If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   GOP Rep Trent Franks: "The incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low." Sounds legitimate   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 108
    More: Asinine, humans, The Arizona Republic, House Judiciary, Equal Pay Act, St. Louis Public Radio, Paycheck Fairness Act, Jerry Nadler, obstetrics  
•       •       •

855 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jun 2013 at 8:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



108 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-13 04:42:53 PM  
GOP, weren't we over this? Really?
 
2013-06-13 04:44:38 PM  

mrshowrules: Obviously I'm anti-rape and I'm also pro-choice. Rape is something we should strive to eliminate in society.


Right. I didn't think you were advocating anything else, and I apologize if I implied as much.

mrshowrules: My point was that biologically and also in terms of evolution, there would be no basis for a woman's fertility to prevent conception because of rape. In other words (also based on the evidence you provided) of course women would get pregnant from rape.


I'm simply disagreeing with the position you're taking that rape is a mating strategy that has evolved because it confers some sort of selective advantages. Based on my read of the literature there is no compelling reason (at this point) to hold that position as anything more than speculative and worth investigating further. I think the evidence that does exist is sufficient to make the point that women can and do get pregnant from sexual coercion without resorting to a speculative position that lacks any unambiguous empirical support. In terms of genetic diversity, for example, there hasn't been a study done to demonstrate that communities with a higher proportion of children born as a result of rape are more genetically diverse than communities with lower proportions of such children. Or rather, I should amend that to say if there has been such a study done I am not aware of it (and at least in my mind I imagine a study like that would have made headlines around the world). At the most abstract level, I think we're just having a disagreement on theory rather than a disagreement on the topic; that is pregnancy and rape. Which is fine, I don't mind those kinds of disagreements. I just don't want to get too abstract lest I start asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. =)
 
2013-06-13 06:10:32 PM  

MmmmBacon: Another GOP politician that doesn't want to be re-elected, I see.


Not only is he stupid and insensitive, his sentence structure was incorrect as well.  (Should be is instead of are.)
 
2013-06-13 06:26:17 PM  
It sounds like he believes the only down-side of rape for women is that there's a small chance they might get pregnant. But if she doesn't, then GOOD TIMES! Right?
 
2013-06-13 08:45:17 PM  

Jackpot777: [i43.tinypic.com image 575x1330]


That's less good than you think. The third column isn't terrible but the second column generally is pretty poor:

The first row is relatively ok, although even today's laws are inconsistent (charging someone who kills a pregnant woman with two murders)

The second one is a non-sequitur. It's like arguing that, because we make knives legal, we are therefore endorsing murder. After all, almost 2000 people a year are stabbed to death. They're related, but not in the way that chart is claiming.

The third is right, but Republicans often get raked over the coals for saying this, even though it completely follows. Many of the others are operationalizing a slippery slope - a logical fallacy but an operational reality.

The fourth is simply wrong. First, what makes you think the other procedures wouldn't be banned once they made it past the first legal hurdle? Second, there's a reason other procedures aren't used, and any economist will tell you that it'll have a non-zero impact.

The fifth is bad logic for multiple reasons: 1) a large segment of the pro-life crowd (the Church) are very pro-welfare; 2) you can make the argument for ANYTHING relating to poverty: the GOP likes inner-city violence because poverty and unwanted children cause it; Democrats LIKE inner city violence or they'd make all drugs legal.

The sixth really contradicts the second. Incentives matter, and therefore any economist will point out that HPV vaccines will make people slightly more willing to have sex and therefore, all else equal, slightly more likely to get pregnant. Therefore, all the arguments of the second apply to the sixth, only here, the creator recognized the non-sequitur that they didn't recognize in the second.

The seventh is partly true, but even then, most people frown on vigilantism, and certainly frown about bombings that result in collateral damage. ESPECIALLY the likes of Eric Rudolph, who targeted first responders. Again, Gandhi even called for non-violence when facing Hitler. He didn't idolize people who slayed Nazis even though he considered what the Nazis did an abomination. I'm not saying pro-lifers tend to be Gandhi, I'm saying that the logic isn't automatic. (And finally, what makes you think a lot of pro-lifers DON'T worship abortion doctor killers?)

Finally, in the eighth, anything involving the U.N. is so distorted that people on the right pretty much assume anything the U.N. does is a threat to Texan sovereignty or something equally stupid. Their opposition is usually based on ignorance, and again, major players like the Church disagree with the opposition.

