Family values courtesy of Bill Bennett

[D_Raay]

http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2005/09/more-family-values-from-bill-bennett.html

from Media Matters:

“Addressing a caller's suggestion that the ‘lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30 years’ would be enough to preserve Social Security's solvency, radio host and former Reagan administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett dismissed such ‘far-reaching, extensive extrapolations’ by declaring that if ‘you wanted to reduce crime ... if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.’ Bennett conceded that aborting all African-American babies ‘would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do,’ then added again, ‘but the crime rate would go down.’"

But, Bill, who would then fight your damned wars?

[sam i am]

"But, Bill, who would then fight your damned wars?"

Is this saying that the military is more black than white? I'm not sure what the point of that particular query was.....

Otherwise, what an inane, asinine statement that Bennett made, if it's quoted accurately.

[Qdrop]

yeah, howard stern was tearing this guy up yesterday....

[EN[i]GMA]

He's actually right though.

If indeed you did abort every black baby, the crime would indeed go down, as blacks are more likely to commit crimes than whites, statistically speaking.

I don't see the issue here.

He was arguing AGAINST this sort of thing.

He was saying that theoretically, if you did this, the crime rate would go down, which is the absolute truth, and he then says that it's the wrong thing to do.

I have no clue who the guy is or what he does, but fuck, give him a break.

This is dispicable, not because of what he said, but becauese of how he's being portrayed.

[sam i am]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050930/ap_on_re_us/bennett_race

See the latest ^^^^

I guess you have to be pretty far off your rocker for the current Admin. to say you're crazy, eh?

[EN[i]GMA]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050930/ap_on_re_us/bennett_race

See the latest ^^^^

I guess you have to be pretty far off your rocker for the current Admin. to say you're crazy, eh?

Not really.

Actually, when this Admin. criticizes you, you can be almost assured you're in the right, unless your name is Osama or Saddam.

[sam i am]

GMA']Not really.

Actually, when this Admin. criticizes you, you can be almost assured you're in the right, unless your name is Osama or Saddam.

That was the joke, enigma ;)

[EN[i]GMA]

That was the joke, enigma ;)

I know, but it rang quite true.

[yeahwho]

The White House is desperate to bridge the ever-widening gap between Blacks and GWB. The mere fact they would issue a statement on this is absurd.

Bill Bennett is a moron for not prefacing the context of his statement. Actually he's probably just a moron in general, but the White House is so used to fueling mis-portrayals, they can't help themselves.

How many more years of this do we have? Damn.

[D_Raay]

GMA']He's actually right though.

If indeed you did abort every black baby, the crime would indeed go down, as blacks are more likely to commit crimes than whites, statistically speaking.

I don't see the issue here.

He was arguing AGAINST this sort of thing.

He was saying that theoretically, if you did this, the crime rate would go down, which is the absolute truth, and he then says that it's the wrong thing to do.

I have no clue who the guy is or what he does, but fuck, give him a break.

This is dispicable, not because of what he said, but becauese of how he's being portrayed.

Indeed, however, publicly saying so on the record is deplorable in whatever context he intended.

[EN[i]GMA]

Indeed, however, publicly saying so on the record is deplorable in whatever context he intended.

No it isn't.

He said doing such a thing would be wrong. That was the context.

He didn't 'intend' the context, he provided context.

[King PSYZ]

the fact that he said only aborting black babies would lower crime, when aborting any one ethnicity completely according to his math would reduce crime because there's less people.

he all but said black people are criminals, that's the real center of this. obviously the context makes it that much more sinister.

[D_Raay]

GMA']No it isn't.

He said doing such a thing would be wrong. That was the context.

He didn't 'intend' the context, he provided context.
Yes it is. This a classic example of subconscious racism that is seemingly inherent in the Republican party. The fact that he sincerely believes he is not racist is frightening at best.

[D_Raay]

"But, Bill, who would then fight your damned wars?"

