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 - 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