Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue Mar 26 18:21:59 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / Hate crime statistics and Trump
Rugian
Member
Sun Feb 24 11:35:54
Breaking this out from the Smollet thread. To recap, tumbleweed has now taken to posting FBI statistics to prove that hate crimes in America are spiraling out of control in the age of Trump.

Now, treating hate crime statistics as if they were at all reliable in the first place is silly. Hate crime is by definition a thought crime, and there are literally dozens of variables that could materially skew the figures. In short, it's impossible to accurately measure something so subjective and politically charged.

But let's pretend for a minute that hate crime numbers aren't just dressed-up fancy horseshit. Very well, let's get into specifics. I went a bit further into the data and made the fancy charts below. For tumbleweed and others, please

1) Point out what exactly in this hate crime data you think Trump is to blame for, AND

2) Explain why that data is so significant as to warrant labeling Trump as dangerous and unfit to lead.

Thanks in advance.

----

For reference, number of reporting agencies by year:

http://imgur.com/UqVOA0x

Total reported hate crime incidents by year:

https://imgur.com/Bjoo7IN

Reported hate crime incidents per year, race or ethnicity bias:

https://imgur.com/VBDdpXK

Reported hate crime incidents per year, religious bias:

https://imgur.com/KNhP7lW

Reported anti-black/Hispanic/Jewish/Muslim hate crime offenses per year, by type:

https://imgur.com/sXbWfq7
hood
Member
Sun Feb 24 14:20:18
"Hate crime is by definition a thought crime"

You're not this retarded. Don't go full retard.
jergul
large member
Sun Feb 24 14:23:59
Ruggy
Premeditated murder is by definition a thought crime too!

I second hood. Don't go full retard.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Feb 24 17:20:23
"tumbleweed has now taken to posting FBI statistics to prove that hate crimes in America are spiraling out of control in the age of Trump"

no... i posted it as you (& others around the web) are posting those lists of hoaxes to presumably suggest Trump is not creating more hate crimes

i'm not saying it's spiraling out of control... but he undoubtedly has contributed... his whole campaign theme was about keeping out Muslims & Mexicans

can add increased extreme hatred of the Media to the list too
kargen
Member
Sun Feb 24 17:52:55
More hate crimes are being reported because more agencies are reporting hate crimes that in the past didn't differentiate between a crime and hate crime. The number hasn't increased significantly if at all.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Feb 24 19:10:55
of course, Trump's words & actions can't possibly have any effect on anyone according to kargen

i'm sure that guy planning all the killings of Dems & 'fake news' reporters thought of "poca warren" on his own
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Feb 24 19:32:05
-"Islam hates us" -Trump
-he had a plan to ban ALL muslims
-he claimed muslims who live in the same neighborhood as terrorists all know what the terrorists are up to (and this was the point of his many times repeated completely false story of people seeing 'bombs all over the floor' and not reporting it in San Bernardino)

But not one of his crazed zealot fans, who still chant "lock her up!" at his WWE-style rallies, could possibly be influenced by his words?
kargen
Member
Sun Feb 24 19:54:59
I like how you just pull shit right out your ass tumbleweed then act as if someone in these forums said it.

Do you see anywhere in my message a mention of President Trump?

What you should see if you were not so delusional is the most likely explanation of increase in reported hate crimes.

1000 agencies that were not reporting hate crimes a couple of years ago are reporting hate crimes now. If each of those agencies reported only one crime that explains the increase.

You can't blame President Trump in a rise in hate crimes when there is no rise in hate crimes.

There are so few hate crimes we can blame on President Trump that we have to go out and invent and/or fake them.
hood
Member
Sun Feb 24 19:59:42
"you pull shit out of your ass that nobody says!"
- kargen, right before saying exactly what he claimed he didn't say.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Feb 24 20:08:06
yeah, kargen is pulling out of his ass that any increase must entirely be based on changes in reporting

because why? beause nothing can be Trumps fault ever... even though pure common sense suggests Trumps rhetoric and the zealotry of his fans would lead to more harrassment, and if there's more harassment there will be some that cross the line into crimes

Wrath of Orion
Member
Sun Feb 24 20:21:46
Seriously, if there are a bunch more agencies now reporting hate crimes, you can't conclude anything before eliminating that variable. You could normalize by number of reporting agencies, but that introduces a slew of other problems.

