Utopia Talk / Politics / Ben Shapiro BBC interview

Seb Member	Fri May 10 12:01:33 Quite amusing when he calls Andrew Neil, Arch Tory brexiteer, editor of the Sunday Times, Spectator columnist, founding chairman of News Corp and serial Rupert Murdoch flunky a left winger because he doesn't like his line of questioning. These alt right snowflakes...
Rugian Member	Fri May 10 12:09:19 It's a total mystery how Shapiro may have confused the BBC presenter who was comparing pro-lifers to Middle Age throwbacks a leftist. I dont see how that could have happened at all.
Rugian Member	Fri May 10 12:10:59 Also since when was being a Brexiteer a barometer of political leanings? The biggest true Brexiteer in the UK is the Leader of the Opppsition.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Fri May 10 12:14:03 poor little shapiro.
Seb Member	Fri May 10 13:12:21 Rugian: He said that Georgias heart beat law was taking us back to the dark ages. Which is a fair point: it's religiously motivated and allows women to be prosecuted for miscarriage. Harsh criminalisation of women in this right is indeed a medieval law. Rather than immediately attacking this as politically motivated, he ought to have refuted the charge with a reasoned rebuttal. Instead he engaged in an ad-hominem. The fact that Shapiro immediately assumed that there couldn't be a critique of this law from the right is telling. Especially if the supposed critic is from a different culture where the alliance between the political right doesn't include evangelical Christianity to the extent that religion plays a part in UK politics at all.
kargen Member	Fri May 10 17:25:41 "He said that Georgias heart beat law was taking us back to the dark ages. Which is a fair point: it's religiously motivated and allows women to be prosecuted for miscarriage." When a person's heart stops we don't just say well to hell with them they aren't alive any more. We try to get the heart beating again. From that perspective using the beating heart as a guideline needn't be completely religious. In the case of the Georgia law I'm certain religion is the motivating factor and this is another step towards full ban but beating heart makes as much sense as any other criteria either side is using now.
Borthas Member	Fri May 10 17:54:31 Shapiro sure did look like a hateful, paranoid manipulator afraid of answering questions from a calm, reasonable conservative journalist.
Seb Member	Fri May 10 19:49:39 Kargen: I'm far too drunk to go into detail but that's utter bullshit
kargen Member	Fri May 10 20:38:43 Nah not bullshit just thinking from the other side of life.
Seb Member	Sat May 11 11:49:08 Kargen: A fetus heart beat starts at around 22 days after conception and is detectable around four to six weeks. At this point the fetus doesn't have a brain. The neural tube hasn't fully closed yet. It's got less mental capacity than an earth worm. So no, under no circumstances is heart beat a reasonable scientific or make as much sense as any other. If it were an adult, at that level of mental capacity it would be ok to cut life support.
kargen Member	Sat May 11 11:58:29 That doesn't really change my statement. Both sides are picking arbitrary timelines and/or development stages for when abortion is okay and when it is not. Science thus far has failed to give a definitive answer. That is why we have laws that are all over the place in this.
Brainy UPer Member	Sat May 11 12:28:42 So you've basically reaffirmed that your original statement is stupid. And even at the point in time for a "heartbeat" isn't considered one. For example: According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, an embryo is not considered a fetus until eight weeks after fertilization, which is about 10 weeks into a pregnancy. At six weeks into a pregnancy, the tissues that will become the heart are beginning to develop and a pulsing can be detected that is faster than the heartbeat of the expectant mother. Several medical experts, including those opposed to the new abortion restrictions, say that it isn’t medically correct to call that pulsing a heartbeat. Rather, they say, it is the vibration or “embryonic cardiac activity” of the fetal pole, a tubelike structure that will become the heart. At six weeks into a pregnancy, the embryo has not developed a brain, spinal cord or organs that would enable survival outside the womb. If you want to be garyd, start with that you're being garyd so it is established that you are going full retard.
