, it's much more likely that he meant his statement in the way that he claims to have meant it. That is, it was a hypothetical situation (I'm not sure of the entire context, but I'm willing to take him at his word with respect to the point of the hypothetical; that is to illustrate a difficulty in an "ends justify means" way of thinking. Although, it does serve that puropse rather poorly). In any case, the natural reading of the statemtn itself is not one of advocacy; if it were, he would have said "should" instead of "could" (I admit that you could advocate something by saying "could" only that isn't the most natural reading of it). That, coupled with the fact that no politician in their right mind would ever make such a statemtn in public, makes it highly unlikely that he meant it other than how he claims. With that, it seems like to read it in the way that Neo, and all of the other indignant commentators, have could only be the result of effort put forth to skew this guy's words into something more awful that what they actually were.

Neo, I think, is right to be upset that he suggests that blacks are instinctually violent. That, as opposed to advocating abortion, is at least a natural reading of his words. Although, again, it is not the only one. And in any case, it wasn't the point. At worst it was an insensitive (perhaps racist) side-something resulting from a poor hypothetical. Also, as stupid as the hypo was, it may be true. I'm no expert on the relation between crime and race vs that between crime and socio-economic something.

That was too long, my only point is that it is extremely likely that he was not advocating abortion of anyone

[Equality 7-2521]

What a fucking dickhead. I mean come on. Yeah, lets abort blacks from now on

Aborting black children? You just can't defend that!

You were clearly suggesting that he means to advocate abortion

[Halcyon]

I'm just going to chime in here...
Neo, did you even read the entire article? He was quite obviously not advocating the abortion of black children. Moreover, it is somewhat unfair to suggest that he was. That is the kind of thing that you can scream really loudly about, and it won't matter that it has nothing to do with what was actually said. Simply unfair, and not at all surprising

Please share your interpretation of the article with me.

Well, it's much more likely that he meant his statement in the way that he claims to have meant it. That is, it was a hypothetical situation (I'm not sure of the entire context, but I'm willing to take him at his word with respect to the point of the hypothetical; that is to illustrate a difficulty in an "ends justify means" way of thinking. Although, it does serve that puropse rather poorly). In any case, the natural reading of the statemtn itself is not one of advocacy; if it were, he would have said "should" instead of "could" (I admit that you could advocate something by saying "could" only that isn't the most natural reading of it). That, coupled with the fact that no politician in their right mind would ever make such a statemtn in public, makes it highly unlikely that he meant it other than how he claims. With that, it seems like to read it in the way that Neo, and all of the other indignant commentators, have could only be the result of effort put forth to skew this guy's words into something more awful that what they actually were.

Neo, I think, is right to be upset that he suggests that blacks are instinctually violent. That, as opposed to advocating abortion, is at least a natural reading of his words. Although, again, it is not the only one. And in any case, it wasn't the point. At worst it was an insensitive (perhaps racist) side-something resulting from a poor hypothetical. Also, as stupid as the hypo was, it may be true. I'm no expert on the relation between crime and race vs that between crime and socio-economic something.

That was too long, my only point is that it is extremely likely that he was not advocating abortion of anyone
If that is your only qualm, then yes, I agree with you. I mean that hypothetical shouldnt even be made. It only shows how racist he is. He could have easily pursued a more intellectual debate by examining the real studies correlating abortion with the crime rate, but no, Mr. Bennett took the ignorant route and said..."well, guess what...the coloreds are in jail a lot, if we didnt have them because of abortion, THEN you could say abortion is reducing the crime rate" and thats essentially what he was saying, but really, that hypothetical shows he equates blacks with a high crime rate. I mean come on, that bigot could have left "race" out of it. The very hypothetical of aborting black kids for the sake of lowering crime, despite it being a hypothetical, AT LEAST tells me that this guy believes that blacks, from the day they are born, are a "racial" group that are more prone to criminal behavior than other "races".

[Halcyon]

What a fucking dickhead. I mean come on. Yeah, lets abort blacks from now on

Aborting black children? You just can't defend that!

You were clearly suggesting that he means to advocate abortion
I realize I did suggest that but I was angered by the hypothetical and perhaps I should have gone more into the topic like I did in other next posts. I know he doesnt like abortion, but the hypothetical only bothered me because he didnt have to mention blacks at all. Abortion and crime. When you bring in blacks, that shows something about the way you think, regardless of how "justified" he is in saying what he said.

[your 15 minutes are up]

OK, I'm not supporting the guy in any way, but just thinking about this topic.

I obviously firmly oppose the systematic abortion of an entire race, it was reprehensible of him to suggest this.

However, I do believe there probably is a link between poverty and crime, i.e. the majority of crimes are committed by the poorer groups in society. Unfortunately, a large percentage of people in these groups are of course non-white (and I'm not suggesting this is a symptom of their inferiority, just stating a reality in Western society).

So, the general point, and I'm not being racist, that dealing with certain ethnic groups who are at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale will probably lead to a greater decrease in crime. Obviously, I'm not talking about "aborting all black babies" or any other disgusting genocidal policy. But it is an unavoidable fact that inequalities exist which lead certain groups to commit more crimes than others. Saying "a black person is more likely to be arrested than a white person" is probably true.

Again, I'm not making judgement about one race's superiority to another, just stating unfortunate realities.

[Check Please]

Hard to believe people are even debating this one..

Guess it's a sign of the times :?

[Halcyon]

OK, I'm not supporting the guy in any way, but just thinking about this topic.

I obviously firmly oppose the systematic abortion of an entire race, it was reprehensible of him to suggest this.

However, I do believe there probably is a link between poverty and crime, i.e. the majority of crimes are committed by the poorer groups in society. Unfortunately, a large percentage of people in these groups are of course non-white (and I'm not suggesting this is a symptom of their inferiority, just stating a reality in Western society).

So, the general point, and I'm not being racist, that dealing with certain ethnic groups who are at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale will probably lead to a greater decrease in crime. Obviously, I'm not talking about "aborting all black babies" or any other disgusting genocidal policy. But it is an unavoidable fact that inequalities exist which lead certain groups to commit more crimes than others. Saying "a black person is more likely to be arrested than a white person" is probably true.

Again, I'm not making judgement about one race's superiority to another, just stating unfortunate realities.
Well said and its exactly how he should have put it. He went on a tangent that only expoused his racist views. Instead of saying that maybe if we decrease the inequalities in our society, there we be less crime AND abortion, he brought in the race factor and just said essentially... "I think of it this way: the only way abortion would reduce crime is if the most criminally prone people, such as blacks (interestly enough), were aborted."

[Equality 7-2521]

If that is your only qualm, then yes, I agree with you. I mean that hypothetical shouldnt even be made. It only shows how racist he is. He could have easily pursued a more intellectual debate by examining the real studies correlating abortion with the crime rate, but no, Mr. Bennett took the ignorant route and said..."well, guess what...the coloreds are in jail a lot, if we didnt have them because of abortion, THEN you could say abortion is reducing the crime rate" and thats essentially what he was saying, but really, that hypothetical shows he equates blacks with a high crime rate. I mean come on, that bigot could have left "race" out of it. The very hypothetical of aborting black kids for the sake of lowering crime, despite it being a hypothetical, AT LEAST tells me that this guy believes that blacks, from the day they are born, are a "racial" group that are more prone to criminal behavior than other "races".

I think the truth is that there is some connection between blacks and crime. It is unclear to me that that is the case for any one reason more than another; like I said, I'm no expert. But the truth is, there is are a lot of blacks in jail (presumably because they commited crimes). My guess is that he chose that because there is that connection, yet aborting a race of children is among the most horrendous things that any of us can imagine.
Indeed, as I am going through this with you, I think I am beginning to guess the context. Someone perhaps said that abortion would be good for x reason, and our secretary responded with his hypo, intending to imply that sometimes you can get good results by doing horrible things - you shouldn't do those horrible things. That being the case (if it is), chances are he pulled that out b/c there is at least some connection (between blacks and crimes; you cannot deny this), but the idea of aborting them is so egregious that whatever good result is unjustified. His comment, then, was probably the result of the connection being so obvious and at hand, rather then an expression of a racists belief. He should, perhaps, apologize, but his only mistake was not thinking his hypo through, not being a bigot

[Halcyon]

If that is your only qualm, then yes, I agree with you. I mean that hypothetical shouldnt even be made. It only shows how racist he is. He could have easily pursued a more intellectual debate by examining the real studies correlating abortion with the crime rate, but no, Mr. Bennett took the ignorant route and said..."well, guess what...the coloreds are in jail a lot, if we didnt have them because of abortion, THEN you could say abortion is reducing the crime rate" and thats essentially what he was saying, but really, that hypothetical shows he equates blacks with a high crime rate. I mean come on, that bigot could have left "race" out of it. The very hypothetical of aborting black kids for the sake of lowering crime, despite it being a hypothetical, AT LEAST tells me that this guy believes that blacks, from the day they are born, are a "racial" group that are more prone to criminal behavior than other "races".

