I disagree that the crime rate would go down.

Your interpretaion is correct in the context you put it but it assumes Bennet’s hypothetical was based on forced abortion rather than voluntary. You ought to be aware of the original eugenics intent behind Planned Parenthood.

It is an important point however.

Obama’s policies are wrong for America regardless of their immediate effect on unemployment. Which is why wanting them to fail is not about wanting more unemployment.

What I objected to was the incorrect premise behind Bennett’s statement that, if your sole purpose was to reduce crime, you could do that by aborting all blacks. Bennett says such a policy would be impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible, but the crime rate would go down.

I disagree that the crime rate would go down.

I say such a policy would increase crime, because it would be a massive human rights violation that only a criminal, totalitarian state could enact. And certainly, others besides blacks would have to be deprived of human rights to make such a hideous policy work. To accept Bennett’s statement, even for the sake of argument, you have to overlook all this.

” Bennett was careful to note that the hypothetical in question was morally reprehensible—and in fact used it to argue against utilitarian rationalizations for moral problems (a stand that implicitly rejects statistics-based racialist arguments)—but that important qualification was left out of many media representations of his quote, which allowed those who wished to embarrass Bennett to call him out. In this case, Bennett clearly was aware of how his words might be used, but that awareness could not prevent misuse. For Bennett to have avoided the “major failing” politechnical identifies, he would have had to avoid the subject altogether. And to do so is to trade intellectualism for the kind of circumspection that has the practical effect of chilling free speech.”

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=5343

“we should explain ourselves if we think it will work”

That is the position that I take. I dislike the “reasonable” interpretation or reader test because each reader considers his or her interpretation as reasonable. Calling someone’s interpretation unreasonable simply insults the other. Either explain or agree to disagree and leave it at that.