Forwyn Member	Sat May 11 14:57:23 Are we going with viability now? Because Dems are pushing for full on-demand abortion up until birth, and I don't see any British "conservatives" calling it barbaric.
hood Member	Sat May 11 15:03:00 Nobody has pushed that, retard.
Forwyn Member	Sat May 11 15:28:05 Sure, buddy. We haven't had mainstream figures, including presidential candidates, opine that only the act of passing through the vaginal canal bestows personhood and Constitutional rights. Maybe just shut the fuck up, your ignorance is pervasive.
hood Member	Sat May 11 16:10:27 And then he confirms on his own that he's full of shit. Don't ever change, I enjoy the ease at which you defeat yourself.
Forwyn Member	Sat May 11 16:14:10 And then he confirms on his own that he can't read English. Please, continue showing off your elementary mastery of a language you've had a generation to grasp.
hood Member	Sat May 11 17:01:41 If you are so retarded as to think that bestowing constitutional rights and personhood is equivalent to setting limits on abortion, you might want to hold off on the comprehension insults. But that would require you to comprehend what you're saying, which you're too retarded to do... bleh. Difficult hole you've dug.
Brainy UPer Member	Sat May 11 17:04:05 Ah yes, forwyn's buys into the 'abortion till birth' that was perpetuated by conservatives sites and Christian fanatics, but yet wants to get upset when he is called out being associated with those retards.
Forwyn Member	Sat May 11 18:03:34 "Setting limits" Lulz. There's hoo's vaunted comprehension skills again.
Dukhat Member	Sat May 11 19:40:10 Forwyn the "libertarian" who readily sucks social conservative cocks and nary makes a peep when Trump tramples on LGBT rights and expands Ice powers to harass US citizens.
Brainy UPer Member	Sat May 11 20:15:27 Forwyn is still embarrassed by his consistent display of repeating falsehoods and uses diversion about hood's comprehension abilities to attempt to hide the fact that he is a brainwashed moron.
Forwyn Member	Sat May 11 20:21:46 "social conservative cocks" Nah. Republicans are retarded on the issue as well. Ds will never accept protections at conception, and Rs will never accept abortion on demand until birth. Viability is the least retarded proposal. Funnily enough we already have a USSC decision backing it.
kargen Member	Sat May 11 22:15:47 "So you've basically reaffirmed that your original statement is stupid." Yeah that was pretty much my point all along. Just like most other opinions on where the cut off date should be are stupid.
Brainy UPer Member	Sat May 11 23:16:23 Except for the fact that while you are attempting to say both sides are equal in their rationale to the point of stupidity. You manage to pick the side that forgoes all logic, medical science, and facts. You're garyd.
kargen Member	Sun May 12 02:36:29 I haven't picked a side. Seb mentioned the heartbeat law specifically and I responded. I also mentioned the ambiguity of science on the issue. Since you brought up picking sides though I personally feel in many but not all cases abortion is morally wrong. I do not think we should legislate morality though and government should neither pay for abortions nor should it ban abortions. And since you want to play the science game when do you think the fetus becomes a viable human? The opinions run the gamut from conception to birth and everything in between. A lot for you to choose from.
Seb Member	Sun May 12 03:55:02 Kargen: This law gives the fetus legal personhood before it has a brain and where many women might not yet even know they are pregnant. So if you miscarry because, day, you do something dangerous not even knowing you are pregnant, under this law you are potentially criminally liable. This is definitely dark ages shit: women as chattel, mere vessels for the fathers children. This "abortion on demand to due date" is irrelevant. That's not the law being passed (in fact I've never heard anyone advancing such a proposition) and the interviewer was challenging Shapiros positions. And while it is hard to put a definite day, that's not the same as saying any criteria is equally valid. This law is theocracy, not science.
jergul large member	Sun May 12 04:41:47 Seb I could be compelled by a viable argument as it is axiomatic when you think about it. Something undesirable can be removed by a woman at any stage. As an abortion if not viable and through induced labour if viable. The undesirable something would then be taken care of by janitorial staff, or hospital staff on behalf of child services as applicable. The principle at hand is a woman's right to get rid of something undesirable. What happens afterwards is not her concern.
