You should read him in his posts.
The statement was a correct statement.
You may dislike the speaker and suspect the motives of the speaker for picking that example. But when you say that people cannot say the truth because you don't like to hear it, that's called censorship.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=227184|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=227184]
The statement he was defending as a "correct, true" statement was this:
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.
Now, I know it's impossible that coming to the conclusion that aborting every black pregnancy would result in a lowered crime rate involved much in the way of reason, but I'm not the one who said the statement was a "correct, true" statement. If, as you say, Ben's reasoning is different, why did he claim the statement was true and correct?