The best way to handle it to only look at the data from agencies that have been reporting for a number of years and see what the trend is.
kargen
Member
Sun Feb 24 21:05:25
Now if crimes against white Trump supporters were counted as hate crimes then the numbers would be way the fuck up there.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Feb 24 21:16:51
I'lll stick with common sense over a study that will never exist or made-up conclusions

-Trump lowered the level of discourse with his constant childish language and fact-free nonsense
-Trump raged against muslims and mexicans, that was what set him apart from the pack
-White nationalist groups enthusiastically supported him
-His fans LOVE him, he can do no wrong, despite him constantly provably lying to their faces and engaging in childish attacks over substance

It would be a miracle if this has had NO effect


Wrath of Orion
Member
Sun Feb 24 21:22:12
"made-up conclusions"

But that is exactly what you are doing. Congrats on that.

I'm not sure what your issue is, but you seriously need to check your meds or something. Goddamn.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Feb 24 21:28:05
no, kargen claims there is no increase, that it's all just reporting changes, that's a made-up conclusion with nothing to back it up

I am providing common sense evidence...and I am not claiming it's -all- because of Trump... I am saying there is no question he would cause a rise

there's a national emergency invasion! at the border... not one Trump supporter looks at a brown person at all diffferently now after all his claims? Not one intolerant person feels more free to express it now?

Camaban
The Overseer
Sun Feb 24 22:37:45
I'd agree he'd cause a rise.

But a large part of that is that the louder parts of his opposition are pretty fucking racist. Identitarianism is a cancer.

Hardcore identitarians have decided him being in office is an emergency that justifies horrible behaviour and rhetoric. Including highlighting the difference between various races and groups.

When was the last time it was acceptable - even admirable - to be this openly racist?
kargen
Member
Sun Feb 24 23:20:56
"no, kargen claims there is no increase, that it's all just reporting changes, that's a made-up conclusion with nothing to back it up"

Your synapses are not firing. I never claimed there was no increase in reported hate crimes. There obviously was an increase and I even provided the numbers in the other thread. I also posted this:

"There was an increase of 1,054 hate crimes from 2016 to 2017. There were also 1,000 more agencies that began reporting hate crimes. Some agencies do not differentiate between crime and hate crime. So if each new agency reported one hate crime that almost covers the increase."

1000 new agencies and 1054 more hate crimes. If you used common sense as you claim you would attribute much of the increase to the number of agencies now reporting.

Without taking into account the number of agencies reporting we can't know if there is an increase in hate crimes let alone attribute them to a single persons rhetoric. More reported does not equate to more committed when other variables have changed.

The 1054 more hate crimes and 1000 more reporting agencies comes from the FBI report on hate crime.

tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Feb 25 01:49:48
i never said you denied an increase in -reported- crimes... are you purposely being deliberately misleading? seems like it


this is you:
"The number hasn't increased significantly if at all."
and
"You can't blame President Trump in a rise in hate crimes when there is no rise in hate crimes. "


that is YOU saying that there is NO increase due to Trump (or any increase at all)

forget the FBI stats, it's voluntary reporting as you point out by noting more places reporting


my position:
- Trumps words & behavior has an effect

your (ridiculous) position (in this & on tweeting):
- Trump's words & behavior has ZERO effect


well, see the rise in Republican favorability of Putin/Russia starting w/ Trump's campaign... being pro-Russia was none of the other R's opinion

PROVEN: Trump has an effect (as is obvious)

& he talked about being friends w/ Russia less than hating on muslims / mexicans / refugees / immigrants
kargen
Member
Mon Feb 25 02:04:48
And both those statements are prefaced by stating more agencies are reporting and if each one reported one hate crime that explains the rise.

"Trumps words & behavior has an effect

your (ridiculous) position (in this & on tweeting):
- Trump's words & behavior has ZERO effect"

Nah that is a position you have decided to assign to me. What you read isn't what registers in your brain for some reason.

"PROVEN: Trump has an effect (as is obvious)"

then you should be able to back that with data. Not your delusional it must be so because I want it to be so dribble. Actual data we can see and analyze.
Otherwise all you have is your own biased opinion. That's it.

