How former education secretary understands human rights

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Oct 1, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    Now I see what is a quality of education in the USA.
  2. Human rights are a myth. Humans don't have rights - they have privilages they earn hrough good behaviour with/towards other humans.
    Those who don't behave in a reasonable manner - chavs, junkies, sex offenders etc -are SUBhuman and should be exterminated.
  3. I can't say that I'm absolutely agree with you but at least you point of view is sinsere. It's interesting what do you think about democracy?
  4. This guy sounds like a perfect Moderator for NAFFI.
    Even I couldn't manage a quote like that
  5. Oh KGB my friend you have been duped.

    So here is the skinny on the story. The statement was made on TUESDAY. It was part of a phone call discussing a book called "Freakonomics". The book asserts that crime in the US is down due to abortions. So a caller asks Sec. Bennett, who has a Radio show, about this.

    AND Yes Bennett made that statement and it was IMMEDIATELY followed by him stating that any such act is deplorable and morally reprehensible.

    Taken out of context it sounds really bad what Bennett said, but when heard in it's entirety and in context it is hard to see anything wrong with it.

    some of the transscript.....

    BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?

    CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.

    BENNETT: Maybe. Maybe. But we don't know what the cost would be, too. I think -- does abortion disproportionately occur among single women?

    CALLER: Uhhh...

    BENNETT: Do you know?

    CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics but quite a bit are, yes.

    BENNETT: All right. Well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book, Freakanomics, is that they make is that the declining crime rate -- you know, they deal with this hypothesis that one of the reasons that crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --

    CALLER: I don't think that statistic is accurate.

    BENNETT: Well, I don't think so it is either.

    CALLER: Yeah.

    BENNETT: 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 would rate would go down.

    BENNETT: That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do. But your crime rate would go down.

    UNIDENTIFIED CALLER: Well, this --

    BENNETT: So these far-out, these far-reaching, you know, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
  6. Thank you for clarification. Guardian, this sly newspaper, prefers to tell only half-truth. However, mr.Bennet is not right anyway. Even with his further comments his statement is unacceptable. I can't imagine that uducated person (mr.Bennet is educated I believe) could ever use such an argument.
  7. How is his statement unacceptable? that aborting blacks to reduce crime is morally reprehensible? Or the premise that crime is down, because of abortion, not his claim but the premise of a book?

    Please elaborate would be happy to discuss further as long as I understand your point, which is not clear at the moment.
  8. It appears that the gentleman's comment may be in bad taste, but is not the call for racial abortion that it is made out to be.
  9. OK. Suppose that a teacher in USA says: Pupils! Yesterday 3 Americans were killed in Iraq. Today 2 has been killed. How many of them were killed in two days.
    And suppose that one of the pupils had father killed in Iraq. The teacher could say that it is a mathematical task but I hope you agree that usage of this (in fact too realistic) example is unacceptable.

    Let's return to mr.Bennet.

    Yes mr.Bennet said that it is impossible (some can understan it that it is impossible just now), that it is ridiculous (many like ridiculous things), that it is morally reprehensible (but many haven't morale at all). So at least part of listeners could understand words of mr.Bennet in the wrong way. So in this context I believe his first statement (even with addition) is unacceptable.
  10. KGB,
    This was a discussion based on the premise forwarded in the book "Freakonomics", that book claims crime is down because of abortions. Blacks make up 15% of the US population yet commit close to 50% of the crimes.

    As such the book attributes a decrease in crime to a increase of abortions by black americans, funny that Bennett is the focus of the story and not the book itself which is currently #3 on the NYTimes best seller list.

    Also fun that Bennett made the statements on TUESDAY and not till it was posted out of context on a George Soros funded left wing website on Thursday did the media glom on to it and run with the story.

    The only listeners that coud misunderstand what Bennett said are those that want to misunderstand what Bennett said. The story is not what Bennett said, IMHO, but why it took the media so long to break it and where it originated from....hey but that's just me.
  11. What can I say? You are absolutely right on all points and I changed my position, thanks to your comments.