I think the truth is that there is some connection between blacks and crime. It is unclear to me that that is the case for any one reason more than another; like I said, I'm no expert. But the truth is, there is are a lot of blacks in jail (presumably because they commited crimes). My guess is that he chose that because there is that connection, yet aborting a race of children is among the most horrendous things that any of us can imagine.
Indeed, as I am going through this with you, I think I am beginning to guess the context. Someone perhaps said that abortion would be good for x reason, and our secretary responded with his hypo, intending to imply that sometimes you can get good results by doing horrible things - you shouldn't do those horrible things. That being the case (if it is), chances are he pulled that out b/c there is at least some connection (between blacks and crimes; you cannot deny this), but the idea of aborting them is so egregious that whatever good result is unjustified. His comment, then, was probably the result of the connection being so obvious and at hand, rather then an expression of a racists belief. He should, perhaps, apologize, but his only mistake was not thinking his hypo through, not being a bigot
Arent you black/arab? I'd like to hear about what you think is the connection between blacks and crime.

[yoyomellow]

I understand both sides of this conversation, but when you come right down to it, this guy shouldn't have even opened his mouth. He should have known his comments would be taken out of context and given other implications...and to even suggest that as a hypothetical was downright pathetic and sad. Equality, i'm sorry to say but I don't think the 'less blacks, less crime' is correct AT ALL..

[Equality 7-2521]

If that is your only qualm, then yes, I agree with you. I mean that hypothetical shouldnt even be made. It only shows how racist he is. He could have easily pursued a more intellectual debate by examining the real studies correlating abortion with the crime rate, but no, Mr. Bennett took the ignorant route and said..."well, guess what...the coloreds are in jail a lot, if we didnt have them because of abortion, THEN you could say abortion is reducing the crime rate" and thats essentially what he was saying, but really, that hypothetical shows he equates blacks with a high crime rate. I mean come on, that bigot could have left "race" out of it. The very hypothetical of aborting black kids for the sake of lowering crime, despite it being a hypothetical, AT LEAST tells me that this guy believes that blacks, from the day they are born, are a "racial" group that are more prone to criminal behavior than other "races".

I think the truth is that there is some connection between blacks and crime. It is unclear to me that that is the case for any one reason more than another; like I said, I'm no expert. But the truth is, there is are a lot of blacks in jail (presumably because they commited crimes). My guess is that he chose that because there is that connection, yet aborting a race of children is among the most horrendous things that any of us can imagine.
Indeed, as I am going through this with you, I think I am beginning to guess the context. Someone perhaps said that abortion would be good for x reason, and our secretary responded with his hypo, intending to imply that sometimes you can get good results by doing horrible things - you shouldn't do those horrible things. That being the case (if it is), chances are he pulled that out b/c there is at least some connection (between blacks and crimes; you cannot deny this), but the idea of aborting them is so egregious that whatever good result is unjustified. His comment, then, was probably the result of the connection being so obvious and at hand, rather then an expression of a racists belief. He should, perhaps, apologize, but his only mistake was not thinking his hypo through, not being a bigot
Arent you black/arab? I'd like to hear about what you think is the connection between blacks and crime.

The "connection" to which I was referring (the one that I think the secretary made, and that I see as undeniable) was the very real one that blacks make up a disproportionate percentage of the people in prison. So I guess, blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites, let's say.
I don't imagine that that is what you're asking. So I'll start by this: like I said, I'm no expert. Also, I would imagine that socio-econmic factors play a very large role in criminal behavior. Even, I want to say that. But who cares what I want? I'm not really in a position to say that the is no relationship between genes/race and violence. And even if I were, that wouldn't save us. I'm am similarly in no position to say that there is no connection (by which I mean causal genetic relationship) between race and socio-economic status.
I'm very unsure as to the whole of it, but I think it would be unscientific for me to say that there is no connection given my limited knowledge; it would be wishful thinking, on my part. I suppose as a note, I'll say that the one guy (not the dead one) who wrote The Bell Curve thinks that he has found that blacks have a lower g factor. I don't know about this, but if it were true, that could explain the SE connection, which would mean that however you look at it there is a genetic causal relationship.
But again, I don't know if I buy it. I'm only saying that I don't know. And that being the case, I am unwilling to commit (which is to say, assume an answer) one way or another

I'm not arab.

[your 15 minutes are up]

i'm sorry to say but I don't think the 'less blacks, less crime' is correct AT ALL..

Not because blacks are inherently more criminal or inferior, no. But, generally, "less very poor people, less crime", because these are the people with fewest assets/resources in a society and are thus more likely to turn to crime. And since, unfairly, the poor in Western society tend to be predominantly non-white ethnic groups, it's probably true statistically to say there is a link between race and crime.

Of course, the way to solve this is completely and utterly not what the guy said. It was morally inexcusable and I agree with you, to even say such a comment and not realize how it would be perceived shows at best incredible naivete and at worst disgusting contempt for the black community.

Probably a better argument would be to say "the fewer poor black people, the less crime". Or, for that matter, the fewer poor people of any race.

[Equality 7-2521]

I understand both sides of this conversation, but when you come right down to it, this guy shouldn't have even opened his mouth. He should have known his comments would be taken out of context and given other implications...and to even suggest that as a hypothetical was downright pathetic and sad. Equality, i'm sorry to say but I don't think the 'less blacks, less crime' is correct AT ALL..

I'm not saying that it is either (I am, again, saying that I don't know). But more importantly I'm saying that that was not the point of what the secretary was saying. It was only a poor hypo, intended to get at something that liberals would understand, and thereby show them the fallacious nature of their "ends justify" abortion argument.

Also, I don't think that it is fair to blame him for people distorting his meaning.

[Acadia]

Shouldn't everyone pretty much hate 'ultra' anythings, when discussing politics?

[msdeeva]

If that is your only qualm, then yes, I agree with you. I mean that hypothetical shouldnt even be made. It only shows how racist he is. He could have easily pursued a more intellectual debate by examining the real studies correlating abortion with the crime rate, but no, Mr. Bennett took the ignorant route and said..."well, guess what...the coloreds are in jail a lot, if we didnt have them because of abortion, THEN you could say abortion is reducing the crime rate" and thats essentially what he was saying, but really, that hypothetical shows he equates blacks with a high crime rate. I mean come on, that bigot could have left "race" out of it. The very hypothetical of aborting black kids for the sake of lowering crime, despite it being a hypothetical, AT LEAST tells me that this guy believes that blacks, from the day they are born, are a "racial" group that are more prone to criminal behavior than other "races".

I think the truth is that there is some connection between blacks and crime. It is unclear to me that that is the case for any one reason more than another; like I said, I'm no expert. But the truth is, there is are a lot of blacks in jail (presumably because they commited crimes). My guess is that he chose that because there is that connection, yet aborting a race of children is among the most horrendous things that any of us can imagine.
Indeed, as I am going through this with you, I think I am beginning to guess the context. Someone perhaps said that abortion would be good for x reason, and our secretary responded with his hypo, intending to imply that sometimes you can get good results by doing horrible things - you shouldn't do those horrible things. That being the case (if it is), chances are he pulled that out b/c there is at least some connection (between blacks and crimes; you cannot deny this), but the idea of aborting them is so egregious that whatever good result is unjustified. His comment, then, was probably the result of the connection being so obvious and at hand, rather then an expression of a racists belief. He should, perhaps, apologize, but his only mistake was not thinking his hypo through, not being a bigot


I really don't have time to take you through an entire class of how socioeconomical status is linked to crime and how Blacks in this country have a generally lower socioeconomical status (effects of racism and red-lining in America) when comparing different ethnic groups across the board. So, I'm going to leave you with a hypothetical notion that just might wake your ass up:

What if Jesse Jackson said: "If we aborted every white baby, we would get rid of serial killers."

Would that statement seem racist, then?

[Equality 7-2521]

i'm sorry to say but I don't think the 'less blacks, less crime' is correct AT ALL..

Not because blacks are inherently more criminal or inferior, no. But, generally, "less very poor people, less crime", because these are the people with fewest assets/resources in a society and are thus more likely to turn to crime. And since, unfairly, the poor in Western society tend to be predominantly non-white ethnic groups, it's probably true statistically to say there is a link between race and crime.

Of course, the way to solve this is completely and utterly not what the guy said. It was morally inexcusable and I agree with you, to even say such a comment and not realize how it would be perceived shows at best incredible naivete and at worst disgusting contempt for the black community.

Probably a better argument would be to say "the fewer poor black people, the less crime". Or, for that matter, the fewer poor people of any race.