Might as well remind you, though it won't stick, I've said many times I don't like when President Trump tweets. I just don't put as much importance on his tweets as you do. You treat them like royal edicts.
jergul
large member
Mon Feb 25 07:38:22
He tweeted and oil prices fell by 2 dollars a barrel.

Wrath of Orion
Member
Mon Feb 25 09:11:04
The real problem here is tw is willing to go with the "feels" since it suits his agenda. How many times have you asked people to provide data to back up a claim?

So keep this in mind for the future. If you're willing to go with the feels here, you should be willing to go with the feels in plenty of other instances. Because the data (by reporting agency) is out there (specifically Table 13).

http://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2017/topic-pages/jurisdiction

It is interesting to note the first two bullets on that page. I'll reproduce them here.

"The UCR Program’s Hate Crime Statistics Program included 16,149 participating law enforcement agencies in 2017. These agencies provided 1 to 12 months of data about bias-motivated crime. Of those agencies, 2,040 (12.6 percent) reported 7,175 incidents."

"The remaining 87.4 percent of agencies participating in the Hate Crime Statistics Program reported that no hate crimes occurred in their jurisdictions."

So 87.4% of reporting agencies recorded 0 hate crimes in 2017. If we apply that to about 1,000 new agencies reporting in 2017, we'd estimate 874 of those would report 0 hate crimes.

That begins to undermine kargen's position that most of the increase is probably due to an increase in reporting agencies.

See how data works?

Now, that's all just a rough estimate based on aggregate numbers, but it adds another piece of data to the view and gives us a better guess at what is going on.

With all the time some of you spend posting here, surely someone has the time to grab data on about 30 agencies that have been reporting for a handful of years and do the trend analysis.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Feb 25 11:07:49
there you go, thanks WoO... reporting 0 is not only possible but common, so kargen's entire argument is baseless

i didn't start w/ 'feels', i started w/ FBI data... but was unaware it's not particularly reliable in this case

however now we know it DOES show a rise that is unexplained by more reporting agencies

plus common sense still is relevant... and there was news of teachers reporting increased bullying (entirely expected w/ a childish bully launching childish attacks as president)... and presumably at least one marcher in Charlottesville was at least 1% more emboldened to march publicly due to the atmosphere created by Trump (no i can't prove it, but you're an idiot if you don't think so)
kargen
Member
Mon Feb 25 11:11:34
So the average number of hate crimes among agencies that reported hate crimes is 3.5. The overall numbers show that hate crimes are regional. That makes it harder to use President Trump as the reason for the increase. Would be interesting to know what the numbers are for the agencies that started reporting.
If we use averages and apply to the 1000 new agencies they would account for 441 of the hate crimes reported. That gives us that can't be accounted for using just the average.

To try and determine the cause we would have to see the number of reports from individual agencies and see what category the hate crimes fall under.

There is still nothing to support the theory that President Trump is to blame.
hood
Member
Mon Feb 25 11:48:02
You are unlikely to find any smoking gun within data to point the finger at Trump. He's still likely responsible for some of the uptick.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Feb 25 11:50:07
so you're changing from no rise in hate crimes, to there's no reason to think Trump contributed one iota to the rise


well there is... there is plenty of reason... but you've already demonstrated your weird notions by suggesting he can say/tweet literally anything at all and still be fit for President, so no point in continuing the argument

-----------------

MAGA hat-wearing man cuffed after allegedly pushing Mexican immigrant onto Manhattan subway tracks

"You come here and you take our jobs!" he screamed, according to cops. "You bring drugs!"

http://www...grant-tracks-article-1.3956571

ding
Pillz
Member
Mon Feb 25 12:02:38
Funny I don't recall tw lambasting Obama or shillary for their comments during summers 2014/15 race riots
Pillz
Member
Mon Feb 25 12:02:47
Erm 15/16
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Feb 25 12:26:10
you'll have to be more specific
kargen
Member
Mon Feb 25 15:08:45
"so you're changing from no rise in hate crimes, to there's no reason to think Trump contributed one iota to the rise"

Unlike you when shown new data I can adjust my views accordingly. Still need to point out to you my main message has been and still is because there were/are other variables we can't just look at the numbers and say hate crimes have increased. Being unable to say that we can't say President Trump is responsible for an increase in hate crime.

