Daily Show and libtards on abortion/rape

Val, do you have the statistics on how many people get stuck on hillls in video games, and how many of those commit intellectual dishonesty by claiming it's the stupid piece of shit hill's fault?
 
  • Like
Reactions: God
lets set some ground rules.

a child is not considered a person until it is able to be disconnected from it's mother and survive on it's own.

a rape victim, whether court substantiated or not, should still be considered a rape victim. unless we want to throw out the whole idea of mental distress.

your tax dollars are not yours to command once you have paid it to the government, ie. when you pay your taxes it is no longer your money to decide it's use.

tax covered abortions should only be used in the event of confirmed rape cases where the mother does not want the child and cannot financially pay for the abortion through their own insurance.
 
WildKnight said:
lets set some ground rules.

a child is not considered a person until it is able to be disconnected from it's mother and survive on it's own.

a rape victim, whether court substantiated or not, should still be considered a rape victim. unless we want to throw out the whole idea of mental distress.

your tax dollars are not yours to command once you have paid it to the government, ie. when you pay your taxes it is no longer your money to decide it's use.

tax covered abortions should only be used in the event of confirmed rape cases where the mother does not want the child and cannot financially pay for the abortion through their own insurance.
Click to expand...

Fuck you for trying to be reasonable.
 
Snagulpus said:
Lets say (for argument sake) that only 1% of "legitimate" rape victims get pregnant. I guess that number would be small enough that its not even worth discussing with the current GOP as the woman in the clip your talking about was trying to point out.

So the point they are making is that only 1% of a selection of people (woman who are rape victims) are not worth discussing because 1% of a selection should not interfere with the vast majority of people.

Interesting, I seem remember Obama trying to get a specific selection of people to do something....and those 1% cried fowl about how unfair it was to treat them differently from the rest of the population.

BTW OP, I am a former republican so don't call me a libtard. I just find it insane that somebody might actually succeed to buying the most powerful position in the world. (He outspent every rival combined during his nomination campaign)

....dont even get me started on the rest of his issues. If your interested read the the McCain paper that was written about Romney during his vetting process four years go. I am not saying liberals are perfect or that Obama was a great president, Obama is just the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...

I don't need to read jack shit about McCain, Obama, Romney, or Bush. They're all the same. You children just haven't figured that out yet.

I don't know how people still aren't getting this (full liberal retardation I guess -- "HE'S NOT SUPPORT OUR BULLSHIT NUMBERS, HE MUST BE AGAINST ABORTION!"), but I am pro-abortion. I just don't like bullshit numbers, intellectual dishonesty, and the anti-intellectualism that liberals (social cons do the same for their bullshit arguments as well) use in order to push their agendas, which absolutely never have anything to do with personal freedom or liberty.
 
WildKnight said:
lets set some ground rules.
Click to expand...
Sure, okay

a child is not considered a person until it is able to be disconnected from it's mother and survive on it's own.
Click to expand...
:lol:

"Let's set up some ground rules...
Everything I said is true.
Done."

Sorry sport, but not all believe it's not a human being until its breathing on its own outside of the womb, hence the problem of trying to be reasonable with either side of the argument. Some people view it as outright murder of a human being, so who are you to say it's wrong?

What if a baby is prematurely born and someone murders it while its being sustained by machines? Does the person not get charged with murder because the baby wasn't really due yet and needs assistance to live? What if someone intentionally stabs a pregnant woman to kill her fetus (and succeeds)? Is that not murder? Are you saying that should just be assault?

It's not a simple black and white issue, so the pieces of shit on both sides of the aisle, extremes being "condoms are murder" and "women'z choice!11" that use bullshit numbers should be called out.

a rape victim, whether court substantiated or not, should still be considered a rape victim. unless we want to throw out the whole idea of mental distress.
Click to expand...
A rape victim shouldn't be statistically counted as an actual rape until it's proven. That's called bullshit. If you want to statistically call it anything, you'd say alleged rape victim. Colloquially, you'd call the person a rape victim, but statistically no.

your tax dollars are not yours to command once you have paid it to the government, ie. when you pay your taxes it is no longer your money to decide it's use.

tax covered abortions should only be used in the event of confirmed rape cases where the mother does not want the child and cannot financially pay for the abortion through their own insurance.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're even referring to. I never made any argument one way or the other about tax dollars supporting abortions.
 
Rosencrantz said:
You can't calculate percentages using data from different studies and surveys, especially if you don't know the criteria or methodologies involved. The results just won't make any sense.

The data Val is quoting is likely the average from the two government sources, the NCVS and the FBI, but there's some problems with treating these two sources as absolute canon.

Among them is the fact that the FBI data only count reported rapes and even then, only the ones that fit their specific definition of violent rapes. Meaning most if not all incidents involving drugs like ketamine, GHB, Rohypnol, etc or even plain regular alcohol won't be on there. That definition only changed recently (I think this year in fact), so meaningful data from the government won't even be available until next year at the absolute earliest and realistically not for several years.

The NCVS statistics have their own problems, namely that their methods of data collection is so suspect that there's little confidence in their accuracy in the scientific community. This is enough of a problem that the government have ordered a National Statistics panel to convene and develop better methodologies and until that is complete and a new set of data is collected, the NCVS statistics can't be considered anywhere near accurate.

Now, Kilpatrick's study, the source of the 30k pregnancies estimate likely have its own problems, but since I no longer have access to institutional full text databases, I can't check on their data. You'd need to know their sample sizes, how the sample was drawn and their other methodologies to make any meaningful comment on the study's validity. But until their results are colloborated by other independent studies, I'd consider their results suspect as well.

Bottom line, the data you guys want to argue about doesn't even really exist in any meaningful sense at the moment, but ignoring that, it's still sheer idiocy to attempt mathematics on studies that were not even counting the same populations.
Click to expand...
Exactly, it's all bullshit or incomparable.

And even this year when there are "more accurate" (entirely subjective) numbers available, it will surely fall prey to agendas and include/exclude variables that drastically affect the outcome, like "regret."
 
Dare said:
hey guys take this survey i have to complete for my gender issues and inequality class in my womans studies program


have u ever felt pressured to have sex?
did you ever have sex and regret it?
have you ever had sex while drunk?

if so you have been raped
Click to expand...
:rofl: :bigthumb:

Dare is has become my favorite shit-typing poster.
 
Validuz said:
"among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year."

40% is the rounded up figure from total rape allegations (84,000 a year). So 32/84=38%.
Click to expand...

You're assuming all rapes result in court cases against said rapist.
 
Validuz said:
I just don't like bullshit numbers, intellectual dishonesty...
Click to expand...

You've compared numbers from two different studies/surveys without an understanding of where either number came from and dismissed the results of your bullshit calculation based upon your own anecdotal experience. If anyone in this thread is guilty of the things you allegedly don't like, it's you.
 
Ya know validuz, maybe I'm just fucking done with people like you using rape victims as a political football? They deal with enough shit in their lifetimes aside from conservatives claiming date rape isn't "real rape" and that pregnancy just means your body wanted it.

So, fuck you.
Signed, The Rest of America.
 
BTW FWIW

assignment-7-graph-background-info.gif


If humans keep up the present population growth in < 500 years we will be standing packed shoulder to shoulder over all the land (even if we are skinny, which we most likely would be hehe) 500 years after that we will be standing on each others shoulders a million deep, and 1000 years after that we will be screaming off into space at light speed reaching the edge of the known universe. But don't worry people, Jebus will be comming and saving our asses long before that soooo

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bam
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top