Is this saying that the military is more black than white? I'm not sure what the point of that particular query was.....

Otherwise, what an inane, asinine statement that Bennett made, if it's quoted accurately.
It isn't my quote, however, what I think it means is that the only point at which Bennett considers black people viable in society is to fight wars, hence, why do they only send the poor, and so on...

[yeahwho]

Yes it is. This a classic example of subconscious racism that is seemingly inherent in the Republican party. The fact that he sincerely believes he is not racist is frightening at best.

The mere fact that he doesn't have enough scruples to know better, use his verbal brakes before crashing, is amazing. He was pointing out the absurdity of the context....which I understand, actually most of the chumps I hang around with here in raintown understand this, but even as far below the radar as we are, we're not spouting out hatred scenarios to make a point.

The real story here to me is the re-action (or mis re-action) of the general public. The majority of the populance will never understand what was really being said. And the White House is part of this mis-portrayal.

Not giving Bennet slack, none at all, the part I find racist is his inability to not understand the implications such statements made by public figures. This statemnet will perpetuate race relations in a bad light anyway you cut it.

And he is the former Education Secretary, you expect a little more.

To look at things on the bright side, some of you agree with the President!

"The president believes the comments were not appropriate," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

[EN[i]GMA]

the fact that he said only aborting black babies would lower crime, when aborting any one ethnicity completely according to his math would reduce crime because there's less people.

he all but said black people are criminals, that's the real center of this. obviously the context makes it that much more sinister.

No it wouldn't.

It would reduce the total instances of crime, but not the crime RATE.

I don't think you understand the math here.

[EN[i]GMA]

Yes it is. This a classic example of subconscious racism that is seemingly inherent in the Republican party. The fact that he sincerely believes he is not racist is frightening at best.

So you now know he's subconciously racist?

What qualifies you to make this statement?

[King PSYZ]

GMA']No it wouldn't.

It would reduce the total instances of crime, but not the crime RATE.

I don't think you understand the math here.
So you think black people are all criminals?

[Ace42X]

GMA']He's actually right though.

If indeed you did abort every black baby, the crime would indeed go down, as blacks are more likely to commit crimes than whites, statistically speaking.

Actually that is fallacious. That black people get arrested, stopped and caught more (and thus appear on the statistics more) is not the same as saying they are "more likely to commit crimes."

Also, just by reducing surplus population, crime rates tend to go down (regardless of the race of people being removed from the system) - however given the size of the American population, even if you removed all the black people, for the reasons we were saying earlier, a "neauveau poor" would take the place of the economically disadvantaged blacks, and would thus commit more crimes in turn.

You'd shift the crime to the next minority, and then the next, and so on.

[D_Raay]

GMA']So you now know he's subconciously racist?

What qualifies you to make this statement?
It seems pretty obvious to me. Then again why should common sense matter? It doesn't ever seem to in various debates that have come up recently. You can paint a piece of dog shit like a rainbow, but it doesn't make it NOT dog shit anymore.

[EN[i]GMA]

So you think black people are all criminals?

...

You cannot be serious.

[EN[i]GMA]

Actually that is fallacious. That black people get arrested, stopped and caught more (and thus appear on the statistics more) is not the same as saying they are "more likely to commit crimes."

I doubt you can you prove that their propensity to get arrested more is the only reason their statistics are higher.

Is it a factor? Yes, but it's not the only factor.


Also, just by reducing surplus population, crime rates tend to go down (regardless of the race of people being removed from the system) - however given the size of the American population, even if you removed all the black people, for the reasons we were saying earlier, a "neauveau poor" would take the place of the economically disadvantaged blacks, and would thus commit more crimes in turn.

Not necessarily.

Blacks also tend to be unemployed at a higher rate, so it's likely that the new group of 'poor' would be employed at a higher rate than blacks, which would likely reduce crime.


You'd shift the crime to the next minority, and then the next, and so on.

It's really a matter of poverty, not race, anyway.

[EN[i]GMA]

It seems pretty obvious to me. Then again why should common sense matter? It doesn't ever seem to in various debates that have come up recently. You can paint a piece of dog shit like a rainbow, but it doesn't make it NOT dog shit anymore.

That doesn't make any sense.

It doesn't respond to anything I've said or anything he said.

[Ace42X]

GMA']Is it a factor? Yes, but it's not the only factor.

Genetics are *not* a factor though, which means you can eliminate those assumptions from the mix.

Blacks also tend to be unemployed at a higher rate, so it's likely that the new group of 'poor' would be employed at a higher rate than blacks, which would likely reduce crime.
It's really a matter of poverty, not race, anyway.

No, reducing the total population doesn't just truncate the system off at that point. All those black people gone means less jobs for people currently employed who have to serve those black people burgers, drive their buses, make their soft-drinks, etc etc. Existing jobs would have to be cut back in direct proportion, which is why I emphasise that the *pyramid always remains the same*

So yes, it is a matter of poverty, but simply eliminating the "poor" would change nothing, as some more people would have to fill the vacuum these black people leave. I said "the next minority" because, as we can see, it is NOT genetics that cause black people to be at the bottom of the pile. So, it would be the next descriminated against group. No doubt white trailer trash would fall into this position more (without so many black people buoying them up) but more likely it would be mexicans taking the place on the bottom rung. They are alreayd an "invisible" bottom layer to the pyramid, much as the foreign workers in sweat-shops slaving away for a pittance.

[D_Raay]

GMA']That doesn't make any sense.

It doesn't respond to anything I've said or anything he said.
How so? What he said was racist despite what you claim. Whether or not he is right or wrong in his judgement is besides the point. You don't SAY something like this on live radio and expect people to completely understand your context.

The despicable part is indeed his statements. He should have maybe thought about what he was going to say before just saying "black" people. You could abort every white baby and technically get a decrease in crime as well.

[EN[i]GMA]

How so? What he said was racist despite what you claim. Whether or not he is right or wrong in his judgement is besides the point. You don't SAY something like this on live radio and expect people to completely understand your context.

The despicable part is indeed his statements. He should have maybe thought about what he was going to say before just saying "black" people. You could abort every white baby and technically get a decrease in crime as well.

Yes.

But he was trying to be as forceful in his argument as possible.

Using 'black' was meant to be emotionally evocative.

He used 'black' not because he's racist, but because it made his point all the more effective.

[EN[i]GMA]

Genetics are *not* a factor though, which means you can eliminate those assumptions from the mix.

They were never in the mix.


No, reducing the total population doesn't just truncate the system off at that point. All those black people gone means less jobs for people currently employed who have to serve those black people burgers, drive their buses, make their soft-drinks, etc etc. Existing jobs would have to be cut back in direct proportion, which is why I emphasise that the *pyramid always remains the same*

But that just isn't true for the unemployed.

You could take the unemployed out of a society and have very little effect on the overall economy.

A portion of blacks are unemployed, so their removal WOULD change the dimensions of the pyramid.


So yes, it is a matter of poverty, but simply eliminating the "poor" would change nothing, as some more people would have to fill the vacuum these black people leave. I said "the next minority" because, as we can see, it is NOT genetics that cause black people to be at the bottom of the pile. So, it would be the next descriminated against group. No doubt white trailer trash would fall into this position more (without so many black people buoying them up) but more likely it would be mexicans taking the place on the bottom rung. They are alreayd an "invisible" bottom layer to the pyramid, much as the foreign workers in sweat-shops slaving away for a pittance.

But if the said removal were to raise aggregate wages (Which it would), it would also reduce crime to a degree.

[Ace42X]

GMA']
You could take the unemployed out of a society and have very little effect on the overall economy.

No, that is a gross over-simplification of how the society interacts with the economy. The unemployed are a very big consumer demographic for starters. Secondly they, like the uber-rich, are a sink for excess cash. They are a counter-acting force to the centralisation of capitalism. (In a system with welfare. In a "pure" capitalist system, with no source of income they starve to death...)

