Yes he believes it and it's true, what don't you get?

He could have used any race and it would be true but he used Black as it is an example of how abused stats are used to reinforce stereotypes or junk theories.

Notice the caller was arguing the revenue aborted babies could have brought the US. This assumes many things and is a "junk" theory. He then gave him an obviously "junk theory" using the same tactic to prove his point.

You know what forget it, he's a racist.

Trying to pound logic into cement skulls is a waste of my time and theirs.

I thought I'd just let you flap your lips and dig the hole a little deeper for yourself in this thread, and you haven't let me down.

You just said that you believe killing babies of any race reduces the crime rate. "It's true" , you say. Well, it's obviously not true, but I digress.

Then you say that Bennet "gave him a junk theory" to prove his point.

Which is it? A fact or a junk theory?

Don't try to pound logic into anyone's head, Len. You need all you can get. I'm an EE so my whole day is supremely logical - save reading your posts.

Once again - you prove yourself a partisan apologist to the bitter end. I honestly feel sorry for ya man.

Holy **** are you dense!
The junk part is that they have to be black.....duh Maybe you're a racist too? I pity the people that rely on your logic skills.

Have some dignity man.

The man is an Idiot for saying such things as a Public Servant, regardless of what his party affiliation is.

Attacking or defending him along party lines does not make much sense either.

[sigh] I can't explain it any better. You guys are actively trying not to comprehend.

He basically said to the caller:

"don't use selective statistics to argue abortions cost us revenue generating citizens because if you do you'll be no better than a racist that would use selective statistics to say aborting black babies would lower crime."

That's my last attempt at treating this reasonably.

There, do you get it?

NO!! Don't distract me with facts or context, I've made up my mind!!

Interestingly, I read Freakonomics recently and posted a thread here in OT that mentioned the author's research proving that abortion legalization reduced crime. A quick search will give details.

Tech was one of the first responders, but did not call racism until now; until a "neocon" cited the book's findings.

I don't get it, Tech. Either the study is racist or not, and either you have read the book and understand the study or you don't.

At the risk of calling BS on your seeming expertise to answer every thread on this board with confidence and absolute certainty, I must ask: Have you read Freakonomics, do you agree with the findings, and does it piss you off? Alternatively, are you miffed simply at the fact that a Republican talked about the study on the radio?

how 'bout you, Jared? Read much?

I have 2K pages of Neal Stephenson trilogy lined up... Freakonomics isn't on the radar.

My comment wasn't on the book, because I haven't read it. my comment was on Bennett who holds himself up as a moral paragon. And it seems to me that he shifts from the Freakonomics reference before getting to the genocide comment. He goes from referencing all babies to black babies.

you mean as in abortion?

or is this some other horrid liberal act?

This argument reminds me of a Dilbert strip:

Secretary: 40% of staff sick days are on Monday or Friday
Pointy Haired Boss: 40%? What kind of idiot do they think I am?
Secretary: Not Savant, they can do math.

Tom

OK, that makes more sense. My faith in human decency in Public Officials is now restored.

Not Savant, that is funny.

This reminds me of the hoopla over David Williams' use of the word "nigardly" a few years back. It got him fired as an aid to D.C. mayor Anthony Williams.

Understanding of context and intent seems to become more difficult the more extreme one's political views are, no matter if they are on the far left or right. Bennet is an intelligent man; sometimes it takes one to keep up with what he is saying.

Sorry Len, I don't necessarily agree. Here is the quote:

He says "I do know that it's true..." He then says doing what he just suggested is impossible, ridiculour, etc, but he does not couch it as you indicate. Yes, he is arguing that the caller has a flawed argument/conclusion, but when he says "I do know..." that either means he is a closet racist, or just has really poor off-the-cuff speaking skills. If he had said "if someone argued that..." and drew the analogy that way, I'd agree with you. But he didn't.

There is no way around it, it is a racist comment.

what if I were to murder you but genuinely did not believe that you were a person (for whatever deranged reason) would I still be killing a person?

yes, it's a bit twisted and extreme, but I think you can understand my point. it's that whole "if a tree falls in the forest..." question

Exactly. Without somebody imagining a lot of parenthetical argumentation that just isn't there, it's a bizarrely stupid statement.