Seb Member	Sun May 12 05:31:33 Jergul: Induced labour or cesarean isn't an abortion and I'm not sure it helps to conflate the two. One should be careful of extending arguments from principle too far in these cases I feel. Philosophically, could one part of an adult conjoined twin remove his twin if the twin to be removed was non-viable? There is room for morally inconsistent decisions driven by yuck factor. Let's keep it simple - at some point society thinks the fetus is too far advanced for it to be aborted. Alternatives can be considered, but terminating the fetus not. We can have reasonable arguments as to what that point is. Setting that threshold at a point prior to the women reliably being able to know she's pregnant, while giving the fetus full independent legal status when it is less developed than an earthworm, and making the woman criminally liable for harm to the fetus is so far outside the parameters I see no need to bring other aspects of the abortion debate into be play. It's a transparent and laughable attempt to shift the overton window.
kargen Member	Sun May 12 12:40:48 "So if you miscarry because, day, you do something dangerous not even knowing you are pregnant, under this law you are potentially criminally liable." This part is not true. "Georgia’s law does not unequivocally say that women are exempt, but legal experts point to other areas of Georgia’s penal code which have specific defenses for women, including those who miscarry." The Alabama law is similar to the Georgia law and is specific that doctors would be held criminal but the women would not. The Ohio law if it ever got out of committee and passed (it will die in committee) is much worse. That bill some idiot decided an ectopic pregnancy should not just be ended but the embryo removed and then put back in the proper place. The bill doesn't actually say that but it could be interpreted that way and the main sponsor of the bill hasn't responded to answer what he meant when mentioning ectopic pregnancies in the bill. Either way the procedure doesn't exist as the embryo could never develop into a viable fetus. The New York law says after 24 weeks an abortion can only happen if "there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health" based on "reasonable and good faith professional judgment," Pro Choice people are saying this includes both physical and mental health and with the way the law is written a woman could decide the stress of having a child is to much and have an abortion right up to birth. The Pro Life people jumped on this to say the New York law allows any abortion at any time during the pregnancy. At some point the courts will have to clarify what constitutes a risk to mental health. No prominent politicians have jumped on board the up to birth argument though a couple did explain the law really poorly leading others to believe that is what it meant. The point being we are still all over the place in determining when the fetus becomes viable and when it would be given any kind of rights. If you really want to muddy the waters in some states if a drunk driver kills a pregnant woman he is charged with two counts of vehicular homicide. So obviously there are some laws that protect the fetus and give it rights.
Seb Member	Sun May 12 13:45:17 Kargen: "Georgia’s law does not unequivocally say that women are exempt, but legal experts point to other areas of Georgia’s penal code which have specific defenses for women, including those who miscarry" Defence can only occur *if* you are criminally liable. I.e. there may be some circumstances where you may not be liable (untested). So what I said was exactly correct: you are potentially liable.
Seb Member	Sun May 12 13:54:07 Kargen: "Pro Choice people are saying this includes both physical and mental health and with the way the law is written a woman could decide the stress of having a child is to much and have an abortion right up to birth." Which ones? Have they changed the law? If so, why are we talking about them? Generally, most Western countries allow abortion for any reason up to the end of the first trimester. Some all the way up to the end of second (as NY). That disparity over a trimester reflects varying views of the emerging trade off between women's rights and societies view of the fetuses rights and personage and perceived moral dilemma. The fact you have some nutty theological fuckwits in the US who think abortion is always wrong doesn't make this an open debate. There's no good reason for setting the limit before the first trimester other than religious beliefs and a desire to force others to live by them.
kargen Member	Sun May 12 17:10:24 "Which ones?" The ones talking about the law including mental health. This is the new law in New York I am commenting on. "The fact you have some nutty theological fuckwits in the US who think abortion is always wrong doesn't make this an open debate." You are still failing to admit there is also a number of fuckwits on the other side. That being part of my point with my main point being there is no consensus on a cut off date. You are acting as if only one side has people completely off their rockers.