Something else to throw in the mix. About 10% of the reporting agencies represent 50% of the population. These are the agencies most likely to report hate crimes so maybe the agencies not reporting a crime doesn't matter as much? We also need to know how many out of the new 1000 reported a crime rather than just use the average.

Throwing in a few more wrenches. 2017 the UCR started allowing the reporting of animal cruelty, identity theft, and hacking/computer invasion and those can be listed as a hate crime depending on motive.
We also have to toss in that one incident can be listed as more than one hate crime. For instance if Smollett wasn't a lying fuck his attack could be listed as a hate crime based on race and a hate crime based on sexual orientation. I don't know if the numbers reflect incidents or categorized hate crimes but to figure out how much of an increase there might be we would need to know that.

From their site.

"Although the UCR Program historically calculates national estimates for specific tables in Crime in the United States, the program does not estimate any data (i.e., no estimation method is applied to account for missing data) in the Hate Crime Statistics Program"

So tumbleweed once again you are claiming something is true simply because you want it to be true, not because you have any data or facts to support your claim.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Feb 25 15:29:38
i don't 'want' it to be true

it's self-evident

but i guess you feel Hitler had no ability to influence people either... that's right, time for Hitler :p
kargen
Member
Mon Feb 25 16:35:00
thanks for conceding the argument. When you gotta play the Hitler card you know you lost.

It is self evident to you because you are delusional. That is it, end of story.

tumbleweed theory: Trump causes hate crimes.

tumbleweed proof: I said so.

tumbleweed conclusion: Trump causes hate crimes.

And none of Hitlers tweets were responsible for any aggression.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Feb 25 16:48:02
do you believe Trump has had no influence on mere harassment (non-criminal) of muslims/mexicans/(or mistaken muslims/mexicans)?

how crazy are you willing to go
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Feb 25 16:54:53
"
Chinese stocks rocketed higher on Trump's trade tweet, but a deal isn't a sure thing

...
Trump said in a Sunday evening Twitter post he would delay an increase in tariffs on Chinese exports to the U.S. that was originally scheduled for March 1. "Assuming both sides make additional progress, we will be planning a Summit for President Xi and myself, at Mar-a-Lago, to conclude an agreement," Trump tweeted. "A very good weekend for U.S. & China!"

Chinese stocks rallied following the news. The Shanghai composite soared 5.6 percent, sending the index back into bull market territory, or up more than 20 percent from a low touched in early January.
"
http://www...her-on-trumps-trade-tweet.html

...but surely it was entirely other factors right? 0.0% of rally was in response to the tweet
kargen
Member
Mon Feb 25 18:07:37
So now rising stock prices are hate crimes?

I never said President trumps tweets didn't have an affect on things. I said they are not policy, people put to much importance to them and there is no evidence that they caused a rise in hate crimes.
I also have many times said I wish he wouldn't tweet for a variety of reasons. One being his tweets often give the left fodder that distracts from the real issue. Same with some of his speeches.
Rugian
Member
Mon Feb 25 19:20:26
Hood,

Step out of your bubble. "Hate crime = thought crime" is hardly an uncommon argument among detractors of such laws. To say nothing about certain judicial opinions on the subject...

"In State v. Wyant,33 however, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned a statute enhancing penalties for aggravated menacing, menacing, criminal damaging or endangering, criminal mischief, and some types of telephone harassment.34 The court found that, since the penalty for the underlying offense of aggravated menacing already punishes the defendant's criminal action, the only thing left for the enhancement statute to punish was the offender's motive or thought.35 However, the First Amendment prohibits punishment of thought.36 Thus, the Ohio high court found the statute unconstitutional.37"

http://sch....cgi?article=6790&context=jclc

It says a lot of how much the Overton window has shifted when being opposed to hate crimes laws constitutes going "full retard" though. If that sets you off, just wait until you hear about my ideas regarding affirmative action. You won't be able to insult my IQ fast enough.
Rugian
Member
Mon Feb 25 19:25:49
tumbleweed and kargen,

It hurts me that the two of you spent thirty posts debating certain issues that were already answered by my graphs. I clearly labored for naught.

