Al Black
4 min readFeb 15, 2018


“By whose authority do you have the right to say “It is therefore, by definition, not an individual, and is therefore, not in possession of individual rights.”” That is a question, not emotion based. You don’t get to state that a human fetus is not an individual as if it were a fact, without that assumption being questioned. Justify the claim or it gets ignored in the debate.

“ When you compare people to Hitler…” I compared the argument you used for unborn children, that people who cannot live without the help of others have no right to life, to Hitler’s extension of that same argument to cover the mentally and physically unfit. My intent was to show that the dehumanising of people, whatever their condition, is morally wrong. I made that clear with the conclusion “This is a very slippery ethical slope you are traversing here, my friend.”

“‘you’re screeching, “What about the little babies!!!”’ is a great example of a straw man argument: you can’t refute the real argument, so you make up one you can refute. That doesn’t work with me.

“I gave you a link to the raw data of violent crime” Where? What I got was a Punditfact article proving that your quoted statistic was a lie! You should have read the article to the end, and realised it does not support your view. Did you overlook the “FALSE” icon on the claim?

It does however, in refuting Sally Kohn’s idiot assertion, give a “link to the raw data of violent crime”, so you accidentally did use real data: I have analysed the (somewhat dated) crime data from your link and present it here:

So 51% of Murders and 53% of Robberies are carried out by 14% of the population. This is sad, but it is a fact. Most are black on Black crimes in Black neighbourhoods. The alleged segregation of blacks into these areas is not evidence of racism, but of fear: white flight from areas inhabited by over 50% of the violent criminals is tragic, but understandable: well-off Blacks flee the same areas, for the same reason. I agree with you that “There is no way to exchange meaningful information if we can’t agree on basic facts.” The numbers of violent crime statistics from your own linked site contradict the conclusions of your diatribe. Can we agree now?

The “Predatory Loans” you refer to are Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae loans: the democrat party set these up and Congress said in effect that these federal banks were not allowed to deny mortgages to Black people on the basis that they could not repay them: “That would be institutional Racism” they said.

So rather than “systematic removal of wealth from their communities by a systemically racist society,” these measures were a poorly thought-out positive discrimination to get poor black families into housing they could not afford to pay off, by the Democrat party ideologues. They are responsible for triggering the Global Financial Crisis which caused a removal of wealth from just about everyone.

On foreclosures your other link contains this conclusion: “In the United States segregation was an important contributing cause of the foreclosure crisis, along with overbuilding, risky lending practices, lax regulation, and the bursting of the housing price bubble.

The point here is that subprime loans were offered to poor blacks who tend to live in black neighbourhoods, so the conclusion that banks intentionally focused on foreclosing Black mortgages is false: they focused on people who had failed to pay their mortgages, and after the collapse of the price bubble, black owners abandoned their properties because they were now worth far less than the mortgage, and under American Law, the Banks can only foreclose: they cannot sue for the unpaid mortgage balance after selling the house, driving the mortgagee into bankruptcy, which is the case in most other Western countries. This allowed black families to keep any wealth which wasn’t tied up in their property.

Again, the foreclosures weren’t the result of racism, they were the result of over-generous Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac loans to people who couldn’t afford to repay them. The inevitable mortgage failures could have been easily predicted by the Congressmen who set these people up to fail. My view on this is that the Government should have accepted its causal role in this subprime loans debacle and paid off the loans of those mortgages down to the current value of the properties, so that the owners had an asset the same value as their mortgage and they could afford in most cases to pay that down. My guess is that this did not happen because politicians have a pathological aversion to ever admitting they were the cause of any disaster, not because they were racist: after all the low-doc subprime loan market was set up in a well-meant (if incredibly stupid) attempt to help Blacks buy their own homes.

So everywhere you see racism, I see the Law of unintended consequences at work. Like welfare schemes that were intended to help the poor, but instead trap them in welfare dependency, and incentivise behaviours that are not in Society’s best interests.

Racism did once exist in American institutions, and that probably does explain the amount of Black poverty when racism was outlawed in the 1970’s. Black Americans are still catching up, and maybe white Americans could do more to help, but the institutionalised racism you rail against is a myth: i have demolished your assertions using your own cited data. It is time for you to abandon this piece of left-wing dogma: it is not true, and cannot be supported by the statistical data.



Al Black

I work in IT, Community volunteer interested in Politics, support Capitalism as the best economic system for lifting people out of poverty, Skeptical scientist.