Seb Member	Mon May 13 02:15:17 Kargen: "You are still failing to admit there is also a number of fuckwits on the other side" There are two sides to this issue for sure. Those people that think that a fetus world have legal personage and women criminal liability for them at four weeks, and those that don't. Whether and under what circumstances you can abort in the third trimester is a separate issue The overwhelming consensus on the developed world is that this heartbeat law is an idiotic, backwards position. It does not become more reasonable by attempting to harness it to a hypothetical reasonable position of opposing abortion in the third trimester for vaguely specified psychogical reasons - a proposition you only seem to be able to cite support for using circular referenced and who may well be a straw man.
kargen Member	Mon May 13 03:12:26 "Those people that think that a fetus world have legal personage and women criminal liability for them at four weeks, and those that don't." And five weeks and six weeks and...all the way to nine months. You keep telling me the heart beat law is idiotic. I agreed long long ago. No need to hash that over as if there is some contention on that point. My point is there are just as idiotic ideas on the other side. You are burying your head in the sand if you think there is not. I'm not saying it is reasonable and I am not trying to make it sound more reasonable. I am saying it is a stupid idea among many. About the Virginia law in an article by Slate Magazine. "A woman can currently terminate a third-trimester pregnancy in Virginia if three physicians certify that the procedure is necessary to prevent her death or to stave off “substantial and irremediable” harm to her mental or physical health. Tran’s legislation would have made the procedure legal with only one physician’s approval and without the need to prove that the damaging health effects of a pregnancy were “substantial and irremediable.” (The physician would’ve still needed to confirm that the woman’s physical or mental health was at risk.)" So as I said earlier part of the health concern is mental health and the ambiguity of what would or would not be considered a realistic concern for mental anguish is why those on the far right pounced on the proposal.
Seb Member	Mon May 13 03:16:49 Kargen: "And five weeks and six weeks and...all the way to nine months" Are you suggesting that to disagree with heartbeat law you have to agree to abortion at nine months? You suggested heart beat was as valid as any other criteria. It manifestly isn't. Viability, self sufficiency and brain development are all more sensible criteria and produce dates between the beginning and end of the second trimester. Why do you keep trying to move the debate on to entirely irrelevant matters regarding supposed right to abortion in the third trimester?
Seb Member	Mon May 13 03:24:02 Your continued insistence there are "two sides" pro abortion under any circumstance and anti-abortion is retarded Kargen. For each date you pick, an argument can be made either way. There is an absolutely no need to address other insane propositions when dismissing the heartbeat law. It is, infact, a symptom of the deep political dysfunction in the US that you think there is. This is how you end up spouting ridiculous crap like "all criteria are equally arbitrary".