Anyway tumbleweed, to return to the OP challenge, please point out exactly WHERE Trump's rhetoric has directly caused a substantial increase in hate crimes against his targeted groups. If his words were truly so damaging, there would be pretty concrete evidence of it.
Rugian
Member
Mon Feb 25 19:29:36
And please keep in mind that I'm not at all a fan of the "even one is too many" argument.
kargen
Member
Mon Feb 25 19:43:18
Well to be fair I am lazy and didn't want to copy and paste. I went back and looked. Those graphs basically show what I read in the FBI report.

Also read most the crimes reported were reported in areas that had a heavy concentration of the targeted group. For example in a predominately Jewish neighborhood swastikas were painted on synagogues.
hood
Member
Mon Feb 25 20:23:11
"It says a lot of how much the Overton window has shifted when being opposed to hate crimes laws constitutes going "full retard" though."

That is not what was said. I see you did not take my advice.


Suggesting that hate crimes are thought crimes is preposterous. Actual, physical, real crimes are still being committed. Attaching the "hate" aspect to it is merely adding intent. It is no different than the various degrees of murder. We have involuntary manslaughter: negligent cause of death; voluntary manslaughter: malice but no prior intent + exigent circumstances; murder 2: malice but no prior intent (no other circumstances); murder 1: malice and premeditation.

Hate crime is just adding "because he was (black/white/whatever)" to shooting someone in the face (or any other crime). It is an extension of intent. Establishing intent is not a "thought crime." Murder 1 is no more a thought crime than involuntary manslaughter.

Don't go full retard.
Rugian
Member
Mon Feb 25 20:49:50
"Suggesting that hate crimes are thought crimes is preposterous."

Um...but they are. A person who committed a hate crime is already being separately charged for whatever actual damage they did. Hate crime charges, on the other hand, are purely concerned with presupposing the motives (aka thoughts) behind the offense. This is different from the differing degrees of murder, which are a measure of the level of negligence and/or planning which went into the single most serious crime of all. The latter can be objectively measured. The former often cannot, especially given the unavoidable political issues related to it (can a person of color be racist against white people etc.)

If I assault a black man, I should be charged with assault. If I kill a black man, I should be charged with murder. If I kill a black man because of his skin color, I should be charged with premeditated murder. Hate crimes are unnecessary and arbitrary distinctions that should be eliminated from criminal codes.

Oh, and since we're throwing around insults now...fucking PC faggot.
hood
Member
Mon Feb 25 21:47:16
I didn't actually throw any insults around, bro.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Feb 25 22:05:49
@Rugian
I never said they were spiraling out of control and not sure I ever used it as a reason he is unfit for office... and not sure whipping up hatred would even be in my top 10.

The data shows -11,000 agencies reporting -6,000 going to -12,000 reporting ~7,000 which suggests an increase. But not all hate crimes are reported, not all reported hate crimes are charged as hate crimes, and not all data is sent to the FBI so the data isn't too valuable.

I claimed Trump has undoubtedly contributed to some using logic and anecdotal evidence (and anecdotal seems relevant... as that's an incident). You can find videos of Trump fans at or outside rallies shouting hate... it is impossible to believe none of his idiot fans cross the line. (see maga subway guy above)


And the stock market/tweet thing was not about hate crimes but in reference to kargen in another thread claiming Trump can tweet literally anything... make false accusations against anyone, insult any world leader, etc and never be unfit for office, as he claimed it has zero meaning or effect
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Feb 25 22:15:32
in fact, who gives a shit if they crossed the line into crime

you'd have to be insane to believe Trump hasnt spurred at least non-criminal harassment of minorities and that is bad on its own (and if you accept that obvious notion, I see no reason not to accept some would do actual crimes)

...and if you want less harassment of Trump fans by the left, then removing Trump helps that too
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Feb 25 22:45:26
this conversation began with Smollett falsely accusing Trump fans of a racist attack, well...

Trump (the President):
"Be nice if Spike Lee could read his notes, or better yet not have to use notes at all, when doing his racist hit on your President, who has done more for African Americans (Criminal Justice Reform, Lowest Unemployment numbers in History, Tax Cuts,etc.) than almost any other Pres!"