But if the said removal were to raise aggregate wages (Which it would), it would also reduce crime to a degree.

No, because the cost of produce would have to go up accordingly. Inflation. You can't just give people more money.

[EN[i]GMA]

No, that is a gross over-simplification of how the society interacts with the economy. The unemployed are a very big consumer demographic for starters. Secondly they, like the uber-rich, are a sink for excess cash. They are a counter-acting force to the centralisation of capitalism. (In a system with welfare. In a "pure" capitalist system, with no source of income they starve to death...)

But that money comes from somewhere else in the economy via taxation and would go somewhere else if those people did not exist.

It's not as if the money allocated to them would simply disappear.


No, because the cost of produce would have to go up accordingly. Inflation. You can't just give people more money.

Then how have aggregate wages gone up, historically?

[King PSYZ]

Have you also not noticed that prices for goods have gone up as well over the years?

In fact many would argue that the prices for goods and services have risen at a faster rate than wages, which is a direct link to an increase of crime.

Again, your speaking in far flung theroies to defend a underhanded racist statement that not only included genocide, but an assumption that Black people are pre-determined to be criminals (a view it seems you support).

[EN[i]GMA]

Have you also not noticed that prices for goods have gone up as well over the years?

Yes, but even including inflation wages have risen at a tick over 2% per year for the last 100 years or so.


In fact many would argue that the prices for goods and services have risen at a faster rate than wages, which is a direct link to an increase of crime.

The price increase in yachts certainly did cause a crime wave.


Again, your speaking in far flung theroies to defend a underhanded racist statement that not only included genocide, but an assumption that Black people are pre-determined to be criminals (a view it seems you support).

Honestly, I'd not thought you this daft.

First off, the statement isn't 'underhandedly racist'.

Secondly, the statement doesn't pre-suppose the view that blacks are criminals.

These are fabrications of your mind. You WANT to hear this sort of thing so you take something that's close and super-impose some racism on it.

I don't support the notion that blacks are pre-determined to be criminals and I defy you to find a quote where I said that this is the case.

You're hearing what you want to hear and it's pitiful.

[King PSYZ]

No, you're fucking pitiful for you to deny it. In this very fucking thread you have stuck by your guns in direct quotes to my posts that if you did the same genocide to any other race it wouldn't net the same theoretical results in a drop in crime.

Anotherwords, holding up your belief that black people are pre-disposed as criminals. Fucking disgusting...

[EN[i]GMA]

No, you're fucking pitiful for you to deny it. In this very fucking thread you have stuck by your guns in direct quotes to my posts that if you did the same genocide to any other race it wouldn't net the same theoretical results in a drop in crime.

Anotherwords, holding up your belief that black people are pre-disposed as criminals. Fucking disgusting...

This is fucking pointless.

It's clear you aren't even comprehending the debate much less adding anything to it.

The reason blacks are an apt sub-group to pick is not related to genetic differences but due to their aggregate wages and unemployment levels (Which can be further traced back to slavery and even further traced back to geography) and the effects THESE have on the crime rate in the group and that group in society as a whole.

The crime rate IS higher among blacks, but not for any genetic reasons.

You have selective fucking hearing, and no matter how much you yell "La la la la RACISM! la la la la I'm not listening!" it isn't going to prove me wrong or you right.

Let me reiterate for your ignorant ass: Blacks are pre-disposed to crime because, as a group they have lower average earnings.

If it were whites in this same situation THEY would have the same propensity for crime.

Ditto for any sub-group.

If, for instance, left-handed people were demonstrably shown to have lower average earnings, it could easily be inferred (And would likely be true) that they have a higher-than-average crime rate.

We could then apply this same statement to them and it would also be true.

But I guess that means I hate left-handed people too?

:rolleyes:

[King PSYZ]

never mind...like minor threat said, it's like screaming at a wall.