Ultimately, that chart is really a stretch and hardly demolishes anything other than its author's intellectual credentials.
 
2013-06-13 10:20:03 PM  

vygramul: The second one is a non-sequitur. It's like arguing that, because we make knives legal, we are therefore endorsing murder. After all, almost 2000 people a year are stabbed to death. They're related, but not in the way that chart is claiming.


Except the primary purpose of knives is not to murder people. It's still relevant.

vygramul: The third is right, but Republicans often get raked over the coals for saying this, even though it completely follows. Many of the others are operationalizing a slippery slope - a logical fallacy but an operational reality.


Yes, they get raked over the goals for saying it, because it's not about protecting the life of a fetus but about exerting control over the sex lives of women. They may be logically consistent in their position, but it's an immoral logic worthy of being raked over the coals for holding to.

vygramul: The fourth is simply wrong. First, what makes you think the other procedures wouldn't be banned once they made it past the first legal hurdle? Second, there's a reason other procedures aren't used, and any economist will tell you that it'll have a non-zero impact.


None of what you said indicates why you think it's wrong. Your justification is in fact non-sequitor itself, and I'm being generous in that interpretation. A less generous interpretation of it would be to say "yea, that sort of counters your own point about how wrong it is."

vygramul: The fifth is bad logic for multiple reasons: 1) a large segment of the pro-life crowd (the Church) are very pro-welfare; 2) you can make the argument for ANYTHING relating to poverty: the GOP likes inner-city violence because poverty and unwanted children cause it; Democrats LIKE inner city violence or they'd make all drugs legal.


Yea..... no. Look at the politicians who are instigating these anti-abortion measures and see how much legislation they pass (or even try to pass, or even mention casually as a good idea even if they never pursue it) that promotes social welfare programs to help the impoverished. You'll note a conspicuous lack of politicians who do both. That the church is, theoretically, pro-welfare is irrelevant since the church is not the organization making policies.

vygramul: The sixth really contradicts the second. Incentives matter, and therefore any economist will point out that HPV vaccines will make people slightly more willing to have sex and therefore, all else equal, slightly more likely to get pregnant. Therefore, all the arguments of the second apply to the sixth, only here, the creator recognized the non-sequitur that they didn't recognize in the second.


All of this is both incorrect and irrelevant. First, it doesn't contradict the second row. Second, people aren't not having sex for fear of HPV. People, of all ages, are quite sexually active. And in fact, sexual activity tends to increase for younger age groups in areas that enact policies like abstinence only education (which are themselves very much the same areas that are successfully eliminating abortion providers, contraceptive access for women, and things like HPV vaccines). Any economist who wants to claim that people will have sex more if they have access to HPV vaccines knows nothing about how human beings actually behave, because people like to f*ck regardless of the consequences because f*cking is f*cking fun.

vygramul: The seventh is partly true, but even then, most people frown on vigilantism, and certainly frown about bombings that result in collateral damage. ESPECIALLY the likes of Eric Rudolph, who targeted first responders. Again, Gandhi even called for non-violence when facing Hitler. He didn't idolize people who slayed Nazis even though he considered what the Nazis did an abomination. I'm not saying pro-lifers tend to be Gandhi, I'm saying that the logic isn't automatic. (And finally, what makes you think a lot of pro-lifers DON'T worship abortion doctor killers?)


In spite of you saying this is partly true, I would argue that it's entirely false and is the only one that doesn't belong on the list. People can be against abortion while condemning violence in the hopes of eliminating abortion through legislative means or educational means (turns out comprehensive sex education is inversely correlated with unwanted pregnancy rates), and their opinions on women are almost immaterial at that point.

vygramul: Finally, in the eighth, anything involving the U.N. is so distorted that people on the right pretty much assume anything the U.N. does is a threat to Texan sovereignty or something equally stupid. Their opposition is usually based on ignorance, and again, major players like the Church disagree with the opposition.


Not for nothing, but that almost implies that their opposition to abortion or their desire to control the sex lives of women aren't based in ignorance. I don't know if that's a cheap shot at you or not, but that's what the bold part strongly implies if you're only saying they oppose the UN as a knee-jerk reaction whereas their views on sex, abortion, pregnancy, and women are better thought out. And again, the church may be a "major player" but ultimately they aren't the ones in political power, so their position is only indirectly related.
 