The part of Spike Lee's speech relative to Trump:
"Let’s all mobilize. Let’s all be on the right side of history. Make the moral choice between love versus hate. Let’s do the right thing! You know I had to get that in there."
http://www...aged-trump-watch-read-it-here/

spot the 'racist hit'



kargen
Member
Tue Feb 26 15:10:30
"And the stock market/tweet thing was not about hate crimes but in reference to kargen in another thread claiming Trump can tweet literally anything... make false accusations against anyone, insult any world leader, etc and never be unfit for office, as he claimed it has zero meaning or effect"

Again not what I said, but what you think you read. I said his tweets were not official. I said his tweets are not policy. I said we should take his tweets as ramblings and give no importance to them. I didn't say others are not affected by his tweets. I said they shouldn't be.
A tweet saying CNN is fake news should be ignored. If he tweeted it sure would make his day if someone dropped a bomb off at CNN then sure pay attention to that one.

And if you want to play the anecdotal game look at the number of black churches that have been vandalized by black people masquerading as KKK. Look at the number of attacks against people in red hats. Look at attacks against conservative speakers on college campuses.

"Be nice if Spike Lee could read his notes..."

perfect example. The tweet means nothing. Just read it think what an idiot and move on.
hood
Member
Tue Feb 26 15:24:31
"I didn't say others are not affected by his tweets. I said they shouldn't be."

Translated:
I don't like this reality so I'm going to substitute my own reality and argue based on that fiction.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Feb 26 15:50:23
right, if you (kargen) admit others don't treat his tweets as a random collection of letters (as seems logical & reasonable, given he's the PRESIDENT) then how can you say he can tweet anything at all & still be fit for office (just because you personally have a weird opinion on the significance of what he says)?

he doesn't need to ask people to bomb/kill in order to harm the country, he is smearing a thick layer of bullshit & lies across the nation


"Mr. (Trump), what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. "

^that applies to Trump basically any time he speaks without direct reading of a teleprompter, certainly every rally... (& he's even slipping more of his BS into teleprompter speeches)
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Feb 26 16:08:19
"The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth" ~Trump

- seems to me there's a non-zero chance of that influencing one of those nutty abortion clinic protester people to be pushed over the edge
- it's not exactly helping bring the country together, while doing nothing positive
- oh, and it's false

(not the worst example of things he's said, just happens to be current)


presumably, as you have the insane position that Russia didn't prefer Trump (even though he was their dream candidate & Hillary a personal enemy) then you must believe Russia's only goal ever was to spread division

well, guess who else spreads division day in & day out
kargen
Member
Tue Feb 26 18:01:29
"Translated:
I don't like this reality so I'm going to substitute my own reality and argue based on that fiction."

nah that is tumbleweed. I am saying everyone should take President Trump's tweets with a grain of salt.

"then how can you say he can tweet anything at all & still be fit for office"

easy I care more about actions than words. I know his tweets are hyperbole designed to get the press to react. Being hyperbole people shouldn't get all butt hurt about them. Keep dwelling on them if you wish but it is really a waste of your time.

"- seems to me there's a non-zero chance of that influencing one of those nutty abortion clinic protester people to be pushed over the edge"

and that same nut could be pushed over the edge for any number of reasons. Maybe his breakfast flakes got soggy. Has been my position even before these forums existed people that are set on doing evil or on the verge of doing evil will do so then try and find something to justify it. The short of it is if President Trump's abortion tweet set off that person something was going to set them off anyway. The person committing the crime is to blame. Not rock and roll, not a video game and not a Trump tweet.
Forwyn
Member
Tue Feb 26 18:20:44
lulz @ tw
Pillz
Member
Tue Feb 26 18:39:05
Amazing, tw is on par with Jack Thompson.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Feb 26 19:06:19
Amazing that people think it's fine for a President to tweet lies day after day, with his idiot fans OBVIOUSLY believing some of it (even though Kargen knows it's all lies)

there is no question the public is dumber because of Trump... they certainly aren't ever getting facts from him
Forwyn
Member
Wed Feb 27 00:25:53
"lies"