But my understanding of this is that it was a debate on abortion. If my assumptions are correct, he likely chose "aborting black children" because that is about as bad as it gets. To show why ends don't justify means he choose a means that is a terrible as it gets and coupled it with a desirable end. He could, perhaps, have said "aborting poor children", but I think 1) the connection would be less clear and 2) "aborting black children" just sounds worse, which was his intention

[Halcyon]

If that is your only qualm, then yes, I agree with you. I mean that hypothetical shouldnt even be made. It only shows how racist he is. He could have easily pursued a more intellectual debate by examining the real studies correlating abortion with the crime rate, but no, Mr. Bennett took the ignorant route and said..."well, guess what...the coloreds are in jail a lot, if we didnt have them because of abortion, THEN you could say abortion is reducing the crime rate" and thats essentially what he was saying, but really, that hypothetical shows he equates blacks with a high crime rate. I mean come on, that bigot could have left "race" out of it. The very hypothetical of aborting black kids for the sake of lowering crime, despite it being a hypothetical, AT LEAST tells me that this guy believes that blacks, from the day they are born, are a "racial" group that are more prone to criminal behavior than other "races".

I think the truth is that there is some connection between blacks and crime. It is unclear to me that that is the case for any one reason more than another; like I said, I'm no expert. But the truth is, there is are a lot of blacks in jail (presumably because they commited crimes). My guess is that he chose that because there is that connection, yet aborting a race of children is among the most horrendous things that any of us can imagine.
Indeed, as I am going through this with you, I think I am beginning to guess the context. Someone perhaps said that abortion would be good for x reason, and our secretary responded with his hypo, intending to imply that sometimes you can get good results by doing horrible things - you shouldn't do those horrible things. That being the case (if it is), chances are he pulled that out b/c there is at least some connection (between blacks and crimes; you cannot deny this), but the idea of aborting them is so egregious that whatever good result is unjustified. His comment, then, was probably the result of the connection being so obvious and at hand, rather then an expression of a racists belief. He should, perhaps, apologize, but his only mistake was not thinking his hypo through, not being a bigot
Arent you black/arab? I'd like to hear about what you think is the connection between blacks and crime.

The "connection" to which I was referring (the one that I think the secretary made, and that I see as undeniable) was the very real one that blacks make up a disproportionate percentage of the people in prison. So I guess, blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites, let's say.
I don't imagine that that is what you're asking. So I'll start by this: like I said, I'm no expert. Also, I would imagine that socio-econmic factors play a very large role in criminal behavior. Even, I want to say that. But who cares what I want? I'm not really in a position to say that the is no relationship between genes/race and violence. And even if I were, that wouldn't save us. I'm am similarly in no position to say that there is no connection (by which I mean causal genetic relationship) between race and socio-economic status.
I'm very unsure as to the whole of it, but I think it would be unscientific for me to say that there is no connection given my limited knowledge; it would be wishful thinking, on my part. I suppose as a note, I'll say that the one guy (not the dead one) who wrote The Bell Curve thinks that he has found that blacks have a lower g factor. I don't know about this, but if it were true, that could explain the SE connection, which would mean that however you look at it there is a genetic causal relationship.
But again, I don't know if I buy it. I'm only saying that I don't know. And that being the case, I am unwilling to commit (which is to say, assume an answer) one way or another

I'm not arab.
Sorry. I wasnt sure which is why I asked since I wasnt all that clear from the chats we've had on yahoo.

Ok, I see that you're not sure but I'm kinda getting the feeling that you seem to be open to the idea that blacks are different in some way. All I know is that nature wouldnt intend one species to have its excessively violent segment. It defeats the purpose of the continuation of a species over millions of generations since one part of the species would decimate the rest of it with their aggressive behavior. I mean even logically, you can see that it just isnt like that, it can't be. We are an aggressive species in general. Its just that skin color and socioeconomic conditions sway that both ways. Our behavior, whatever "race" we are is just a result of our yet to be matured evolutionary development. We will improve.

[msdeeva]

But my understanding of this is that it was a debate on abortion. If my assumptions are correct, he likely chose "aborting black children" because that is about as bad as it gets. To show why ends don't justify means he choose a means that is a terrible as it gets and coupled it with a desirable end. He could, perhaps, have said "aborting poor children", but I think 1) the connection would be less clear and 2) "aborting black children" just sounds worse, which was his intention

I don't think you get IT at all. You would have to assume that Blacks are inherently evil in order to even entertain that thought (the ends don't justify the means). The fact that he is entertaining it means that he thinks Black ppl are born with a "crime gene"

[Halcyon]

Shouldn't everyone pretty much hate 'ultra' anythings, when discussing politics?
Yes.

[Equality 7-2521]

I really don't have time to take you through an entire class of how socioeconomical status is linked to crime and how Blacks in this country have a generally lower socioeconomical status (effects of racism and red-lining in America) when comparing different ethnic groups across the board. So, I'm going to leave you with a hypothetical notion that just might wake your ass up:

What if Jesse Jackson said: "If we aborted every white baby, we would get rid of serial killers."

Would that statement seem racist, then?

It would be strange if a quote about whites "would wake me up" since I'm black, but I'm gonna have to say yes. However, I'm also gonna have to say that I said his statement did seem reacist. Also, I'm gonna have to say that this entirely misses the point. The connection between whites and serial killing is not nearly as salient (to me, at least) thatn that between blacks and crime. Thus, it would have failed in its function in the hypothetical - which would make it seem superfluous, and not an attempt to show the choicers the flaw in teir rationale

[msdeeva]

oops saw reply

[Halcyon]

i'm sorry to say but I don't think the 'less blacks, less crime' is correct AT ALL..

Not because blacks are inherently more criminal or inferior, no. But, generally, "less very poor people, less crime", because these are the people with fewest assets/resources in a society and are thus more likely to turn to crime. And since, unfairly, the poor in Western society tend to be predominantly non-white ethnic groups, it's probably true statistically to say there is a link between race and crime.

Of course, the way to solve this is completely and utterly not what the guy said. It was morally inexcusable and I agree with you, to even say such a comment and not realize how it would be perceived shows at best incredible naivete and at worst disgusting contempt for the black community.

Probably a better argument would be to say "the fewer poor black people, the less crime". Or, for that matter, the fewer poor people of any race.

But my understanding of this is that it was a debate on abortion. If my assumptions are correct, he likely chose "aborting black children" because that is about as bad as it gets. To show why ends don't justify means he choose a means that is a terrible as it gets and coupled it with a desirable end. He could, perhaps, have said "aborting poor children", but I think 1) the connection would be less clear and 2) "aborting black children" just sounds worse, which was his intention
It would make sense for him to say that, but he didnt.

[Equality 7-2521]

But my understanding of this is that it was a debate on abortion. If my assumptions are correct, he likely chose "aborting black children" because that is about as bad as it gets. To show why ends don't justify means he choose a means that is a terrible as it gets and coupled it with a desirable end. He could, perhaps, have said "aborting poor children", but I think 1) the connection would be less clear and 2) "aborting black children" just sounds worse, which was his intention

I don't think you get IT at all. You would have to assume that Blacks are inherently evil in order to even entertain that thought (the ends don't justify the means). The fact that he is entertaining it means that he thinks Black ppl are born with a "crime gene"

I'm just going to assume that you haven't read any of my posts in this thread

[Equality 7-2521]

Like I've said before:

What if Jesse Jackson said: "If we aborted every white baby, we would get rid of serial killers."

Would that statement seem racist, then?
Again: READ

[msdeeva]

I really don't have time to take you through an entire class of how socioeconomical status is linked to crime and how Blacks in this country have a generally lower socioeconomical status (effects of racism and red-lining in America) when comparing different ethnic groups across the board. So, I'm going to leave you with a hypothetical notion that just might wake your ass up:

What if Jesse Jackson said: "If we aborted every white baby, we would get rid of serial killers."

Would that statement seem racist, then?

It would be strange if a quote about whites "would wake me up" since I'm black, but I'm gonna have to say yes. However, I'm also gonna have to say that I said his statement did seem reacist. Also, I'm gonna have to say that this entirely misses the point. The connection between whites and serial killing is not nearly as salient (to me, at least) thatn that between blacks and crime. Thus, it would have failed in its function in the hypothetical - which would make it seem superfluous, and not an attempt to show the choicers the flaw in teir rationale

Have you taken a Sociology class, or are you just speaking from your own point of view. Please provide me with your sources for information on the links btwn Black ppl and crime. Like I said before, if you improve socioeconomics in any ethnicity, crime will go down. So killing babies is not going to solve the crime ratios.

[msdeeva]

Like I've said before:

What if Jesse Jackson said: "If we aborted every white baby, we would get rid of serial killers."

Would that statement seem racist, then?
Again: READ

scroll up: fixed b4 you posted this. :D

[yoyomellow]

i'm sorry to say but I don't think the 'less blacks, less crime' is correct AT ALL..

Not because blacks are inherently more criminal or inferior, no. But, generally, "less very poor people, less crime", because these are the people with fewest assets/resources in a society and are thus more likely to turn to crime. And since, unfairly, the poor in Western society tend to be predominantly non-white ethnic groups, it's probably true statistically to say there is a link between race and crime.

Of course, the way to solve this is completely and utterly not what the guy said. It was morally inexcusable and I agree with you, to even say such a comment and not realize how it would be perceived shows at best incredible naivete and at worst disgusting contempt for the black community.