kargen Member	Mon May 13 15:50:33 "Are you suggesting that to disagree with heartbeat law you have to agree to abortion at nine months?" Yeah, you got me! Of course not. you are being purposely obtuse. Read the entire thread again. Any was a poor choice of words on my part and I refined my statement to say most instead on any. You have no argument against most so must go back to any. "Why do you keep trying to move the debate on to entirely irrelevant matters regarding supposed right to abortion in the third trimester?" I'm not. You keep bringing up third trimester. Third trimester really hasn't been a criteria for a while now with "late term" being the term most who preform the operation use. Even among pro choice people there is a difference of opinion when late term starts. I'm not moving the debate at all nor did I say "all criteria are equally arbitrary". When you use quotations that usually means you are quoting something. I'm going to cut you off here because I am sure you are going to want to respond by quoting when I used the word any. Read above and you will see I adjusted my view from any to most. "There is an absolutely no need to address other insane propositions when dismissing the heartbeat law. It is, infact, a symptom of the deep political dysfunction in the US that you think there is." Wow! Are you really going to argue that? Pointing out bad ideas on both sided of the issue leads to political dysfunction? Really? Had you argued one side saying well they got to do that so why can't we then I would agree. That has nothing to do with the discussion here. I am saying both sides have some bad ideas. Refusing to admit both sides have bad ideas is what causes the discourse with this issue and most others. Dismiss the really bad fringe ideas and you are much more likely to reach an agreement somewhere in the middle. Continue to let the fringe control the debate and you end up with the mess we have now. Your continuing to insist I somehow think the heart beat law is good because I pointed out there are other bad opinions is again you being purposely obtuse.
kargen Member	Mon May 13 15:58:19 Back to the New York law. "The bill was also criticized because it removed abortion from the criminal code, with potential consequences for crimes against pregnant women. State Representative Nicole Malliotakis said removing abortion from the criminal code means that if a fetus dies as the result of an assault on a woman, there would be no prosecution.[17] Two legislators who sponsored the act wrote an op-ed arguing that violence resulting in a loss of pregnancy could still be prosecuted as first-degree assault.[18] In February 2019, the Queens district attorney's office dropped a charge of second-degree abortion against a man who murdered his pregnant girlfriend, saying their ability to press the charge was repealed by the Reproductive Health Act." Do you know the possible consequences of removing abortion from the criminal code?
Wrath of Orion Member	Mon May 13 16:43:09 I'd just like to say that everyone else in this thread is wrong. I'm right.
kargen Member	Mon May 13 17:28:48 That settles that.
Seb Member	Mon May 13 17:29:55 Kargen: I'm not being purposely obtuse. I'm refuting the argument there is such a thing as two sides in the way you describe. You don't need to address bullshit about 9th month abortions to recognise there is no merit at all to heartbeat laws and it has no comparison to other measures. When you chunter on about me not addressing "the other side" you are implicitly stating that to oppose heartbeat laws requires some alignment to supporting a supposed position of abortion at nine months that I'm far from convinced even exists outside the fevered imagination of trouser implacably opposed to abortion and those taken in by them.
Seb Member	Mon May 13 17:34:52 Kargen: "We must criminalise abortion because otherwise how can we prosecute an assault that causes a woman to lose her child" That's the weakest argument I've heard. Just charge and convict them with assault. The judge has discretion on the tariff in sentencing based on the context. There is no need for an additional charge. If you really feel the need to, create an aggravating factor to assault and murder against pregnant women with a mandatory sentence if you absolutely need to direct the judge to longer sentences for such crimes.
Sam Adams Member	Mon May 13 18:38:35 The anti abortion argument is wrong and retarded on both a philosophical and practical level. On the philosophical level, the fetus has never been conscious, has not been loved and will not be missed. There is no way that qualifies as human life, and thus we default to the free will of the parents. Even more important, on a practical level abortion is a great idea. Fewer unwanted kids means fewer future criminals and less future welfare. Its that simple.