Is it #fakenews that Democrats blocked a bill that would require medical care rendered to birthed infants that survive abortion attempts?
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Feb 27 01:22:47
yeah, the whole 'change every word of what Trump said into something else' defense

how is that remotely the same as "The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth"

executing babies after birth is already illegal so obviously that is not what this law was

and late-term abortions are very rare to begin with, and in those rare times it's almost always when the health of the mother at risk (& in Virginia, which is what caused this non-problem to be addressed, that is mandatory) or the baby is seriously fucked up

here's one Dem opponent (Duckworth):
“If it becomes law, this bill would force doctors to perform ineffective, invasive procedures on fetuses born with fatal abnormalities, even if it’s against the best interests of the child, even if it goes against recommended standards of care and they know it wouldn’t extend or improve the baby’s life, even if it would prolong the suffering of the families, forcing women to endure added lasting trauma, making one of the worst moments of their lives somehow even more painful.”

now you find me one Dem who's advocating for "executing babies after birth"
Forwyn
Member
Wed Feb 27 02:32:10
"health of the mother at risk"

Lulz tw

Please tell us a medical condition that would threaten the mother that would be rendered moot by a late-term abortion

@the rest of the rant

Nah. The language of the bill was totally innocuous - treat a birthed baby the same as any other baby of the same gestational age, regardless of status.

But sure, "recommended standards of care" = deprive of medical care to ensure death in tw soundbyte land - and that's not execution, in tw soundbyte land.

Jesus fucking Christ you're making Roe V Wade supporters staunchly pro-life with your idiocy
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Feb 27 16:26:48
so you can't envision a situation where removing a fetus 2 months early could be beneficial to a mother?

I have no medical knowledge or abortion knowledge, but don't really need it as the laws saying you can't have late-term abortions without a health issue exist, so obviously people much more in the know have looked into it and written those laws.

Also, please provide what you think are the common motives for people getting late term abortions?

Is there even a known instance of an otherwise healthy fetus/baby surviving an abortion and the mother says to let it die, and the doc says ok?
Forwyn
Member
Wed Feb 27 16:31:50
"removing"

Right. Remove the child. No need to stab it on the way out. Welcome to evictionism.

"Is there even a known instance of an otherwise healthy fetus/baby surviving an abortion and the mother says to let it die, and the doc says ok?"

Obviously people much more in the know have looked into it and written those laws. /s
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Feb 27 16:36:56
What are you basing that on?

This new law was a direct response to the VA governors flub answer (and this is acknowledged by the person who made the new law) but the governor was giving an answer to a hypothetical question.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Feb 27 16:48:19
So you acknowledge that legislators frequently propose laws based on soundbytes, not extensive research, and "health of the mother" is a scapegoat?
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Feb 27 16:59:47
i don't recall saying 'frequently'

Also, as you appear to be anti-abortion, then you should be happy about those health clauses existing as you for some reason think it would never apply (which is silly... removing -every- baby 2 months early would probably be best for the health of every mother)

This particular law was in response to a hypothetical situation is all I know.

And I find it doubtful there are many women seeking late term abortions merely because they changed their mind... and that a doctor would let it die if it came out alive and otherwise healthy.

Whereas with this law, if a 3-headed fetus with no faces was removed and it survived the doc would have to poke holes in it to supply breathing and feeding tubes (probably doesn't happen :p ... but I don't really want to research fucked up baby possibilities)
hood
Member
Wed Feb 27 17:04:12
I can't tell if Forwyn is just being an asshole or if he legitimately doesn't understand the well founded medical consensus surrounding the existence of 3rd trimester dangers to women during pregnancy.

Either way, his line of "logic" should be ignored, as the existence of pregnancy dangers are pretty well settled.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Feb 27 20:56:10
I can't tell if you're just fundamentally unable to read, or if you're intentionally misinterpreting my statements, but inducing early is a standard response to late-term pregnancy complications.

Inducing early + KCI injection + skull crushing is not a standard response, and results in no more positive of a prognosis than the former.