Probably a better argument would be to say "the fewer poor black people, the less crime". Or, for that matter, the fewer poor people of any race.

I see your point, and I agree.

[your 15 minutes are up]

i'm sorry to say but I don't think the 'less blacks, less crime' is correct AT ALL..

Not because blacks are inherently more criminal or inferior, no. But, generally, "less very poor people, less crime", because these are the people with fewest assets/resources in a society and are thus more likely to turn to crime. And since, unfairly, the poor in Western society tend to be predominantly non-white ethnic groups, it's probably true statistically to say there is a link between race and crime.

Of course, the way to solve this is completely and utterly not what the guy said. It was morally inexcusable and I agree with you, to even say such a comment and not realize how it would be perceived shows at best incredible naivete and at worst disgusting contempt for the black community.

Probably a better argument would be to say "the fewer poor black people, the less crime". Or, for that matter, the fewer poor people of any race.

But my understanding of this is that it was a debate on abortion. If my assumptions are correct, he likely chose "aborting black children" because that is about as bad as it gets. To show why ends don't justify means he choose a means that is a terrible as it gets and coupled it with a desirable end. He could, perhaps, have said "aborting poor children", but I think 1) the connection would be less clear and 2) "aborting black children" just sounds worse, which was his intention

The guy's clearly a fascist prick, otherwise he wouldn't have dreamed of saying such a thing.

I'm not supporting the mass abortion of any race, or indeed any socioeconomic group. I'm just saying that there's a link between race and crime, simply because of how society is structured. Of course you're right, the ends certainly don't justify the "means" he suggested. It's imperative to try and decrease inequalities, and therefore crime, by much more humane means.

[Equality 7-2521]

I really don't have time to take you through an entire class of how socioeconomical status is linked to crime and how Blacks in this country have a generally lower socioeconomical status (effects of racism and red-lining in America) when comparing different ethnic groups across the board. So, I'm going to leave you with a hypothetical notion that just might wake your ass up:

What if Jesse Jackson said: "If we aborted every white baby, we would get rid of serial killers."

Would that statement seem racist, then?

It would be strange if a quote about whites "would wake me up" since I'm black, but I'm gonna have to say yes. However, I'm also gonna have to say that I said his statement did seem reacist. Also, I'm gonna have to say that this entirely misses the point. The connection between whites and serial killing is not nearly as salient (to me, at least) thatn that between blacks and crime. Thus, it would have failed in its function in the hypothetical - which would make it seem superfluous, and not an attempt to show the choicers the flaw in teir rationale

Have you taken a Sociology class, or are you just speaking from your own point of view. Please provide me with your sources for information on the links btwn Black ppl and crime. Like I said before, if you improve socioeconomics in any ethnicity, crime will go down. So killing babies is not going to solve the crime ratios.

Please don't do this....
The only thing that I have commited to in in this thread is my lack of knowledge. But it seems hard to deny that blacks make up a disproportionate percentage of teh prison population - I refuse to provide a link for that.
But again, it was a hypothetical - meant to show that ends don't always justify means - perhaps poor, fair enough. I think he used it because the connection (the real one) is readily available and salient and to abort them is trerrible... good God

[Equality 7-2521]

Like I've said before:

What if Jesse Jackson said: "If we aborted every white baby, we would get rid of serial killers."

Would that statement seem racist, then?
Again: READ

scroll up: fixed b4 you posted this. :D
Sorry, I don't mean to sound annoyed. Only it is hard to respond to so many people at one time. Forgive me, I am getting pissy; I shouldn't
Although I didn't like it that you said I didn't ge it

[msdeeva]

I'm just going to assume that you haven't read any of my posts in this thread

--I think the truth is that there is some connection between blacks and crime. It is unclear to me that that is the case for any one reason more than another; like I said, I'm no expert. But the truth is, there is are a lot of blacks in jail (presumably because they commited crimes).--

Well, I read some of what you said. This strikes me as interesting in particular. I guess you would need to do some research or take a class to see the parallel btwn racism/socioeconomical oppression and crime. In addition. I could point toward some documentaries to get you started. In addition, not all of them have committed those crimes. I'm not saying that some didn't, but there are others that have been falsely accused, because they look like the "usual suspect."

In any case, if it the script was flipped, and another race was oppressed, you'd see the same thing. But that doesn't mean you'd have less crime if you killed all the babies.

I'm sorry too. I'm getting pissy a little bit too.

[UserName]

So like, lets mate!

[Equality 7-2521]

i'm sorry to say but I don't think the 'less blacks, less crime' is correct AT ALL..

Not because blacks are inherently more criminal or inferior, no. But, generally, "less very poor people, less crime", because these are the people with fewest assets/resources in a society and are thus more likely to turn to crime. And since, unfairly, the poor in Western society tend to be predominantly non-white ethnic groups, it's probably true statistically to say there is a link between race and crime.

Of course, the way to solve this is completely and utterly not what the guy said. It was morally inexcusable and I agree with you, to even say such a comment and not realize how it would be perceived shows at best incredible naivete and at worst disgusting contempt for the black community.

Probably a better argument would be to say "the fewer poor black people, the less crime". Or, for that matter, the fewer poor people of any race.

But my understanding of this is that it was a debate on abortion. If my assumptions are correct, he likely chose "aborting black children" because that is about as bad as it gets. To show why ends don't justify means he choose a means that is a terrible as it gets and coupled it with a desirable end. He could, perhaps, have said "aborting poor children", but I think 1) the connection would be less clear and 2) "aborting black children" just sounds worse, which was his intention

The guy's clearly a fascist prick, otherwise he wouldn't have dreamed of saying such a thing.

I'm not supporting the mass abortion of any race, or indeed any socioeconomic group. I'm just saying that there's a link between race and crime, simply because of how society is structured. Of course you're right, the ends certainly don't justify the "means" he suggested. It's imperative to try and decrease inequalities, and therefore crime, by much more humane means.

But I think (Neo, you have to tell me if I'm right on this) his opponent used an "ends" argument in support of abortion - he only meant, "that is not a good argument"

[Equality 7-2521]

So like, lets mate!

what did you do?

[Halcyon]

But I think (Neo, you have to tell me if I'm right on this) his opponent used an "ends" argument in support of abortion - he only meant, "that is not a good argument"
You are right on this.

[msdeeva]

Please don't do this....
The only thing that I have commited to in in this thread is my lack of knowledge. But it seems hard to deny that blacks make up a disproportionate percentage of teh prison population - I refuse to provide a link for that.
But again, it was a hypothetical - meant to show that ends don't always justify means - perhaps poor, fair enough. I think he used it because the connection (the real one) is readily available and salient and to abort them is trerrible... good God

Well, I guess b/c I don't see it as a hypothetical, I can't agree with you. For him to say that it's a hypothetical and think that it would work given the situation: kill Black babies = crime rate goes down, it tells me worlds of information about this man. First of all, it tells me that he's uneducated. It is not an intrinsic factor that makes Black ppl commit crime. There are alot of extrinsic factors, namely: lower socioeconomical status and plain old racism. Let's entertain his little "hypothesis." If this were sanctioned, another ethnic minority would be subject to the same type of racism that Black ppl are, that's just the way society works. Then where would we be. Same amount of crime.

So, basically, I'm saying that he believes that Black ppl are inherently evil and subject to crime without external factors. Therefore his a racist pig.

Period.

[Equality 7-2521]

In any case, if it the script was flipped, and another race was oppressed, you'd see the same thing. But that doesn't mean you'd have less crime if you killed all the babies.


I agree, but the upshot of that is that the secretary doesn't understand how things work, not that he is some bigot, which is all that I have been saying

[msdeeva]

If you want to see an example, go rent "White Man's Burden" with John Travolta.

[UserName]

Considering African Americans make up like, 9342 percent of the economics and like, everything else, I don't think they'll be that stupid to kill off such a dominant population.

And plus, in todays world, there's no such thing as a full race.

[msdeeva]

In any case, if it the script was flipped, and another race was oppressed, you'd see the same thing. But that doesn't mean you'd have less crime if you killed all the babies.


I agree, but the upshot of that is that the secretary doesn't understand how things work, not that he is some bigot, which is all that I have been saying

That means he's uneducated if he doesn't understand how things work. He shouldn't be the Secretary. And ignorance is part of the definition of being a racist. Just because someone's raised to be a racist and they don't know anything different, doesn't make it ok.

[msdeeva]

Considering African Americans make up like, 9342 percent of the economics and like, everything else, I don't think they'll be that stupid to kill off such a dominant population.

And plus, in todays world, there's no such thing as a full race.

Tell the Census Bureau that. :wink:

[Equality 7-2521]

If you want to see an example, go rent "White Man's Burden" with John Travolta.

I have seen it. And I agree that his hypo was dumb, but that doesn't make him a racist - he just didn't think it all of the way through

EDIT: I just realized that I am CONSERVATIVE AS HELL

[msdeeva]

If you want to see an example, go rent "White Man's Burden" with John Travolta.

