Originally Posted by rsl12

Is anyone here saying otherwise?



I had a hard time understanding this, so I'm going to try and clarify your argument. Tell me if I goof up.

You start with the statements "Bennet had claimed he wasn't racist", and that his rationale for this claim is that "he wasn't really advocating this policy [of aborting all black babies]". I'm not sure where you're getting either piece of information: I don't see any record of Bennet denying being a racist. And although he does describe the policy of aborting all black babies as reprehensible, he does so in support of an implied argument that "just because an action lowers crime doesn't mean that it's morally justified", and not in support of the argument that "Bennet is not a racist."

It is true that Bennet's argument works only if his audience agrees that aborting all black babies is reprehensible. Perhaps it is this implied understanding between Bennet and his audience from which you draw the conclusion that Bennet is claiming not to be a racist. For now, I'll assume this to be the case. So Bennet is claiming not to be a racist, and you're trying to refute this claim--i.e., to prove that Bennet is, in fact, a racist.

So in arguing that Bennet is not a racist, you say that Bennet's underlying assumption was that "black babies create a disproportonate amount of the crime." I think this is almost the assumption--reading the transcript, it appears that Bennet's underlying assumption is slightly more specific: As of this moment, black babies in the United States will grow up to create a disproportionate amount of the crime. I think you'd agree to this slightly modified version upon review of the text.

You continue: "[the statement] is only rational as a response to the mechanisms that created the phenomenon." I think you're trying to say the following: Since Bennet believes that aborting black babies will reduce crime, the rational conclusion is that he believes that black people are inherently more likely to grow up to be criminals. I *almost* agree with this statement--the one word I would edit is the word 'rational.' This would not be a rational conclusion--the perfectly rational being would realize that even if B implies A, A does not necessarily imply B. Instead of 'rational', I think the proper word to use in this context is 'gut-instinct': since Bennet believes that aborting black babies will reduce crime, the gut-instinct conclusion is that he believes that black people are inherently more likely to grow up to be criminals. I hope you'll agree--based on how you continue your argument, I think this is what you meant anyways.

You continue by saying, "So then we are left with racist artifacts floating into general consensus wihtout any malicious intent behind them, so they appear benevolent, and then this reframes the issue[s]..." By "racist artifact", I think you're refering to the notion that blacks are inherently more likely to grow up to be criminals, and that Bennet is propogating this idea with his statements. This seems to be in support of an implied, but unstated, argument, that "you have to be careful when publicly talking about racial issues." This, I think, is a statement for which you will not find any dissent. Based on previous posts from others, it appears that everyone is in agreement that things would have been better if Bennet had not made the statements he made. The remainder of your message continues in this vein, and as the issue is uncontroversial, I'll skip discussion of it.

Instead, let's backtrack to the contentious issue: Is Bennet a racist? As I described above, you only offer the following argument in support of your claim that he is: "[the statement that aborting all black babies would reduce crime] is only rational as a response to the mechanisms that created the phenomenon." If by 'rational', you really meant 'gut-instinct', what you're really talking about are the conclusions drawn by the general mass of casual listeners, and the fact that you have to be careful when talking publicly about racial issues (which is, as described above, an uncontroversial issue).

If by 'rational' you really meant 'rational', the argument is not particularly convincing. As proof that this is not a rational syllogism, I would like to point to the number of people posting on this board that agree that aborting all black babies in the United States right now would lower crime in the future, but do not believe that blacks are inherently more likely to be predisposed to crime.