kargen Member	Mon May 13 18:40:24 "You don't need to address" You are correct. I don't need to. I wanted to so I did. So now you are concentrating on how I presented my argument and not the argument itself. And again with the quotes? I didn't say that and obviously you have done zero research on the New York law. Read a damn article or two then come back. People who support the law stated abortion didn't need to be criminalized because the criminal would still face punishment for assaulting the woman. I quoted part of it in my post. I did that so you couldn't again insinuate I am making shit up. Yeah I caught that bit of bullshit earlier. You know we are talking about abortion. Again can you think of any repercussions this might have with regard to abortions or you going to continue being obtuse? "When you chunter on about me not addressing "the other side" you are implicitly stating that to oppose heartbeat laws requires some alignment to supporting a supposed position of abortion at nine months" that I'm far from convinced even exists outside the fevered imagination of trouser implacably opposed to abortion and those taken in by them." That is simply shit. I am saying the heartbeat law is bad and thinking it is okay to abort at nine months is wrong. I'm not saying you have to support either position. "that I'm far from convinced even exists outside the fevered imagination of trouser implacably opposed to abortion and those taken in by them." Again read an article or two. Google is your friend. Type in "New York abortion law". Damn easy to do. If you are going to call me a liar at least spend five fucking seconds to back your position. "Just charge and convict them with assault." This sentence makes me believe not only have you skipped reading any article or even a caption on the subject but you are either skimming my posts or failing to comprehend them. Another example of your being purposely obtuse.
Seb Member	Tue May 14 01:40:46 Kargen: Right, so you, for your own random reasons, want to address an irrelevant issue. Yet you link the two. "My point is there are just as idiotic ideas on the other side." Inherently frames this as a binary issue, which I've pointed out is false. Further you've framed the various criteria as equally reasonable. They aren't. "have done zero research on the New York law" Because it's irrelevant. "People who support the law stated abortion didn't need to be criminalized because the criminal would still face punishment for assaulting the woman." Is there anything to suggest they are wrong? How does this support the idea this demonstrates full legalisation? At best it shows reform of the law means it can no longer be appended as an additional charge to assault. Probably a good thing frankly because it smacks of bad practice of inventing spurious overlapping charges for a single incident. And no, I'm not going to read up the sodding NYC law because very simply it's not relevant. Even if it says abortion at 9 months should be allowed, it's supporters are not "the other side" to the heartbeat proponents; and this absurd attempt to dichotomise the issue is why you get ludicrous crap like Shapio assuming the only reason you can point out the heart beat law is a step to the dark ages is if you are a die hard left wing partisan. It's also why you start talking nonsense about fetal heartbeat being as good a criteria as any other.
kargen Member	Tue May 14 03:08:34 "Because it's irrelevant." Except it isn't. You ignore it because it defeats your assnine argument. "And no, I'm not going to read up.." Then don't comment or make assumptions about it. You called me a liar I brought proof what I said was true and now you refuse to even glance at it. Wallow in ignorance. I'm done with you.
Seb Member	Tue May 14 04:04:58 Kargen: No. It's simply irrelevant to my argument. 1. there is no "two sides" on abortion. For any given date you can have people opposed or supporting. But the idea that those opposed to heartbeat must have an opinion on 9 months is nonsense on stilts. 2. This insistence there are two sides is a form of political derangement, cf Shapiro assuming Andrew Neil must be a leftist opinion journalist. 3. Heartbeat is not only not equal to other criteria, it is manifestly inferior and obviously so. The only reason for pretending otherwise is a stubborn insistence on seeing Abortion as a dichotomy. What is or isn't happening in NY is just whataboutery. You have impicitly argued for "two sides", if not, why are you raising NY? You have explicitly argued that the fetuses heartbeat is good as any other criteria. To claim outherwise is dishonest.
Seb Member	Wed May 15 10:04:24 America is fucked up. Obsessed with abortion, but has the highest costs for maternal health cover and the highest maternal death rates in pregnancy in the Western world.
Sam Adams Member	Wed May 15 10:38:24 We let scum die. No problems there. But ya, alabama is fucked up. Thats why i make fun of you for having the same per capita income as alabama. Lol!
Sam Adams Member	Wed May 15 10:40:17 Alabama is beyond fucked up actually. Completely fucking retarded theocratic savages might be a better term. There is not one logical argument against abortion.
Sam Adams Member	Wed May 15 10:41:19 Lol there are probably more churches there than teeth and science books combined.
Seb Member	Wed May 15 10:54:05 Sam: Even when we were shown not to have the same per capita income. "Everyone who doesn't have private insurance is scum" says man whose lifestyle depends on said scum.