I have seen it. And I agree that his hypo was dumb, but that doesn't make him a racist - he just didn't think it all of the way through

Here's what I said about that:

That means he's uneducated if he doesn't understand how things work. He shouldn't be the Secretary. And ignorance is part of the definition of being a racist. Just because someone's raised to be a racist and they don't know anything different, doesn't make it ok.

[Halcyon]

If you want to see an example, go rent "White Man's Burden" with John Travolta.

I have seen it. And I agree that his hypo was dumb, but that doesn't make him a racist - he just didn't think it all of the way through

EDIT: I just realized that I am CONSERVATIVE AS HELL
LOL, just now?

[Equality 7-2521]

If you want to see an example, go rent "White Man's Burden" with John Travolta.

I have seen it. And I agree that his hypo was dumb, but that doesn't make him a racist - he just didn't think it all of the way through

Here's what I said about that:

That means he's uneducated if he doesn't understand how things work. He shouldn't be the Secretary. And ignorance is part of the definition of being a racist. Just because someone's raised to be a racist and they don't know anything different, doesn't make it ok.

Well, I don't think ignorance is part of the definition of racist - I think it has only to do with disliking (/thinking inferior) because of race. It is unclear from his statement that that is the case. It is clear that he gave a poor hypo

[endblink]

Context (http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280006).

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.

Anyone suggesting he was putting forth a hypothetical quite obviously don't know what they are talking about. Nowhere in there did he state this as an opinion or a hypothetical. He stated it as a fact. TWICE.

The man is a racist, uneducated bigot, and anyone defending him needs to check themselves.

This argument is officially over.

[Equality 7-2521]

If you want to see an example, go rent "White Man's Burden" with John Travolta.

I have seen it. And I agree that his hypo was dumb, but that doesn't make him a racist - he just didn't think it all of the way through

EDIT: I just realized that I am CONSERVATIVE AS HELL
LOL, just now?

I just spent like 2 hours defending this guy's and his dumb comment, against like everyone. I just thought "What the hell have I been doing?"
Then it hit me

[Halcyon]

If you want to see an example, go rent "White Man's Burden" with John Travolta.

I have seen it. And I agree that his hypo was dumb, but that doesn't make him a racist - he just didn't think it all of the way through

Here's what I said about that:

That means he's uneducated if he doesn't understand how things work. He shouldn't be the Secretary. And ignorance is part of the definition of being a racist. Just because someone's raised to be a racist and they don't know anything different, doesn't make it ok.

Well, I don't think ignorance is part of the definition of racist - I think it has only to do with disliking (/thinking inferior) because of race. It is unclear from his statement that that is the case. It is clear that he gave a poor hypo
If you dont think that ignorance has anything to do with racism, then you REALLY need to think through thing before you paint yourself into a corner here my friend.

[Equality 7-2521]

Context (http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280006).

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.

Anyone suggesting he was putting forth a hypothetical quite obviously don't know what they are talking about. Nowhere in there did he state this as an opinion or a hypothetical. He stated it as a fact. TWICE.

The man is a racist, uneducated bigot, and anyone defending him needs to check themselves.

This arguement is officially over.

The if/then form of his statement suggests that it was a hypo

[your 15 minutes are up]

If you want to see an example, go rent "White Man's Burden" with John Travolta.

I have seen it. And I agree that his hypo was dumb, but that doesn't make him a racist - he just didn't think it all of the way through



Most people could think of other ways to solve crime and other socioeconomic problems. Anyone who proposes the mass abortion of an entire race, for whatever reason, must be a racist.

[Equality 7-2521]

If you want to see an example, go rent "White Man's Burden" with John Travolta.

I have seen it. And I agree that his hypo was dumb, but that doesn't make him a racist - he just didn't think it all of the way through

Here's what I said about that:

That means he's uneducated if he doesn't understand how things work. He shouldn't be the Secretary. And ignorance is part of the definition of being a racist. Just because someone's raised to be a racist and they don't know anything different, doesn't make it ok.

Well, I don't think ignorance is part of the definition of racist - I think it has only to do with disliking (/thinking inferior) because of race. It is unclear from his statement that that is the case. It is clear that he gave a poor hypo
If you dont think that ignorance has anything to do with racism, then you REALLY need to think through thing before you paint yourself into a corner here my friend.
Oh stop it. The qoute is right there in front of you. I said "definition"

[Equality 7-2521]

If you want to see an example, go rent "White Man's Burden" with John Travolta.

I have seen it. And I agree that his hypo was dumb, but that doesn't make him a racist - he just didn't think it all of the way through



Most people could think of other ways to solve crime and other socioeconomic problems. Anyone who proposes the mass abortion of an entire race, for whatever reason, must be a racist.

Good God, have we already forgotten? He wasn't propposing this - he was saying that ends don't always justify the means - this was his illustration. You could say he was doing the opposite of advocating it

[msdeeva]

[quote=msdeeva]If you want to see an example, go rent "White Man's Burden" with John Travolta.

I have seen it. And I agree that his hypo was dumb, but that doesn't make him a racist - he just didn't think it all of the way through


Well, I don't think ignorance is part of the definition of racist - I think it has only to do with disliking (/thinking inferior) because of race. It is unclear from his statement that that is the case. It is clear that he gave a poor hypo

Are you kidding me. Wow. Have you ever met someone that was racist? A lot of times ppl are racist b/c they don't know anything different then what they've been taught. Translation: they're ignorant to outside knowledge/influences. Just b/c someone is taught to say the n-word and doesn't know any better, they're not going to get a free pass with me. Sorry. In addition, the perpetuation of stereotypes is founded on ignorance. Where do you think stereotypes even come from? Stereotypes often drives the act of racism. If you need concrete examples, I'll be happy to give them to you.

[endblink]

The if/then form of his statement suggests that it was a hypoIncorrect. In your own words, read it again.

Trust me when I say that the last thing you want to do is argue semantics and syntax with me. You're incredibly out of your league.

[Equality 7-2521]

The if/then form of his statement suggests that it was a hypoIncorrect. In your own words, read it again.

Trust me when I say that the last thing you want to do is argue semantics and syntax with me. You're incredibly out of your league.

Thanks for the warning
Umm, it was an if/then statement: if you wanted to reduce crime, then you could abort blacks

[iambatman]

If you want to see an example, go rent "White Man's Burden" with John Travolta.

I have seen it. And I agree that his hypo was dumb, but that doesn't make him a racist - he just didn't think it all of the way through



Most people could think of other ways to solve crime and other socioeconomic problems. Anyone who proposes the mass abortion of an entire race, for whatever reason, must be a racist.

Good God, have we already forgotten? He wasn't propposing this - he was saying that ends don't always justify the means - this was his illustration. You could say he was doing the opposite of advocating it

I had a civics teacher suggest that we quaratine all the gay people to get rid of aids. He used it as an example for one of his lesson and didn't mean it. I wish I could remeber the lesson, because it would be useful right now.

[your 15 minutes are up]

If you want to see an example, go rent "White Man's Burden" with John Travolta.

I have seen it. And I agree that his hypo was dumb, but that doesn't make him a racist - he just didn't think it all of the way through



Most people could think of other ways to solve crime and other socioeconomic problems. Anyone who proposes the mass abortion of an entire race, for whatever reason, must be a racist.

Good God, have we already forgotten? He wasn't propposing this - he was saying that ends don't always justify the means - this was his illustration. You could say he was doing the opposite of advocating it

But why even say it then, if the thought hadn't occurred to him? I'm sorry, but "the opposite of advocating it" would be not even thinking about it, not even considering for a moment that it could be the right thing to do. Not only did this guy think of it, he thought enough of it to announce that it could potentially be a feasible way to lower the crime rate.

[msdeeva]

If you want to see an example, go rent "White Man's Burden" with John Travolta.

I have seen it. And I agree that his hypo was dumb, but that doesn't make him a racist - he just didn't think it all of the way through



Most people could think of other ways to solve crime and other socioeconomic problems. Anyone who proposes the mass abortion of an entire race, for whatever reason, must be a racist.

Good God, have we already forgotten? He wasn't propposing this - he was saying that ends don't always justify the means - this was his illustration. You could say he was doing the opposite of advocating it

You aren't getting it. He was saying that it was wrong to sanction this, but it would work.

Killing Black babies will not make the crime rate go down, period. He said that it would, therefore he's a racist. He thinks that Black ppl are inherently predisposed to committing crimes, therefore that makes him a racist, esp b/c he's in a position of power.

[Equality 7-2521]

If you want to see an example, go rent "White Man's Burden" with John Travolta.

I have seen it. And I agree that his hypo was dumb, but that doesn't make him a racist - he just didn't think it all of the way through



Most people could think of other ways to solve crime and other socioeconomic problems. Anyone who proposes the mass abortion of an entire race, for whatever reason, must be a racist.