[D_Raay]

GMA']Yes, but even including inflation wages have risen at a tick over 2% per year for the last 100 years or so.



The price increase in yachts certainly did cause a crime wave.



Honestly, I'd not thought you this daft.

First off, the statement isn't 'underhandedly racist'.

Secondly, the statement doesn't pre-suppose the view that blacks are criminals.

These are fabrications of your mind. You WANT to hear this sort of thing so you take something that's close and super-impose some racism on it.

I don't support the notion that blacks are pre-determined to be criminals and I defy you to find a quote where I said that this is the case.

You're hearing what you want to hear and it's pitiful.

Explain how this statement is not racist. Even if you could, which I doubt (at least to any serious degree of satisfaction), the fact remains that all the layman's out there are not going to understand or care whatever undo philosophical spin you may put on it.

[sam i am]

The mere fact that he doesn't have enough scruples to know better, use his verbal brakes before crashing, is amazing. He was pointing out the absurdity of the context....which I understand, actually most of the chumps I hang around with here in raintown understand this, but even as far below the radar as we are, we're not spouting out hatred scenarios to make a point.

The real story here to me is the re-action (or mis re-action) of the general public. The majority of the populance will never understand what was really being said. And the White House is part of this mis-portrayal.

Not giving Bennet slack, none at all, the part I find racist is his inability to not understand the implications such statements made by public figures. This statemnet will perpetuate race relations in a bad light anyway you cut it.

And he is the former Education Secretary, you expect a little more.

To look at things on the bright side, some of you agree with the President!

"The president believes the comments were not appropriate," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

I agree entirely. The real problem was Bennett commenting in the first place. The PERCEPTION of what he said is WAY more damaging than the actuality of what he was attempting to convey. He, especially, should have been smart enough to know that WHATEVER he said on this subject would be used against him.

Sad that this is the case in politics in America today, but it doesn't matter WHAT you say, but how others spin what you say that counts.

[sam i am]

Explain how this statement is not racist. Even if you could, which I doubt (at least to any serious degree of satisfaction), the fact remains that all the layman's out there are not going to understand or care whatever undo philosophical spin you may put on it.

Enigma, I'm sorry to say that I agree with D_Raay, et al, on this one.

Your earlier comments DID come off as racist. I DO understand that you are trying to back out of it somewhat now, but the PERCEPTION (as I stated above) outweighs the intellectual arguments.

Just let it lie. The whole hullabaloo is a big sink-hole.

[EN[i]GMA]

I would like to preface this by noting how funny it is that liberals are arguing about how horrific a hypothetical this is, when all he advocates is abortion albeit on a wider scale.

All he advocates is the destruction of some fetuses, which, according to you, isn't a crime at all.

I thought abortion was morally permissable?

NOTE: I too support abortion.

Explain how this statement is not racist.

That sounds like an impossible task.

You've already labeled him and his statement racist and you know full well that nothing I say will change your mind.


Even if you could, which I doubt (at least to any serious degree of satisfaction), the fact remains that all the layman's out there are not going to understand or care whatever undo philosophical spin you may put on it.

So his preface and postface of the statement with clarifying and mitigating language are, in your mind, a product of my 'undue philosophical spin'.

What?

He made a factually correct statement. He added that following his HYPOTHETICAL statement would be the wrong thing to do.

He was actually the one arguing FOR humanity, by saying that abortion lowering crime rates was necessarily a good thing.

He used an extreme example to make an extreme point. I guess he succeeded.

[sam i am]

GMA']I would like to preface this by noting how funny it is that liberals are arguing about how horrific a hypothetical this is, when all he advocates is abortion albeit on a wider scale.

All he advocates is the destruction of some fetuses, which, according to you, isn't a crime at all.

I thought abortion was morally permissable?

NOTE: I too support abortion.



That sounds like an impossible task.

You've already labeled him and his statement racist and you know full well that nothing I say will change your mind.



