October 06, 2005


This is all a bit of a wank. The guy was obviously pointing out that assumptions in regard to the positive effect of abortions were ridiculous.

The only thing anyone seems to want to condemn him (and not the Freakonomics guys) for is specifying "Blacks" instead of "poor".

Well fuck me if that aint the most selective highground I've seen this year. Looking down on racists from a pile of split hairs.

Meanwhile I'm off to kill a hobo. Not a black one mind you... wouldn't want to offend anyone.

Tank, Tank, TANK ... don't you get it? If you want to stop crime, abort Lays, DeLays, Kozlowskis, and those who steal with the pen, not the gun. Herr Bennett's modest proposal wouldn't make a dent in the crime rate, and might even increase it! (Imagine what you'd do if they came to abort one of YOUR babies ...).

I take it that's you still missing the point.

Bennett specified blacks, not Freakonomics, which specified those in poor and/or single-parent households. Such people are not always black. Remember, talking points, even far-right ones, should be true.

So which is it ?

The talking point that social problems such as crime and drug use effect black populations disproportionately due to poverty.

Or that since you cannot in any way relate black populations to poverty that the disproportionate crime and drug use is a genetic or cultural thing ?

It's one or the other.

Or maybe the third option where when you see someone shooting down someone else trying to blame the problems facing social security on abortion and suggesting a similarly ridiculous arguement which they state is a ridiculous arguement aint a "right-wing talking point".


Edit your argument and make it coherent, and I'll try to respond.

The comments to this entry are closed.

We Believe in Nothing


Ye Olde Blogroll

Crass Commercialism

  • Find Zylotrim Reviewed

December 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    



Blog powered by Typepad