News William Bennett: you could abort every black baby

[moose]

It's a racist comment, with or without advocating it, he still inferred racism.

How is it different from saying "If we abort every white child born, we will decrease obesity in the US"

because whites are generally more obese than blacks I presume...

 

[hitssquad]

Racial profiles of crime capitals such as St. Louis

If we abort all children born in St. Louis, we can lower the national murder rate.
[...]
There is probably little to no difference between the gene pool of St. Louis and the gene pool of any other major US city.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566927/St_Louis_(city).html

"According to the 2000 census, blacks were 51.2 percent of the population..."


http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#People

People United States
[...]
black 12.9%

 

[hitssquad]

whites are generally more obese than blacks

http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.asp?docID=522848

Black men had higher BMIs -- 29.1 compared to 28.2 -- than did white males. A level below 25 is considered healthy. Forty-four percent of the black men were obese, compared to 33 percent of the whites; 37 percent of the black women were obese, vs. 27 percent of the white women.

"I don't think it is a surprise that African-Americans had a high level of obesity," Lavie said. "Other studies indicate that as well."

 

[loseyourname]

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566927/St_Louis_(city).html

"According to the 2000 census, blacks were 51.2 percent of the population..."http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#People

Ha ha, I know, but I better not mention that unless I want the smurf police branding me as racist.

 

[moose]

http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.asp?docID=522848

Well, I did say I presume. Guess I was wrong, but I could find another issue to talk about... It's just the idea of it...

It's not racist what he said, it just happens to be that way that blacks apparently commit more crime. If whites committed more crime than blacks, then you could change the statement to say whites and it wouldn't change a thing. It's not racist!

 

[Smurf]

How is it different from saying "If we abort every white child born, we will decrease obesity in the US"

Nothing. That's pretty racist too.

 

[Smurf]

Well, I did say I presume. Guess I was wrong, but I could find another issue to talk about... It's just the idea of it...

It's not racist what he said, it just happens to be that way that blacks apparently commit more crime. If whites committed more crime than blacks, then you could change the statement to say whites and it wouldn't change a thing. It's not racist!

Yes it is! Just because being racist against whites is considered almost acceptable in this society doesn't make it non-racist.

 

[moose]

Yes it is! Just because being racist against whites is considered almost acceptable in this society doesn't make it non-racist.

What if one were to say that bombing a certain area of town would decrease crime rate? What would that qualify under? It's only racist in the way that it says blacks, as in a single race. Aside from that, I don't find it a horrible thing to say simply because (and if) it is backed by statistics. I find it stupid for someone to say it, but it's not something to go crazy about.

 

[Tide]

Smurf,

he still inferred racism.

Well, no. You inferred racism. He may or may not have implied it.

Moose,

What if one were to say that bombing a certain area of town would decrease crime rate?

The bombing would be the crime and offset any possible decrease.

P.S. Does anybody really care what an insignificant "has been" says about anything?

 

[Smurf]

What if one were to say that bombing a certain area of town would decrease crime rate? What would that qualify under? It's only racist in the way that it says blacks, as in a single race. Aside from that, I don't find it a horrible thing to say simply because (and if) it is backed by statistics. I find it stupid for someone to say it, but it's not something to go crazy about.

I don't know.. if someone said that I'd think they were an idiot. But I wouldn't go crazy about it.. but it's very rarely I go crazy about anything, nothing these dumbass corporatists say surprises me enough to go crazy.

And yes, it's only racist because it's specifying a race... obviously... but it is racist...

 

[Smurf]

Well, no. You inferred racism. He may or may not have implied it.

wtf?
Inference
n.
The act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.
The act of reasoning from factual knowledge or evidence.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=infer


That statement, no matter who says it, inferes that blacks cause crime. See previous post for explanation.

 

[loseyourname]

Bennett's statement doesn't infer, but rather presupposes, that blacks cause more crime than other races in the US. This is not a racist statement; it is a factual statement.

 

[Tide]

Smurf,

There's no need to get bent out of shape! You're confusing the words "imply" and "infer." One infers something from what another has said. That other person may or may have implied something.

 

[Smurf]

Bennett's statement doesn't infer, but rather presupposes,

Whatever - if bennett's statement presupposes that blacks cause crime, it is inferred from that statement (should it be assumed to be true) that.. blacks cause crime.

blacks cause more crime than other races in the US. This is not a racist statement; it is a factual statement.

No, Correlation is not Causation. Bennett's statement is racist because it implies/presummposes/leads to infer that blacks cause crime. Which is racist, and unproven.

There's no need to get bent out of shape! You're confusing the words "imply" and "infer." One infers something from what another has said. That other person may or may have implied something.

Right - you know what I meant. My bad.

 

[loseyourname]

No, Correlation is not Causation. Bennett's statement is racist because it implies/presummposes/leads to infer that blacks cause crime. Which is racist, and unproven.

If a black person commits a crime, is he not the cause of the crime? Actually, even if the answer is no, that doesn't make Bennett's statement false. Without the criminal there can be no crime, even if that criminal has absolutely no will and is not the cause of his own actions.

Note: It's not just that there exists a correlation between the number of blacks in a given area and the crime rate of that area; it is that blacks are actually committing crimes at a higher rate than other races.

If you generalize his statement to its logical end, we can restate it as "If we remove group X of people from population Y, with group X being the group that commits crimes at the highest rate of any group in population Y, then we will lower the crime rate for population Y." We can arbitarily choose any classification scheme by which we can assign people to groups, and find a scheme that identifies a causative factor. In this particular case, we isolate a racial scheme, and find that, according to this scheme, the group that commits crimes at the highest rate is blacks.

This can get a little tricky here, because there get to be a lot of grey areas. Is being black actually a causative factor in the fact that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than other races? Well, what are some of the factors that are known to cause criminal behavior? A couple:

-Being raised by abusive parents.
-Being born into poverty.
-Growing up in a crime-ridden neighborhood.
-Generally becoming acculturated at a young age into a society wherein crime is commonplace.

Now we simply ask ourselves - does being born black make one more likely to be born into the above circumstances? If the answer is yes, then being born black means that one is more likely to become a criminal than someone who is not born black. This is simple probability; it is not racism.

 

[Smurf]

That's the same kind of logic used to justify racism in Nazi Germany, Zionist Israel and Segregated America. It's still racism, and it's still wrong - and it will remain wrong until someone proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the color of your skin (alone, regardless of circumstances) affects criminal behaviour in any significant way.

 

[loseyourname]

All right, fine, that last paragraph was a footnote, a throwaway. Now that I've removed it from my post, can you respond to the actual post?

First: Is it true that you think Bennett's statement requires one to believe in genetic-level causation of criminal behavior in blacks?

Are you contending that it is false that blacks commit crime at a higher rate than other races in the US?

Another thing to note is that this statement is meant as a parody of an argument used to justify abortion. That argument is that unwanted children that grow up in poverty are more likely to commit crime later in life, so aborting them before they are born will lower the crime rate. He chose to paraphrase the argument and insert race into the mix because he knew that was the one thing that people would not be comfortable touching. Somehow, identifying potential people by socioeconomic status and eliminating them is okay with proponents of abortion, but identifying people by race is not. Bennett sees this situation as being hypocritical. If we are going to be outraged by the isolation and elimination of a racial group, then we should be just as outraged by the isolation and elimination of a socio-economic group.

 

[Smurf]

Are you contending that it is false that blacks commit crime at a higher rate than other races in the US?

No. I'm assuming it's true for the sake of the argument.

First: Is it true that you think Bennett's statement requires one to believe in genetic-level causation of criminal behavior in blacks?

Not necessarily genetic. But yes, to make that statement requires one to presuppose that being black, alone, will make one more likely to cause crime.

Bennett's statement

you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down

presupposes that black babies will grow up to be criminals merely because they are "black". Which, until a time one finds a genetic "criminal" gene which only exists in those with black colored skin, is untrue, and racist.

Don't you agree?

 

[jimmie]

Just how much monetary crime do you think there would be if all individuals were guaranteed to possesses all that is needed for as long as they live?

 

[Smurf]

Nice delivery...

 

[Anttech]

Don't you agree?

yup...:-)

 

[Townsend]

Just how much monetary crime do you think there would be if all individuals were guaranteed to possesses all that is needed for as long as they live?

I doubt it would be different since I don't think most people are stealing to pay for things they need. Most people steal to pay for drugs or to have nice things they cannot afford to buy.

 

[Townsend]

If we aborted all the white babies there would be much less racism from white people...

That is fundamentally what William Bennet said...If I were to say this it would be to illustrate how absurd it is to think any action is ok if it improves a certain situation. I doubt anyone would be complaining if he said what I said even though it means exactly the same thing.

 

[jimmie]

It, monetary crime, would be different. There would be none.

And, oh yeah, the very thing that "started" monetary crime, want, would be destroyed.

And everyone lived happily everafter.

 

[Townsend]

It, monetary crime, would be different. There would be none.

And, oh yeah, the very thing that "started" monetary crime, want, would be destroyed.

And everyone lived happily everafter.

So if someone wanted a new car and I had a million dollars in cash sitting on the sidewalk with no protection you believe that NO ONE would steal any of that money?

Or is stealing money not a monetary crime in your book?

 

[loseyourname]

It, monetary crime, would be different. There would be none.

And, oh yeah, the very thing that "started" monetary crime, want, would be destroyed.

And everyone lived happily everafter.

Taking care of a person's needs and getting rid of their wants are two completely different things. Historically speaking, people tend to want more than they need. As Townsend pointed out, not all crime is an act of a person stealing to get what he needs.

In fact, why don't we consider cases in which the ideal you want to bring about already exists? Take a look at kids who are born obscenely rich. From the moment of conception, they already have every one of their material needs taken care of. Yet many of them still engage in property crime. From this example alone, we can see that taking care of everyone's material needs is not necessarily going to do away with property crime.

 

[Townsend]

And everyone lived happily everafter.

Right...so if I could make all my own stuff and lived like a KING and everyone saw all my stuff...nice cars, computers, art work...whatever...they would not want my stuff? They would be happy with much less than what I have?

 

[jimmie]

All that is needed is enlightenment.

The transfer of right information from one individual to other individuals.

I had a million dollars in cash

And what do you believe the value of that is?

 

[Townsend]

All that is needed is enlightenment.

The transfer of right information from one individual to other individuals.



And what do you believe the value of that is?

It depends on if someone can exchange it for what they want...

I am assuming that someone could take that money and use it to acquire the new car they so desperately want.

Is that not clear from the context?

 

[jimmie]

I am assuming that someone could take that money and use it to acquire the new car they so desperately want.

That is based on the premise, which by the way is what the current world was founded upon, that the "money" and the "car" hold value.

So, do the "money" and the "car" REALLY hold value?

 

[Townsend]

That is based on the premise, which by the way is what the current world was founded upon, that the "money" and the "car" hold value.

So, do the "money" and the "car" REALLY hold value?

What has value depends on the person...I value my car because I like it. I value my computer because I like it. I would be willing to work to acquire these items because I value them. So for that person who wants the car then to them that car has value.

Although I think this is all very intuitive and I really can't believe we are even having this conversation.

 

[jimmie]

What has value depends on the person

What is perceived to hold value depends on what the person was TOLD by an other person.

Back at square one, one individual "thought" that a clamshell held value, and proceeded to tell all his friends that clamshells hold value. Are you saying that, based on that one individual's claim, an individual by the way had not been exposed to "history" as we have and that could definitely not be considered the sharpest knife in the drawer compared to today's individuals, all inanimate objects hold monetary value?

What if that one individual way back then was wrong, and inanimate objects do NOT hold monetary value?

I say either a particular thing does hold value or it does not hold value.
No middle ground. Yes or no. On or off.

Does the inanimate object hold value, or do the living individuals holding the inanimate object hold value?

 

[loseyourname]

A car holds tangible value, jimmie. It allows us to get from point A to point B faster than earlier methods (like carriages or bicycles) without having to rely on public transit. In places where there is no public transit, the value of a car is greater.

Obviously, this does rely on the subjectivity of the driver in that he must desire to get from point A to point B more quickly than he can using means other than a car, but there are many quite pragmatic reasons for the driver to do so.

 

[Townsend]

What is perceived to hold value depends on what the person was TOLD by an other person.

That is a premise, which I don't believe is true. You need to prove this before anything else you say is useful.

I say either a particular thing does hold value or it does not hold value.
No middle ground. Yes or no. On or off.

I have a picture of my little brother as a baby...what do you suppose its value is to the average person? It holds a lot of value to me...

So I just showed how value is not binary, thus that premises is false.

Does the inanimate object hold value, or do the living individuals holding the inanimate object hold value?

So it's either the people holding the object or the object that has value? What are you smoking? Clearly the option exist that neither the people nor the objects hold value or that they all have value. In any case the answer really depends on who your asking since value is not universal.

 

[jimmie]

OK, let's talk "tangible value".

You say the car, or bike, or public transit hold tangible value, and that depending on the circumstances, one holds more value than the other.

And what about the cargo that is operating and being transported by the car, or bike, or public transit? Does the operator or cargo, human individuals, hold more or less value than any of the modes? Why more? How much more? Why less? How much less?

Does the operator and live cargo of the modes of travel hold ANY value?

 

[jimmie]

That is a premise, which I don't believe is true. You need to prove this before anything else you say is useful.

Actually, its the other way around. The burden of proof is on the individuals that say an inanimate object holds value. Those individuals must PROVE that those inanimate objects hold value. Until that point, no words those individuals say are useful to Me.

 

[Townsend]

Actually, its the other way around. The burden of proof is on the individuals that say an inanimate object holds value. Those individuals must PROVE that those inanimate objects hold value. Until that point, no words those individuals say are useful to Me.

The status quo is that which you are trying to disprove. And your statement is in fact a premise so the soundness of anything based on that premise depends on the truth value of that premise. You don't base an argument on a premise because someone cannot disprove your premise.

If I have something someone wants and I can get something from them for it then that is all I need. I define value to mean something that someone wants. If that definition is meet then that item has value...simple as that.

So the burden of proof really does rest with you, and in more ways than one.

 

[jimmie]

If I have something someone wants and I can get something from them for it then that is all I need. I define value to mean something that someone wants. If that definition is meet then that item has value...simple as that.

And the world of illusion goes on, and on, and on, and on, and soooooo on.

You don't base an argument on a premise because someone cannot disprove your premise.

Why not, an entire WORLD has been based on a premise? A premise which I believe is not right.

I wonder what the "value" of caskets will be when you become extinct.

the soundness of anything based on that premise depends on the truth value of that premise

Now, let's go out on a limb here and do some extrapolation: what if the premise I have presented IS the truth?

What does that make the status quo? What does that make your premise? What does that make your world?

What does that make Me?

 

[loseyourname]

OK, let's talk "tangible value".

You say the car, or bike, or public transit hold tangible value, and that depending on the circumstances, one holds more value than the other.

And what about the cargo that is operating and being transported by the car, or bike, or public transit? Does the operator or cargo, human individuals, hold more or less value than any of the modes? Why more? How much more? Why less? How much less?

I don't think that anything holds value intrinsically, if that is what you are asking. Neither the property nor the owner has any quality intrinsic to them that can be called "value." Value is simply the term we use to denote how much something is worth to a given person. As such, anything both can or cannot have value, depending on who you ask. Townsend's family photos might hold a great deal of value to him, but they don't mean anything to me.

 

[Townsend]

Why not, an entire WORLD has been based on a premise? A premise which I believe is not right.

So you think that people don't have wants? That is the premise you want to refute in all its glory. I know I have wants and if you have every wanted anything then you do have too. People are born wanting things...and you want to refute that...unbelievable. Even more incredible is the fact that you want to refute the premise that people don’t want things. The fact that you want to do this shows that people have wants. Wants are what create value…being able to refute a premise has value to you, a value that was created by your wants.

I wonder what the "value" of caskets will be when you become extinct.

When I become extinct? I didn't know I was my own species...

Now, let's go out on a limb here and do some extrapolation: what if the premise I have presented IS the truth?

That would mean I have never wanted anything...in which case reality, as we know it would not exist.

What does that make the status quo?

It is a part of the world as we know it and will always be...if your premise is true then our reality could have never existed because reality cannot contradict itself.

What does that make your premise?

It would make it false... how much more trivial can anything be?

What does that make your world?

It is not my world in case you haven’t noticed... and it really means nothing about the world we live in.

What does that make Me?

It doesn't make anyone anything...

No offense but are you 100 percent ok? You’re not on anything that might impair your thinking are you?

 

[jimmie]

So you think that people don't have wants?

Clearly, you have not understood correctly what I have said.

It is BECAUSE of individual's "wants" that prevents those same individuals from realizing their true self and to see reality.

"Want" is everywhere, but so is reality. An individual that conquers their own self, makes it extinct, opens their own window into reality. That individual has truly become enlightened.

Until that point of enlightenment is reached, each individual is a secluded, non-integrated being, sequestered from reality by their own particular "wants", all the while possibly believing that the temporal world in which they participate is "reality".

The reality is that there is no self, only the illusion of the self.

Beyond the self is where the real fun began.

No offense but are you 100 percent ok? You’re not on anything that might impair your thinking are you?

As for being on "anything", which I speculate you mean 'drugs'. No.
I eat only fresh fruit, vegetables, nuts, seeds, grains, and drink only distilled water.

As for being 100% ok, I recommend you read other posts that I have made, and then you tell me: Are YOU "ok"?

And may I remind you, I speak from ONLY personal experience.

 

[Skyhunter]

WOW! Did this thread ever get off topic.

I have to agree with jimmie though. We are constantly bombarded with subliminal messages telling us all the things we "want".

I suggest you go out into the desert, or up in the mountains, look up at the stars, contemplate the vastness of creation, and then decide how important your personal wants and desires are in the scope of existence.

 

[Smurf]

WOW! Did this thread ever get off topic.

I know And it's not like it evolved either, it used to be about racism and then jimmie just buts in with his comment about consumerism completely out of the blue. Complete shift of topic. Smoothest hijacking ever.

 

[arildno]

I know And it's not like it evolved either, it used to be about racism and then jimmie just buts in with his comment about consumerism completely out of the blue. Complete shift of topic. Smoothest hijacking ever.

Possible connection to consumerism:
Perhaps if the mothers of the aborted fetuses sell them as high-energy fodder to the farmers, then a significant income increase in the African-American population will be the result, and hence, we may gain an even stronger drop in the crime statistics?

 

[jimmie]

"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.

The above quote from William Bennett addresses how to reduce crime.

Until I submitted my first reply, all previous replies were concerned with the racist implications inherent in the quote, and not the intended purpose of the quote itself; "thoughts" on how to reduce crime.

So, who did the hijacking?

 

[Skyhunter]

If we aborted all fetuses we could eliminate crime altogether. Just think a world free of crime and humans.

 

[arildno]

If we aborted all fetuses we could eliminate crime altogether. Just think a world free of crime and humans.

And before that glorious day comes, we could become really rich ghouls. That's also a nice prospect.

 

[jimmie]

I am aware the sarcasm inherent in the last couple responses.

If we aborted all fetuses we could eliminate crime altogether

Not possible. Even if all fetuses were aborted, that would still leave "we/us", and the "thought" that inanimate objects hold value, and therefore, the possibility and inevitability that that "thought" will be passed on to other generations.

No, the ONLY way to eliminate crime altogether is to eliminate the "thought" that inanimate objects hold value.

 

[Smurf]

Possible connection to consumerism:
Perhaps if the mothers of the aborted fetuses sell them as high-energy fodder to the farmers, then a significant income increase in the African-American population will be the result, and hence, we may gain an even stronger drop in the crime statistics?

Oh dang. How on Earth did I miss that one.

I'm getting too old for this.

 

[Smurf]

No, the ONLY way to eliminate crime altogether is to eliminate the "thought" that inanimate objects hold value.

wouldn't that mostly just eliminate property crime? and not much else.