So his preface and postface of the statement with clarifying and mitigating language are, in your mind, a product of my 'undue philosophical spin'.

What?

He made a factually correct statement. He added that following his HYPOTHETICAL statement would be the wrong thing to do.

He was actually the one arguing FOR humanity, by saying that abortion lowering crime rates was necessarily a good thing.

He used an extreme example to make an extreme point. I guess he succeeded.

Why keep doing this? They're NOT going to listen to you.

[EN[i]GMA]

Enigma, I'm sorry to say that I agree with D_Raay, et al, on this one.

Your earlier comments DID come off as racist. I DO understand that you are trying to back out of it somewhat now, but the PERCEPTION (as I stated above) outweighs the intellectual arguments.

Just let it lie. The whole hullabaloo is a big sink-hole.

I'm not interested in 'perception'.

I mean, forgive me for wanting to stick to facts in a debate and not succumb to knee-jerk emotion, but, uh, I do.

I fail to see how someone arguing AGAINST the hypothetical abortion of blacks can be seen as a racist.

Does that mean, contrarily, that someone supporting the abortion of blacks isn't racist?

Untangle the logic for me: He makes a factually correct statement (Can a factually correct statement be, quote, 'racist'? Certainly a fact can be insenstitive, but I think the truth is more important than someone's sensibilities.) and then comes out AGAISNT that statement because of its horrific implications, and is somehow supportive of the state implications, the same ones he vehementely declared were wrong?

Is anyone disagreeing with his actual statement? Or just getting caught up in the zeal of 'fighting racism'?

[EN[i]GMA]

Why keep doing this? They're NOT going to listen to you.

I'm aware.

But I would at least like attempt to infuse some logic into this discussion.

[D_Raay]

GMA']I'm aware.

But I would at least like attempt to infuse some logic into this discussion.
E, I understand the logic, but you have no way of knowing that who you are defending is thinking along the same lines that you are, hence my whole reason for arguing with you at all. Granted, I don't have anyway of knowing either, but I would be more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to a non partisan fellow rather than a partisan one.

[King PSYZ]

GMA']I would like to preface this by noting how funny it is that liberals are arguing about how horrific a hypothetical this is, when all he advocates is abortion albeit on a wider scale.

I'm glad you find rampant racism from public figures "funny", probablly because you share his narrow minded views.
GMA']All he advocates is the destruction of some fetuses, which, according to you, isn't a crime at all.

I thought abortion was morally permissable?

NOTE: I too support abortion.
try again...
if you wanted to reduce crime ... if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. (http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2005/09/more-family-values-from-bill-bennett.html)

[Ali]

GMA']If indeed you did abort every black baby, the crime would indeed go down, as blacks are more likely to commit crimes than whites, statistically speaking.
What type of crime?

Seems to me that white people are just as likely to commit crime as black people, if not more so.

And, statistically, 'white collar criminals' steal a lot more through accounting fraud than the type of petty criminals I'm sure you are referring to.

In fact, I'm sure you'll find that, statistically, white people commit a lot MORE violent crime than black people, they just don't get caught, or they make sure that they are not implicated when the arrests are made, because they stay well hidden behind the scenes, employing black people to do the killing for them.

How many black folks were implicated in the ENRON, Worldcom, etc. accounting scandals? What race were the really big criminals when that all went down?

Kinda throws your statistics outta the window when you include all types of crime, doesn't it?

Indeed, your statement about black folks being more likely to commit crime than whites requires some qualification, I think, in order to avoid being perceived as a bit racist.

Or are the crimes commited by whites not as "bad" as those commited by blacks?

Whites certainly manage to steal a helluva lot more money from little old ladies pension funds than blacks snatching handbags. Statistically, that makes their crimes "worse".

So, if all white babies were aborted, there would be less white collar crime and therefore less crime overall than if all black babies were aborted, because whites commit more crime than blacks...

... statistically speaking.

[sam i am]

Seems to me that white people are just as likely to commit crime as black people, if not more so.