2013-06-13 11:02:39 PM  

Kome:
Except the primary purpose of knives is not to murder people. It's still relevant.


The primary purpose of condoms isn't to abort fetuses. It's still a logical fallacy.

Kome: Yes, they get raked over the goals for saying it, because it's not about protecting the life of a fetus but about exerting control over the sex lives of women. They may be logically consistent in their position, but it's an immoral logic worthy of being raked over the coals for holding to.


First, it is about the life of the fetus for Catholics. Second, you're straying from the issue. If you want to discuss the relative merits of the two sides, that's a conversation we can have.

Kome: vygramul: The fourth is simply wrong. First, what makes you think the other procedures wouldn't be banned once they made it past the first legal hurdle? Second, there's a reason other procedures aren't used, and any economist will tell you that it'll have a non-zero impact.

None of what you said indicates why you think it's wrong. Your justification is in fact non-sequitor itself, and I'm being generous in that interpretation. A less generous interpretation of it would be to say "yea, that sort of counters your own point about how wrong it is."


It's wrong because it presupposes no further action would be proposed by pro-lifers. One must assume that would be the end of it for the chart's complaint to be valid.

Kome: vygramul: The fifth is bad logic for multiple reasons: 1) a large segment of the pro-life crowd (the Church) are very pro-welfare; 2) you can make the argument for ANYTHING relating to poverty: the GOP likes inner-city violence because poverty and unwanted children cause it; Democrats LIKE inner city violence or they'd make all drugs legal.

Yea..... no. Look at the politicians who are instigating these anti-abortion measures and see how much legislation they pass (or even try to pass, or even mention casually as a good idea even if they never pursue it) that promotes social welfare programs to help the impoverished. You'll note a conspicuous lack of politicians who do both. That the church is, theoretically, pro-welfare is irrelevant since the church is not the organization making policies.


No, but the Church is a large driver of the abortion debate. This table isn't about "Congressional hypocrisies" but hypocrisies attributed to the entire movement. Therefore, again, it fails.

Kome:vygramul: The sixth really contradicts the second. Incentives matter, and therefore any economist will point out that HPV vaccines will make people slightly more willing to have sex and therefore, all else equal, slightly more likely to get pregnant. Therefore, all the arguments of the second apply to the sixth, only here, the creator recognized the non-sequitur that they didn't recognize in the second.

All of this is both incorrect and irrelevant. First, it doesn't contradict the second row. Second, people aren't not having sex for fear of HPV. People, of all ages, are quite sexually active. And in fact, sexual activity tends to increase for younger age groups in areas that enact policies like abstinence only education (which are themselves very much the same areas that are successfully eliminating abortion providers, contraceptive access for women, and things like HPV vaccines). Any economist who wants to claim that people will have sex more if they have access to HPV vaccines knows nothing about how human beings actually behave, because people like to f*ck regardless of the consequences because f*cking is f*cking fun.


Sorry, but you're wrong again. Incentives matter, and the aggregate incentive will still mage a difference in the long-run. It's marginal, but unavoidable. It's not only an economic truth, but a psychological one. That's not to say it's even an important factor. But a difference of 1 is, obviously, non-zero. In addition, it contradicts the second row's logic completely.

Kome:vygramul: Finally, in the eighth, anything involving the U.N. is so distorted that people on the right pretty much assume anything the U.N. does is a threat to Texan sovereignty or something equally stupid. Their opposition is usually based on ignorance, and again, major players like the Church disagree with the opposition.

Not for nothing, but that almost implies that their opposition to abortion or their desire to control the sex lives of women aren't based in ignorance. I don't know if that's a cheap shot at you or not, but that's what the bold part strongly implies if you're only saying they oppose the UN as a knee-jerk reaction whereas their views on sex, abortion, pregnancy, and women are better thought out. And again, the church may be a "major player" but ultimately they aren't the ones in political power, so their position is only indirectly related.


Poisoning the well by insisting the only opposition to abortion is driven by a desire to control the sex lives of women will make it impossible to have any constructive conversation. And I would say that, given the number of Catholics on the Supreme Court, their opinions are important to understand.
 
2013-06-14 07:58:25 AM  

PsiChick: GOP, weren't we over this? Really?


This is the ride that never ends.
 
Displayed 8 of 108 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report