Good God, have we already forgotten? He wasn't propposing this - he was saying that ends don't always justify the means - this was his illustration. You could say he was doing the opposite of advocating it

But why even say it then, if the thought hadn't occurred to him? I'm sorry, but "the opposite of advocating it" would be not even thinking about it, not even considering for a moment that it could be the right thing to do. Not only did this guy think of it, he thought enough of it to announce that it could potentially be a feasible way to lower the crime rate.

I'm gonna scream, you guys, seriously. He was simply thinkning of THE WORST POSSIBLE THING that might be used to produce a good result.

[yoyomellow]

Would it be wrong of me, Equality, to just say that your defending this guy against all of us because your conservative as hell, like this Bill Bennett? I think arguing past this is ridiculous..

[msdeeva]

The if/then form of his statement suggests that it was a hypoIncorrect. In your own words, read it again.

Trust me when I say that the last thing you want to do is argue semantics and syntax with me. You're incredibly out of your league.

Thanks for the warning
Umm, it was an if/then statement: if you wanted to reduce crime, then you could abort blacks

Like others and myself have already said: That would not work. Therefore, if he thinks it would, he thinks Black ppl are genetically predisposed to commit crime. Therefore, he is a racist.

That was a proof statement...

[Acadia]

The violent crime rate is tied DIRECTLY to the percentage of the population that is male and 18-27. There is really no other statistic that you need to know. It has always been that way - and it always will be that way.

[Equality 7-2521]

The if/then form of his statement suggests that it was a hypoIncorrect. In your own words, read it again.

Trust me when I say that the last thing you want to do is argue semantics and syntax with me. You're incredibly out of your league.

Thanks for the warning
Umm, it was an if/then statement: if you wanted to reduce crime, then you could abort blacks

Like others and myself have already said: That would not work. Therefore, if he thinks it would, he thinks Black ppl are genetically predisposed to commit crime. Therefore, he is a racist.

That was a proof statement...

Or he's just dumb and thinks that it would work

In response to everyone else (save yoyo)- I take it I'm the only one here who still knows the context of the statment

yoyo- I don't really understand what you're saying, there

[msdeeva]

I'm gonna scream, you guys, seriously. He was simply thinkning of THE WORST POSSIBLE THING that might be used to produce a good result.

I'm going to SCREAM: b/c you're not getting it.

IT WOULD NOT PRODUCE A GOOD RESULT!!!!

CRIME WOULD NOT GO DOWN

HE THINKS BLACK PPL ARE INHERENTLY PREDISPOSED TO COMMITTING CRIME

THEREFORE, HE'S RACIST!!!!

[your 15 minutes are up]

The violent crime rate is tied DIRECTLY to the percentage of the population that is male and 18-27. There is really no other statistic that you need to know. It has always been that way - and it always will be that way.

Maybe you have more knowledge of this than me, but I find it hard to believe that socioeconomic factors play no part, i.e. the crime rate is surely higher in poorer areas than in richer ones. :?

[Equality 7-2521]

I'm gonna scream, you guys, seriously. He was simply thinkning of THE WORST POSSIBLE THING that might be used to produce a good result.

I'm going to SCREAM: b/c you're not getting it.

IT WOULD NOT PRODUCE A GOOD RESULT!!!!

CRIME WOULD NOT GO DOWN

HE THINKS BLACK PPL ARE INHERENTLY PREDISPOSED TO COMMITTING CRIME

THEREFORE, HE'S RACIST!!!!

LOOK
PERHAPS HE IS WRONG AND THINKS THAT IT WOULD PRODUCE A GOOD RESULT; PERHAPS HE THINK THAT GETTING RID OF THE POOREST WOULD PRODUCE A GOOD RESULT
HE IS WRONG OF COURSE, BUT BEING WRONG IS NOT AN IMPOSSIBILITY, HENCE YOUR PROOF WAS NO PROOF AT ALL

[endblink]

Thanks for the warning
Umm, it was an if/then statement: if you wanted to reduce crime, then you could abort blacksThis goes against your original argument.

This is a suggestion, not a hypothetical. A hypothetical is " Of, relating to, or based on a hypothesis".

Meaning that a hypothetical of the above statement would be:

"The abortion of Black people might lead to the reduction of crime"

It leaves the option to be rebutted and refuted, as any educated person could tell you. When a hypothesis becomes a truism, it then becomes fact.

However, if you read the quote instead of ignoring it, what he SAYS is:

[...] if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.

Followed by:

[...] your crime rate would go down.Those have no modifiers indicating a questioning or an uncertainty.

The "if" you are attempting to contend is a conjunctive for "sole purpose". Meaning the only thing he's leaving as an option is the increasing number of ways to modify or "reduce crime rate". It is not in reference to the outcome or end means of "aborting Black babies".

Try again, kid.

[msdeeva]

Or he's just dumb and thinks that it would work


Ok, sweetie. If he's dumb and thinks it would work, he's a racist. Guess why. I'll give you three guesses.

Here goes: Since he's in a position of power and thinks all black children are predisposed to committing crime, what do you think will happen if a Black person applies for a job and he's the interviewer? Or if he wants to rent a house, do you think he'll rent it out to an African American? Do you think he gives a rat's ass what happens to Black communities since he thinks Blacks are predisposed to committing crimes?

Are you catching my drift, yet?

[msdeeva]

BUT BEING WRONG IS NOT AN IMPOSSIBILITY, HENCE YOUR PROOF WAS NO PROOF AT ALL

Have you taken a statistics or geometry course before? wrong = null = impossibility, kay.

[Equality 7-2521]

Thanks for the warning
Umm, it was an if/then statement: if you wanted to reduce crime, then you could abort blacksThis goes against your original argument.

This is a suggestion, not a hypothetical. A hypothetical is " Of, relating to, or based on a hypothesis".

Meaning that a hypothetical of the above statement would be:

"The abortion of Black people might lead to the reduction of crime"

It leaves the option to be rebutted and refuted, as any educated person could tell you. When a hypothesis becomes a truism, it then becomes fact.

However, if you read the quote instead of ignoring it, what he SAYS is:

[...] if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.

Followed by:

[...] your crime rate would go down.Those have no modifiers indicating a questioning or an uncertainty.

The "if" you are attempting to contend is a conjunctive for "sole purpose". Meaning the only thing he's leaving as an option is the increasing number of ways to modify or "reduce crime rate". It is not in reference to the outcome or end means of "aborting Black babies".

Try again, kid.
Why did you just look that up, ignoring the other definitions - I bet you are the only one who doesn't understand that this is a hypo - this is the stupidest - so I'm just going to call an end to it now ( and yes - risk my "rep" on the hope that everyone else gets it) - I refuse to be drawn into stupidity

[Acadia]

The violent crime rate is tied DIRECTLY to the percentage of the population that is male and 18-27. There is really no other statistic that you need to know. It has always been that way - and it always will be that way.

Maybe you have more knowledge of this than me, but I find it hard to believe that socioeconomic factors play no part, i.e. the crime rate is surely higher in poorer areas than in richer ones. :?

That is true - but it is still ties to the ages of the males. Poor women do not commit a large amount of violent crimes. Poor males do.

[msdeeva]

The violent crime rate is tied DIRECTLY to the percentage of the population that is male and 18-27. There is really no other statistic that you need to know. It has always been that way - and it always will be that way.

Maybe you have more knowledge of this than me, but I find it hard to believe that socioeconomic factors play no part, i.e. the crime rate is surely higher in poorer areas than in richer ones. :?

That is true - but it is still ties to the ages of the males. Poor women do not commit a large amount of violent crimes. Poor males do.

Yeah, but you said there isn't any other statistic that you need to know. And then you just named two factors: 1.) poor, 2.) male.

There you go, argument squashed.

[Equality 7-2521]

BUT BEING WRONG IS NOT AN IMPOSSIBILITY, HENCE YOUR PROOF WAS NO PROOF AT ALL

Have you taken a statistics or geometry course before? wrong = null = impossibility, kay.

This is almost worse than what'shisface's thing - you said that since aborting blacks wouldn't work unless they are predisposed, he must think that they are. I am saying that he may think that aborting blacks would work, whether they are predisposed or not - which would be wrong (however, wrong it is still possible for him to think this)

[endblink]

Why did you just look that up, ignoring the other definitions - I bet you are the only one who doesn't understand that this is a hypo - this is the stupidest - so I'm just going to call an end to it now ( and yes - risk my "rep" on the hope that everyone else gets it) - I refuse to be drawn into stupidityAww, how cute.

The irony, of course being, that I am currently in a University level grammatical structure course, studying this shit.

When I said you're out of your league, I really meant you have no chance against me.

Look, I don't boast often, but I'm telling you, it's good that you're turning tail and running, because you can't win this. You have no argument and absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[msdeeva]

Why did you just look that up, ignoring the other definitions - I bet you are the only one who doesn't understand that this is a hypo - this is the stupidest - so I'm just going to call an end to it now ( and yes - risk my "rep" on the hope that everyone else gets it) - I refuse to be drawn into stupidity

You were just proven wrong, and then you bail.