Paramount Member	Wed May 15 10:56:44 Looks like Alabama will have the same or similar abortion laws as Saudi Barbaria. Except in Barbaria if you make an illegal abortion you have to pay ”blood money” to the unborn child's family. In the US they send to jail for 99 years. I would rather pay money than spend 99 years in jail, so it looks like Saudi Barbaria is better than Alabama.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 15 11:43:56 It is that shitty style of "interview". Also what do you mean by Ben Shapiro being Alt right? "The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely connected far-right,[1] white nationalist movement." wiki Shapiro is a kippah wearing Jew, targeted by the alt-right. Editor's note: This article has been changed. A previous version mistakenly described Mr Shapiro as an "alt-right sage" and "a pop idol of the alt right". In fact, he has been strongly critical of the alt-right movement. We apologise. https://www.economist.com/open-future/2019/03/28/inside-the-mind-of-ben-shapiro-a-radical-conservative
Sam Adams Member	Wed May 15 12:23:52 "Even when we were shown not to have the same per capita income" Lol seb who once claimed to be a scientist still does not understand the difference between mean and median. "Everyone who doesn't have private insurance is scum" False. What if i told you there was a good middle ground where the working poor are given decent healthcare but scum are not.
kargen Member	Wed May 15 13:08:13 "Looks like Alabama will have the same or similar abortion laws as Saudi Barbaria." I really doubt it. The lower courts will put a stay on the law before it is suppose to go into effect and even with the current Supreme Court this law will not hold up when it finally gets there. Pro life states are passing ridiculous laws hoping to get to the Supreme Court and get Roe vs Wade repealed. Pro choice states are also passing laws they would have not considered before Kavanaugh was confirmed so they can claim (and I agree) state law would still apply. Basically both sides are going to extremes to try and put pressure on the Supreme Court.
Seb Member	Wed May 15 14:17:11 Sam: Per capita = mean Median individual income, sure Median personal income, sure And when you are looking at the median of a set of mean incomes (e.g. across all US states, or a bunch of different counties, and wish to avoid being distorted by anomalous regions) you can even have a median income per capita. But for a single entity, income per capita is a mean, not a median.
Seb Member	Wed May 15 14:21:37 Iirc your figure was the median per-capita income of a collection of households. So e.g. household with 30k income and one member - per capita income of 30k. Household with 40k income and one member - per capita income 40k. Household with income 120k with two members - 60k per capita income. Household with income 80k and two members, per capita income of 40k. Median per capita income - 40k.
Seb Member	Wed May 15 14:22:44 None of your figures as I recall stayed constant for more than one post.
Seb Member	Wed May 15 14:23:40 Anyway, you support murdering children on the basis of class and race, and wonder why people think you a Nazi
Sam Adams Member	Wed May 15 16:35:45 Unable to read, Unable to math, Empire fallen, Birth rates falling, Importing third worlders, Crime increasing, Man the future of sebs people is weak. The days of nelson and churchill are long gone.
Sam Adams Member	Wed May 15 16:37:00 Oh and still equal in economic development to alabama. Rofl!
Seb Member	Wed May 15 16:40:25 Sam: "Unable to math" Lol. Illiterate.
Sam Adams Member	Wed May 15 17:26:39 Makes more sense than seb trying to figure out how to compare per capita incomes. "Durrrrrrrrr i can compare meadian with mean? What is capita? Ban pliers!" -seb
Seb Member	Thu May 16 01:34:44 Sam, you are the one ... hang on, let me try and translate to language you understand: "You didn't words well. Math fail coz call numbers wrong name. Bad in bad out." I must say my Samspeak is a bit rusty but I think I've captured the general patois.
Sam Adams Member	Thu May 16 10:54:41 No wonder the uk has the same economic productivity as alabama. The intelligence levels appear to be the same.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: