September 30th, 2005


Previous Entry Next Entry
03:15 pm - on committing ultra mega mass genocide...

(42 comments | Leave a comment)

 
on committing ultra mega mass genocide... - graffiti.maverick

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile


Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Elseworld.com
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

Wrestling
> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

Other
> 1KWFFH
> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at flagrantdisregard.com/flickr

Comments:


[User Picture]From: beststephi Date: October 2nd, 2005 - 02:40 pm (Link)

Re: political loser

He was not making the claim because he thought it was ridiculous, he said that actually ABORTING all Black babies is a ridiculous ACTION. He said that it's TRUE that aborting Black babies would result in less crime:

BENNETT: 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.


I don't think he was trying to be racist, but I do think that what he said shows that he is.

But I agree with you that in the grand scheme of things, there are far, far worse assaults on Blacks than this. But I also think that thoughts lead to actions, and so ignoring things like this does not help anyone.


[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 2nd, 2005 - 03:03 pm (Link)

Re: political loser

and he's right. Statistically speaking, blacks do commit a disproportionate amount of crime. Or at the very least they are convicted for a disproportionate amount of crime. So if you removed them from the equation, your crime statistic would go down. Let me rebold the quote that you are referencing:

BENNETT: 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.

That means that he believes, or at the very least, he is stating, that doing so might not really provide the desired effect. Not to mention that it would be impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible.

Again, I'm not even saying he is or isn't racist. All I'm saying is that his statement specifically includes the premise it is flawed. And therefore as flawed as the idea of making abortion illegal to save Social Security. He even says earlier that you can't assume that all the babies you save through illegalizing abortion would be productive tax payers. Similarly, you can't assume that all the black babies you'd abort would be criminals. Technically he only has to be right once. Technically, killing even one would be criminal would lower the crime rate. Can you go back in time and kill baby Hitler and stop the Holocaust? Can you go back in time and kill every german baby to make sure you kill Hitler? These are the "tricky extrapolatons" he is referring to.

My real point is that even what you've done here. Bolding certain passages, implies that you mean to ignore the non-bolded ones. "I don't believe Jews are the devil." You and Bryon make a possibly valid point. It is interesting that his mind was able to even construct the argument in the first place. But that's not evidence that he believes it. I can construct several evil terrorist plots, but I don't intend to carry them out.

"I do know that assassinating every person in the middle east would open up large reserves of oil and make gasoline cheaper in the states. If that were your sole purpose, gas prices would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do , but your gas prices would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."

Do you see my point? I'm saying that my premise is as unreasonable as his premise. He is saying his premise is as unreasonable as the caller's.
[User Picture]From: beststephi Date: October 2nd, 2005 - 04:31 pm (Link)

Re: political loser

and he's right. Statistically speaking, blacks do commit a disproportionate amount of crime. Or at the very least they are convicted for a disproportionate amount of crime. So if you removed them from the equation, your crime statistic would go down.

Right. But why did he specifically pick Blacks as the group? The disparity between males and females in crime is probably greater than the Black/White one (since White males commit more crimes than Black females). And poor people commit more crimes. Etc. This particular comparison shows me how he thinks.

Let me rebold the quote that you are referencing:

BENNETT: 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.

That means that he believes, or at the very least, he is stating, that doing so might not really provide the desired effect. Not to mention that it would be impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible.


OK, I do agree that this is the tricky part, deciphering what he's referring to by "these ...". But it seems much more reasonable to me to assume that he's referring to the caller's initial claim, given that he states the Black abortion/crime reduction as a truth and that he's already made the point that the abortion, revenue relationship isn't straight-forward. Listening to the broadcast might help...
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 2nd, 2005 - 04:40 pm (Link)

Re: political loser

1) he couldn't pick men. See the argument I made to Ed (in his response to me responding to sui66iy above). I think he felt he needed to feel to present an argument that while ridiculous is at least something someone would logically make. Arguing the death of all males would mean the death of the human race. No one would ever say that. Instead he argues the death of all blacks so as to point out that that would obviously lead to a nazi regime. If it were me, I probably would have argued for the death of all of the middle east to lower gas prices, but maybe that's not ridiculous enough. Too many people would probably agree.

2) I think he's refuting his own claim with the "this is tricky" and transitively he is refuting the callers claim. Otherwise there would be no point to him telling his story at all. You'd be right. He'd basically be saying "statistics don't necessarilly predict the way you want them to about social security. Its too tricky. You can't make predictions like that. And by the way, the niggers commit a lot of crime." That's what you'd have to argue he's saying, and even if he really believed it, it just doesn't make sense for him to say it in that context.
 

• Go to Top
LiveJournal.com