In fact, I'm sure you'll find that, statistically, white people commit a lot MORE violent crime than black people, they just don't get caught, or they make sure that they are not implicated when the arrests are made, because they stay well hidden behind the scenes, employing black people to do the killing for them.

Ali, your statements are just as racist as Enigma's. If you actually believe what you wrote here, you are just as bad as Bennett.

You are making VERY broad, unsupported, unsubstantiated statements. Don't be guilty of the same "crime," please.

[Ali]

Ali, your statements are just as racist as Enigma's. If you actually believe what you wrote here, you are just as bad as Bennett.

You are making VERY broad, unsupported, unsubstantiated statements. Don't be guilty of the same "crime," please.I'm making a point.

I see you missed it.

[Classic Iconocl]

Bill Bennet is a self-righteous, judgmental, prick. He's so right (wing), he can't see that he's wrong. He's been spewing moralistic, divisive, holier-than-thou garbage ever since he served as drug war cheerleader. Imagine Bill Bennet in a miniskirt. And lipstick smeared across his bloated mouth, with a frankfurter stuffed in it. Poker chip on his shoulder and a stiffy in his trustee pants. They love guys like him in prison.

[D_Raay]

Ali, your statements are just as racist as Enigma's. If you actually believe what you wrote here, you are just as bad as Bennett.

You are making VERY broad, unsupported, unsubstantiated statements. Don't be guilty of the same "crime," please.
Actually, he is quite right statistically speaking.

[sam i am]

Fantastic. Ali states a broad generalization that whites are more likely to commit crime than blacks. Enigma states a broad generalization that blacks are more likely to commit crime than whites.

They're both off their rockers. It's really the evil green little men that we have to watch out for. Or maybe the Commies still hiding under our beds. Maybe Hitler will walk out the jungle in South America and ADMIT that HE is the MASTERMIND behind all crime, employing some kind of mind control device that he's made during his 60 years of exile. :p

[King PSYZ]

The point is thinking a race, which is really a silly terminology for different skin tone, is a pre-determining factor for anything.

[Classic Iconocl]

"Race" is a social construct, not a taxonomic tool for empirical knowledge. It doesn't exist. You are only as pure as your toe jam. Get over it.

[D_Raay]

Fantastic. Ali states a broad generalization that whites are more likely to commit crime than blacks. Enigma states a broad generalization that blacks are more likely to commit crime than whites.

They're both off their rockers. It's really the evil green little men that we have to watch out for. Or maybe the Commies still hiding under our beds. Maybe Hitler will walk out the jungle in South America and ADMIT that HE is the MASTERMIND behind all crime, employing some kind of mind control device that he's made during his 60 years of exile. :p
Hehe. (y) :D

[Ali]

Fantastic. Ali states a broad generalization that whites are more likely to commit crime than blacks. Enigma states a broad generalization that blacks are more likely to commit crime than whites.

You are missing the point, sam.

And you've twisted my words.

Let me refresh your memory.
What type of crime?
I am challenging the notion that "crime" is a black thing, because there are different TYPES of crime.

Capice?

Now, riddle me this:

How many blacks were involved in the following serious crimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accounting_scandals):

MiniScribe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiniScribe#Cooking_the_books)
Cendant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cendant#Fraud)
Xerox (http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/complr17465.htm)
ENRON (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron#Fallout)
WorldCom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldCom)
(you can look the rest of them up here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accounting_scandals))
AOL
Adelphia
Bristol-Myers Squibb
CMS Energy
Computer Associates
Duke Energy
Dynegy
El Paso Corporation
Freddie Mac
Global Crossing
Halliburton
Harken Energy
HealthSouth
Homestore.com
ImClone Systems
Kmart
Lucent Technologies
Merck & Co.
Merrill Lynch
Mirant
Nicor Energy, LLC
Peregrine Systems
Qwest Communications International
Reliant Energy
Sunbeam
Tyco International
Waste Management
Parmalat
AIG
Boeing (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/business.cfm?id=253872005)

Here's a link to the Forbes Corporate Scandal Sheet (http://www.forbes.com/home/2002/07/25/accountingtracker.html), for those who don't like Wikipedia (and don't mind popups)! It only lists scandals up to September 2002, but you get the idea.