"Also, as you appear to be anti-abortion"

Nah. Evictionist bro. Induce whenever you want. If that results in the non-development of a non-viable fetus, so be it.
hood
Member
Wed Feb 27 21:17:24
So you're just legitimately unaware of basic pregnancy care. Gotcha.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Feb 27 21:18:03
So you're just legitimately a fucking retard. Gotcha.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Feb 27 21:24:10
Me: "Danger to the mother" is not a valid argument because abortion is not the medically accepted response to any of these dangers, though early induction might be
You: aRe YoU sErIoUsLy SaYiNg ThAt ThErE aRe No LaTe TeRm DaNgErS?
Me: No, retard.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Feb 27 21:29:49
So you feel fetuses should be safely birthed 2 months early if needed rather than ever an abortion? Is that your argument?

You seem to be using 'late term' as like a week before normal due date or something, I'm unaware of inducement substantially prior to due date (although I can't say I have any particular knowledge on the topic)

In any case, back to Trump, executing babies after birth is illegal, if there are Dems who want that option they'll have to write a new law not vote against this one
Forwyn
Member
Wed Feb 27 23:27:07
"So you feel fetuses should be safely birthed 2 months early if needed rather than ever an abortion?"

However early is needed. Viability (though still low percentage) is ~21 weeks. But yes, abortion requires birthing anyway. Again, if you're birthing anyway, there is zero medical benefit to killing it on the way out - especially when it often involved fragmenting the fetus within the womb.

"You seem to be using 'late term' as like a week before normal due date or something"

Nah. Pretty much anything third trimester. Any preemie born after 25 weeks has more than 2/3 chance of survival, assuming you don't crush it's head with forceps.

"executing babies after birth is illegal"

Denying medical care to birthed designated aborted fetuses is not. Whether or not that qualifies as execution is as arbitrary as whether or not you consider a fetus to be a life.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Feb 27 23:31:13
"I'm unaware of inducement substantially prior to due date"

It happens. Here's a study measuring frequency of vaginal delivery based on gestational time of induction.

"A total of 6555 women who underwent medically indicated IOL at <37 weeks of gestation were included in this analysis. Patients were divided into 4 groups based on gestational age (GA): group A, 24-27+6 weeks; B, 28-30+6 weeks; C, 31-33+6 weeks; and D, 34-36+6 weeks."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25068566

"In some cases, pre-term labour is planned and induced because it's safer for the baby to be born sooner rather than later.

This could be because of a health condition in the mother, such as pre-eclampsia, or in the baby."

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/premature-early-labour/
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Feb 28 00:51:44
your interest in abortions exceeds mine

and you still haven't addressed fucked-up babies/fetuses (probably not the medical term) that Duckworth referenced

i heard late-term abortions are only ~1% of all abortions, and i would imagine most late-term abortions are done legitimately for health reasons of the mother (or defective fetus) as it seems weird to me you'd carry it so long if you didn't want it (if you have evidence otherwise you can present it... although we aren't going to resolve anything)

also, again, there's no obvious cases where a doctor -did- let a living relatively healthy baby die that i'm aware of

i am certain this particular legislation is not based on anything that happened other than hypothetical speculation... which both sides do when a partisan law comes out, people think of the weirdest/worst case scenario even if in practice it's not likely to ever happen

-------

i just googled... found this article w/ a baby-killer claiming abortions don't happen for 'health of the mother' or 'personal reasons' after 24 weeks & they instead do what you want (if for health) or turn the person away (if for personal reasons)

and that 98.6% of abortions are at <21 weeks, and most that are after are for "serious fetal anomalies"

http://www...72/donald-trump-abortion-wrong

you can argue w/ that person if you want to... or someone else here can take up the fight

as noted, i'm not knowledgeable on this topic :p
Forwyn
Member
Thu Feb 28 01:57:54
"or defective fetus"
"serious fetal anomalies"

Yup. True. Most are going to be performed following a diagnosis for a major defect, such as anencephaly. Tough decision to make, and I don't really fault anyone for it.

Just pushing for an honest discussion. "Health of the mother" is not honest. For that, you just induce.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Feb 28 11:10:23
well 'health of the mother' was something i brought up, it was not relevant to the new bill/Congress/Trump stuff... and apparently i'm wrong according to the Vox article (she seems to indicate most after 21 weeks, & basically -all- after 24 weeks are about the defective babies)

and... this bill would've required doctors to try to keep alive seemingly what would almost always be defective babies (the Vox article notes a fetus w/o a brain, & one w/o lungs... so maybe my 3-headed no-face fetus is possible)
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share