Open your eyes, read, and try to comprehend. I'm not trying to be mean, but I think you're really close-minded, and you don't want to be open to what anyone else has to say.

Hopefully one day you'll see the light. Cause right now I'm sad for you.

[Equality 7-2521]

ok you guys.. this is it
Hypothetical: 2)Conditional; contingent

"if/then" denotes a conditional - if I have to go further, I won't
I hate you for bring me to this stupid level

[msdeeva]

BUT BEING WRONG IS NOT AN IMPOSSIBILITY, HENCE YOUR PROOF WAS NO PROOF AT ALL

Have you taken a statistics or geometry course before? wrong = null = impossibility, kay.

This is almost worse than what'shisface's thing - you said that since aborting blacks wouldn't work unless they are predisposed, he must think that they are. I am saying that he may think that aborting blacks would work, whether they are predisposed or not - which would be wrong (however, wrong it is still possible for him to think this)

Huh. Please correct grammatical errors so I can read. I'll try to make sense of it anyway:

If he thinks that aborting Black babies would work, he's a racist. If you can't comprehend that after reading through this board, like I said before: I'm sad for you. If you have the means, please to to college. If you are in college, please take a African-American studies, sociology, or comparative genocide course so you can speak more intelligently about this subject from now on.

[Equality 7-2521]

BUT BEING WRONG IS NOT AN IMPOSSIBILITY, HENCE YOUR PROOF WAS NO PROOF AT ALL

Have you taken a statistics or geometry course before? wrong = null = impossibility, kay.

This is almost worse than what'shisface's thing - you said that since aborting blacks wouldn't work unless they are predisposed, he must think that they are. I am saying that he may think that aborting blacks would work, whether they are predisposed or not - which would be wrong (however, wrong it is still possible for him to think this)

Huh. Please correct grammatical errors so I can read. I'll try to make sense of it anyway:

If he thinks that aborting Black babies would work, he's a racist. If you can't comprehend that after reading through this board, like I said before: I'm sad for you. If you have the means, please to to college. If you are in college, please take a African-American studies, sociology, or comparative genocide course so you can speak more intelligently about this subject from now on.

Forgive the errors
You guys have drained the hope out of me

[yoyomellow]

Equality, you're a good guy still.. don't be drained of hope.
i think all of us can agree (and i know equality too) that aborting black babies is something that will never happen, and that it is a horrible 'scenario' to even come up with..

[Acadia]

The violent crime rate is tied DIRECTLY to the percentage of the population that is male and 18-27. There is really no other statistic that you need to know. It has always been that way - and it always will be that way.

Maybe you have more knowledge of this than me, but I find it hard to believe that socioeconomic factors play no part, i.e. the crime rate is surely higher in poorer areas than in richer ones. :?

That is true - but it is still ties to the ages of the males. Poor women do not commit a large amount of violent crimes. Poor males do.

Yeah, but you said there isn't any other statistic that you need to know. And then you just named two factors: 1.) poor, 2.) male.

There you go, argument squashed.

I said males 18-27. The fact that a high percentage of that set is poor does not affect the overall truth.

[msdeeva]

ok you guys.. this is it
Hypothetical: 2)Conditional; contingent

"if/then" denotes a conditional - if I have to go further, I won't
I hate you for bring me to this stupid level

But he's not really making a hypothetical statement. He's proposing a theory of his that he thinks would really happen. Hypothetical statements denote a "maybe" this will happen, if I do this. He's not saying that at all. He's saying "if you do this, the following will happen" which is more of a theoretical statement.


[...] if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.

Note: "and" in bold. He saying that this will happen. Not a very hypothetical statement to me. This just shows you that he does think that Black children are predisposed to committing crime, which demonstrates his negative racial notions of Black ppl in general.

[msdeeva]

I said males 18-27. The fact that a high percentage of that set is poor does not affect the overall truth.

Basically when dealing with statistics, a good researcher takes into account all factors, and shows how they are correlated with the finding.

[your 15 minutes are up]

ok you guys.. this is it
Hypothetical: 2)Conditional; contingent

"if/then" denotes a conditional - if I have to go further, I won't
I hate you for bring me to this stupid level

I'm not going to claim I have perfect grammar or anything. But, as someone already pointed out, and I can't remember the exact quote, but the guy used the word would, so there was no condition. He claimed that if you aborted black babies, the crime rate would fall.
To even suggest this is a). morally reprehensible and b). wrong, because it isn't the genetic basis of black people to commit crimes, it's merely socioeconomic conditions which make crimes more prevalent in their racial group.

[Equality 7-2521]

ok you guys.. this is it
Hypothetical: 2)Conditional; contingent

"if/then" denotes a conditional - if I have to go further, I won't
I hate you for bring me to this stupid level

But he's not really making a hypothetical statement. He's proposing a theory of his that he thinks would really happen. Hypothetical statements denote a "maybe" this will happen, if I do this. He's not saying that at all. He's saying "if you do this, the following will happen" which is more of a theoretical statement.


[...] if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.

Note: "and" in bold. He saying that this will happen. Not a very hypothetical statement to me. This just shows you that he does think that Black children are predisposed to committing crime, which demonstrates his negative racial notions of Black ppl in general.

You have misunderstood hypotheticals
I have to go to work - If I don't respond for a while, I will

[UserName]

This topic is thriving.

[msdeeva]

ok you guys.. this is it
Hypothetical: 2)Conditional; contingent

"if/then" denotes a conditional - if I have to go further, I won't
I hate you for bring me to this stupid level

But he's not really making a hypothetical statement. He's proposing a theory of his that he thinks would really happen. Hypothetical statements denote a "maybe" this will happen, if I do this. He's not saying that at all. He's saying "if you do this, the following will happen" which is more of a theoretical statement.


[...] if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.

Note: "and" in bold. He saying that this will happen. Not a very hypothetical statement to me. This just shows you that he does think that Black children are predisposed to committing crime, which demonstrates his negative racial notions of Black ppl in general.

You have misunderstood hypotheticals
I have to go to work - If I don't respond for a while, I will

Actually, no I haven't. I have a BS in Biology, so my definitions are scientifically based around the proper ways to do research. Hypotheticals are used all the time in Science (and Math), so I think I have a pretty good grasp.

Couple that with a bunch of English coursework, and I'm good to go.

[Halcyon]

ok you guys.. this is it
Hypothetical: 2)Conditional; contingent

"if/then" denotes a conditional - if I have to go further, I won't
I hate you for bring me to this stupid level

But he's not really making a hypothetical statement. He's proposing a theory of his that he thinks would really happen. Hypothetical statements denote a "maybe" this will happen, if I do this. He's not saying that at all. He's saying "if you do this, the following will happen" which is more of a theoretical statement.


[...] if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.

Note: "and" in bold. He saying that this will happen. Not a very hypothetical statement to me. This just shows you that he does think that Black children are predisposed to committing crime, which demonstrates his negative racial notions of Black ppl in general.

You have misunderstood hypotheticals
I have to go to work - If I don't respond for a while, I will
I agree. Msdeeva, you need to think through what you are saying more. I'm leaving work so yeah, continue if you want, everybody.

[msdeeva]

I'm not going to claim I have perfect grammar or anything. But, as someone already pointed out, and I can't remember the exact quote, but the guy used the word would, so there was no condition. He claimed that if you aborted black babies, the crime rate would fall.
To even suggest this is a). morally reprehensible and b). wrong, because it isn't the genetic basis of black people to commit crimes, it's merely socioeconomic conditions which make crimes more prevalent in their racial group.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Please read this Halcyon/Neo and Equality.

[your 15 minutes are up]

ok you guys.. this is it
Hypothetical: 2)Conditional; contingent

"if/then" denotes a conditional - if I have to go further, I won't
I hate you for bring me to this stupid level

But he's not really making a hypothetical statement. He's proposing a theory of his that he thinks would really happen. Hypothetical statements denote a "maybe" this will happen, if I do this. He's not saying that at all. He's saying "if you do this, the following will happen" which is more of a theoretical statement.


[...] if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.

Note: "and" in bold. He saying that this will happen. Not a very hypothetical statement to me. This just shows you that he does think that Black children are predisposed to committing crime, which demonstrates his negative racial notions of Black ppl in general.

You have misunderstood hypotheticals
I have to go to work - If I don't respond for a while, I will
I agree. Msdeeva, you need to think through what you are saying more. I'm leaving work so yeah, continue if you want, everybody.

Don't be fucking pedantic. I don't care exactly what grammatical structure is being used here. I know that when a guy says "your crime rate would go down", he is stating this as if it's a fact, i.e. killing black babies will solve the crime problems of a country. He didn't say, "it might go down", he said it would, i.e. as if he were stating some kind of scientific proof. Even leaving aside the blatant immorality of even suggesting such a thing, he's plain wrong. It's not race per se that dictates crime levels, it's more socioeconomic factors and there would still be an underbelly of poor people who needed to turn to crime and would do so. Their skin colour is irrelevant.

Anyway, that's it for me on this one. I really need to get off my computer. 8)

[endblink]

ok you guys.. this is it
Hypothetical: 2)Conditional; contingent

"if/then" denotes a conditional - if I have to go further, I won't
I hate you for bring me to this stupid levelDude, you want to keep testing me? Let's go.

hy·po·thet·i·cal (hī'pə-thĕt'ĭ-kəl) pronunciation also hy·po·thet·ic (-thĕt'ĭk)
adj.

1. Of, relating to, or based on a hypothesis: a hypothetical situation. See synonyms at theoretical.
2.
1. Suppositional; uncertain. See synonyms at supposed.
2. Conditional; contingent.I've already shown you how (1) works.

(2.1)
Suppositional; uncertain. See synonyms at supposed.

Let's now focus on this one. Again, he repeats TWICE:

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.Neither of those two bolded statement have a modifier that would indicate questioning, suppositional or uncertainty. In fact, they are both called "declarative statements"; meaning they both have a concrete conclusion or meaning.

Now I will show you what is suppositional or uncertain in his statement:

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.The first "if" conjunctive modifies the validity of the statement "reduce crime rate", calling into question the desire to "reduce the crime rate" or not. The SECOND "if" conjunctive modifies "sole purposes", meaning what is suppositional or uncertain is whether all you want to do is reduce the crime rate or affect other areas as well, or not affect anything at all.

They DO NOT modify the result of "aborting Black babies", they also DO NOT modify the correlation of what would happen to crime if you aborted Black babies. The "hypothetical" - the suppositional or uncertainty - is whether you intend to reduce the crime rate and/or how far you are willing to go.

(2.2)

2. Conditional; contingent.

Once again, the contingency or conditional in the statements are whether you intend to reduce the crime rate and/or how far you are willing to go.

f you wanted to question the contingency or conditional of whether aborting Black babies would affect the crime rate, you would have to word it as such:

"The abortion of Black people might lead to the reduction of crime"

or

"If we aborted Black babies, would it reduce the crime rate?"

or, as a statement:

"Aborted Black babies might reduce the crime rate."

All three indicate a conditional that there is a correlation between crime and the abortion of Black babies. Which, as you'll notice, is not what Bennett expressed.

Keep trying, kid. It's really cute how amazingly right you're making me look.

[msdeeva]

Thanks 15 minutes and endblink. You guys broke it down. Nuthin left 4 me to say! :D

[Acadia]

I said males 18-27. The fact that a high percentage of that set is poor does not affect the overall truth.

Basically when dealing with statistics, a good researcher takes into account all factors, and shows how they are correlated with the finding.

Fair and true - but i posted my original point to illustrate what you are pointing out. Bennett was using a scare tactic to make a racist point - that it is blacks that commit crimes. I am saying that you could accomplish the same reduction in the crime rate by killing all males 18-27 (sorry, most of the posters on this board).

[UserName]

OMG! Lets end this. You guys are all turning smarty pants on each other.

[endblink]

Thanks 15 minutes and endblink. You guys broke it down. Nuthin left 4 me to say! :DAnytime, Ms. D.

Nothing bothers me more than kids that think they know what they are talking about when they very obviously don't. Especially when their ignorance spreads or justifies hate. Unacceptable.

I probably won't be back in this thread, because it's taking too much time to type all this out, but if Equality (oh, the irony) starts any more shit, just keep pointing back to my argument.

Again, not to sound to boastful here, but he's flat out wrong.

[msdeeva]

I probably won't be back in this thread, because it's taking too much time to type all this out, but if Equality (oh, the irony) starts any more shit, just keep pointing back to my argument.

Again, not to sound to boastful here, but he's flat out wrong.

I gotta go to. Have to study... :cry:

[iambatman]

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 impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down," he said.


You guys don't read past the first statement. Bennett is simple putting 2 and 2 together. Black people live in urban settings and most crime happens in urban settings. So, black people commit more crime than others. This has nothing to do with him being racist. You guys read draw unwarented inferences and assumptions. You have to read past the killing babies part to get to the meaning of his statement.

[msdeeva]

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 impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down," he said.


You guys don't read past the first statement. Bennett is simple putting 2 and 2 together. Black people live in urban settings and most crime happens in urban settings. So, black people commit more crime than others. This has nothing to do with him being racist. You guys read draw unwarented inferences and assumptions. You have to read past the killing babies part to get to the meaning of his statement.

I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over. If you kill all Black ppl, the urban places will be filled up with someone else. The urban setting has nothing to do with crime, because it will just be reserved for some other oppressed ethnic minority. Oppressing ppl so they don't have shit creates the conditions for which a person resorts to crime. Therefore, if you make conditions better, crime goes down. Killing the oppressed will not make crime go down do you understand? Getting rid of oppression will make crime go down.

Edit: How about instead of killing black ppl, you say: "If you move all black babies to beverly hills, crime rates will go down"

[Equality 7-2521]

Okay, so I can post again.
First off: I'm sorry if I was getting short with anyone - I got annoyed; I shouldn't

Now, let's consider this: imagine a discussion between two people

Pro choicer: If Roe is repealed, states will enact laws prohibiting anbortion; there will be scores of unwanted children. The crime rate will skyrocket

Now I wonder do we think that we can properly call the situation that our girl describes a hypothetical one (what result, I wonder, if she had actually placed the word "hypothetically" at the front of her "hypo")?
The real answer to that is "who cares?"

Now perhaps a response
Pro lifer: If lowering the crime rate is all that you care about is keeping the crime rate low, consider this: If you were to abort all of the black children, then the crime rate would be significantly lower.

Is this a hypo? It is clear (I think) that if the first is a hypo, the second is, too. But again, real answer to that question is "whooooo caaaares?" That is because what is most clear about this situation is that the pro lifer is not advocating the practice he describes.
As to him thinking that blacks are inherently violent - it is difficult to say. But it is not necessarily so

[msdeeva]

Ok, Equality. Please reread my previous posts. Endblink also provides a very eloquent description/definition of what a hypothesis is.

I'm outro.

[Equality 7-2521]

."

All three indicate a conditional that there is a correlation between crime and the abortion of Black babies. Which, as you'll notice, is not what Bennett expressed.

Keep trying, kid. It's really cute how amazingly right you're making me look.

Forgive me endblink, I thought we were arguing about something else. I never intended to say that he does not think that the reduction of crimes would follow from the abortion of black babies. He most certainly does
As a note: I do wish people would read the discussion leading up before they chime in. I was merely saying that the situation he describes is a hypothetical one and is not one that he means to bring into fruition.

Also, please don't call me kid. it is unnecessary

NOTE: My name is taken from a character in an Ayn Rand novlette.

PS: Also, I just noticed that the suppositional parts that you highlighted are exactly those to which I have been referring. That is almost certainly my fault. I any case those parts are exactly what I and the secretary (you should really be focused on what he was saying; as I was taking his position. His meaning is fairly clear) were calling attention to

[msdeeva]

Forgive me endblink, I thought we were arguing about something else. I never intended to say that he does not think that the reduction of crimes would follow from the abortion of black babies. He most certainly does
As a note: I do wish people would read the discussion leading up before they chime in. I was merely saying that the situation he describes is a hypothetical one and is not one that he means to bring into fruition.

Also, please don't call me kid it is unnecessary

I think endblink bid her/his farewell hours ago. Anyways, no one is saying that he will bring it to fruition. What we're saying is that he did not propose a hypothesis. He made a statement as if it was a fact. For example:

"If I stab you, you will bleed."

A hypothesis would be:

"If I stab you, you might bleed."

There is a distinct difference btwn "will" and "might." "Will" denotes a definite. Which is what he was implying when he said "if you abort black babies, crime rates will go down."

Now if you don't get this very simple example, I give up. You need more help than I can provide, cause I never said I was a tutor.

Edit: Also, when you make a "will" statement, that implies that it's a fact. Therefore, if you present a fact, that implies that it's no longer a hypothesis.

[Tyrone Biggums]

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/6007/ripre7su1jy.th.jpg (http://img58.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ripre7su1jy.jpg)

[Equality 7-2521]

Forgive me endblink, I thought we were arguing about something else. I never intended to say that he does not think that the reduction of crimes would follow from the abortion of black babies. He most certainly does
As a note: I do wish people would read the discussion leading up before they chime in. I was merely saying that the situation he describes is a hypothetical one and is not one that he means to bring into fruition.

Also, please don't call me kid it is unnecessary

I think endblink bid her/his farewell hours ago. Anyways, no one is saying that he will bring it to fruition. What we're saying is that he did not propose a hypothesis. He made a statement as if it was a fact. For example:

"If I stab you, you will bleed."

A hypothesis would be:

"If I stab you, you might bleed."

There is a distinct difference btwn "will" and "might." "Will" denotes a definite. Which is what he was implying when he said "if you abort black babies, crime rates will go down."

Now if you don't get this very simple example, I give up. You need more help than I can provide, cause I never said I was a tutor.

You are misunderstanding again. Look to my edits. Also look to what the secretary said.

As a side note: hypotheses