You can be sure that the MAJORITY of these crimes were masterminded or committed by white men.

These "white" crimes involve billions and billions of dollars - MORE, I'm sure, than all the "black" crime put together.

So, who is generalising about 'crime' and race? Who is making unqualified generalisations?

Am I wrong in saying that the crimes listed above are mainly committed by white people.? Wealthy white people? Greedy executives?

Or are blacks to blame for ALL crime, as was insinuated by Bennett and backed up by enigma?

I'm sure that you'll find the proportion of whites invloved in petty (black) crime to be higher than blacks invloved in white collar crime.

Oh, wait, that's because blacks tend not to occupy the type of job which would enable them to commit a white collar crime. Blacks tend to occupy lower-income job, or be under/unemployed.

... do you see my point?

Or do I have to dumb it down even more?

[EN[i]GMA]

Would you or would you not agree with the statement that blacks are more likely to live in the inner city areas where crime is rampant?

Would you also agree that blacks have a lower per capita income, which in turn leads to a higher crime rate?

Can't you then deduce that blacks have a higher crime rate?

This isn't about race, it's about class as I mentioned 25 posts back.

Blacks are GENERALLY of a lower class than average whites, I can dig up the per capita GDP numbers if you'd like.

This leads to them being more likely to commit a crime.

There is nothing racist about it; the statement appies to poor whites, hispanics (who are also slightly poorer) but it doesn't apply to say, Asians, you have a higher per capita GDP and a lower crime rate.

Stop this emotional bullshit and think.

[Ace42X]

GMA']Would you or would you not agree with the statement that blacks are more likely to live in the inner city areas where crime is rampant?

Would you also agree that blacks have a lower per capita income, which in turn leads to a higher crime rate?

Can't you then deduce that blacks have a higher crime rate?

But you cannot then argue that aborting blacks would *lower* the total crime rate. That conclusion does not follow from the premises, and is totally illogical. This makes the claim *racist.*

Stop this emotional bullshit and think.

[sam i am]

Seems to me that white people are just as likely to commit crime as black people, if not more so.

Ali, I was going off this one sentence in our above posts. You don't have to "dumb it down" to have your comments taken out of context, as I so easily showed you by doing the same thing to you that you are doing to Bennett.

[EN[i]GMA]

But you cannot then argue that aborting blacks would *lower* the total crime rate. That conclusion does not follow from the premises, and is totally illogical. This makes the claim *racist.*

How does that make it racist?

Nevermind, it's become beyond pointless.

[sam i am]

GMA']Nevermind, it's become beyond pointless.

Like every single "argument" with ace. Remember, he's King Ace, purveyor and holder of all wisdom to be dispensed from on high. Nothing you say can penetrate his impermeable wall of unrefutable logic. He is SUPER ACE - to the rescue of us poor, ignorant, illogical masses wallowing in the muck of our ignorance and despair.

Oh, King ace, please do throw us the crumbs of your sagaciousness and witty verbiage so that we may have a pittance of your towering intellect and charm.... :p

[King PSYZ]

uh hm
I belive it is I with King in the title thank you very much...

[sam i am]

uh hm
I belive it is I with King in the title thank you very much...

Yes, but you do not ACT like one.

Trust me, in the case of ace, the Emperor has no clothes.....

[D_Raay]

Yes, but you do not ACT like one.

Trust me, in the case of ace, the Emperor has no clothes.....
Au contraire mon friere... Ace handles himself just fine.

[sam i am]

Au contraire mon friere... Ace handles himself just fine.

Me pienso que no.

Creo que Ace solamente un "windbag."

Gracias.