I had a quick look at it, and my take is that Swift's statement is far less explicit because he doesn't make it clear whether he believes the Irish children are predisposed to poverty. It's implicit, and I'm inclined to guess that he did have some level of racism towards the Irish. However, unlike Bennett, there is no statement that he doesn't think this would work with the general populations of the poor, but would work with the Irish. Without that, there's not really a good way to divine his underlying opinions.DRB said:
William Bennett a virtous man
- Thread starter DRB
- Start date
Yeah, but why did Billy pick on the coloreds?Damn True said:
Also interesting you seem to be dismissing Levitt's claims. You've looked at his data and have something solid to base your dismissal on, or are you (and Bennett) just talking out of your asses?
Again, this is NOT what Bennett stated. He specifically stated that he didn't believe a reduction in births (and low income, single or teen mom, births at that, though that's only implicit) would cause a reduction in crime. You're the one ignoring the context of this comments. Read his comments leading up to the statement about black babies.Damn True said:
Read my posts carefully. I just stated he makes an EXCELLENT case against the use of Freakonomics as justification for abortion. It's just that he accidentally reveals something else (a completely secondary argument, unrelated to the abortion issue) in the process. I don't know how many different ways I can explain this to you.
See we disagree here. I don't think he is "revealing" (as he twists his snidley whiplash handlebar moustache) anything. I think he is using an absurd hypothetical situation as an illustration.ohio said:
ohio said:
Ding ding ding! We have a winner. You broke the code.
I just presented an absurd argument (not at all different from Levitt's) and you shot it down by pointing out the holes in the logic. Just as Bennett did.
It took me a few tries to do it, but I baited you. Sorry, that wasn't a nice thing to do, but the point was to illustrate how Soros, The Dem leadership and portions of the media are playing the public.
Read it again.ohio said:
I think this is less about Bennett being a racist and more about some folks wanting him to be so they can point a finger at him.
You know, there is one thing I don't get about the Swift comparison.
Swift was a well known satirist. Now, if you're arguing that Bennett is also, then the gambling and moralizing makes sense.
Of course, that seems to be a silly argument for Bennett to try to make, since he seems to take himself very seriously. So, is Bennett a satirist, or a self-appointed moralizer?
Swift was a well known satirist. Now, if you're arguing that Bennett is also, then the gambling and moralizing makes sense.
Of course, that seems to be a silly argument for Bennett to try to make, since he seems to take himself very seriously. So, is Bennett a satirist, or a self-appointed moralizer?
heheh, you're welcome to pat yourself on the back. Unfortunately you don't even understand Bennett's argument, let alone mine. You're actually arguing against Bennett, so if you think you've "won" an argument, it would be against him.Damn True said:
Reread what I wrote about Bennett's argument being a good one. Spend some time thinking about it. Then spend some more time. Then come back.
It may be more about people wanting to point the finger at him, but he slipped up in his argument in a way that paints him as a racist, and his explanations that follow don't address that correctly, which makes me think that he doesn't realize WHY what he said was racist.DRB said:
I'll lay it out again:
If this were ALL that Bennett said, he would be correct (by 3rd order causation) and I would have a hard time labelling him a racist. This is the portion DT is focusing on, and though he doesn't understand the nature of the argument, he is correct in defending Bennett based on this alone. This is similar to Swift's statement as well, in pointing out the MORAL absurdity, not the statistical absurdity (which it is not).
Unfortunately, he led into it with this:
What he states here is that he doesn't believe in the 2nd order causation that the book points out. Now if he doesn't believe in that 2nd order causation, but does believe in the 3rd order causation, than he MUST believe that being black itself is a 2nd or 1st order causation. This may have been a slip of the tongue... my guess is he didn't properly explain himself when he agreed with the caller. If he were to properly address the racist comments, he would have to go back and admit a 2nd order causation between abortion and crime... which would be political suicide because the general public doesn't understand logic or statistics, and the political parties prey on that.
So he is either a racist because he doesn't realize why what he says is wrong or he's doing the best he can to salvage himself politically by pandering to people that don't understand statistics. My hope is the second. My preference is that he actually walk through why the book is correct, but abortion as a SECOND order causation is not the correct way to approach crime reduction, but rather through the FIRST order causations such as poverty and lack of education.
Last post: the amazing thing to me is, is that the Freakonomics argument is actually making a very compelling case AGAINST abortion, but pointing out that in our society, legal abortion is, statistically speaking, a form of eugenics. Because abortions are statistically skewed towards the poor and uneducated, and poverty and lack of education is skewed towards certain cultural groups, abortion is essentially self-regulating fascism.
Of course, if pro-lifers REALLY wanted to reduce abortions, they would eliminate the demand through better education and opportunity programs to lift people out of poverty. But they're too busy punishing those people for being poor (for their own good, of course) to actually help them.
Of course, if pro-lifers REALLY wanted to reduce abortions, they would eliminate the demand through better education and opportunity programs to lift people out of poverty. But they're too busy punishing those people for being poor (for their own good, of course) to actually help them.
Oh I see exactly what you are talking about but NOT one of the pundits, Democrats, nor anyone else I have seen calling for his head has picked up on what you are saying. That's why I was very careful not to point to you when I said what I said.ohio said:
I don't agree as I think it is more likey a slip up on a radio program then some indicator of racist feelings by Bennett. I just don't see a pattern of it from him and he is in the news and public enough that he would have most likely slipped up before.
A well rounded person uses a variety of tools and thought processes to get his point across. His mistake was using it on a radio program where controlling it was far too difficult.Silver said:
A satirist generally has some stuff in the past to fall back on. Find me a bit more of Bennett being satirical (he's written enough that if he has any satirical accomplishments, they should be easy to find) and I'll be much more inclined to see it the way you do.DRB said: