Jump to content
TennesseeTuxedo

Virginia Democrat Governor In KKK Attire and Black-Face Photo Scandal Faces Call For Resignation

Recommended Posts

tgo   
26 minutes ago, Legaltitan said:

Lol apparently the State AG also wore blackface in the 80s and there may be a picture of that. He is third in line. What a shit show. 

 

If Northram, Fairfax and Herring were to all resign, the next in line would be the speaker of the house who is a Republican.

 

And BTW, the person who is Speaker of the House has that position literally because their name was picked out of a bowl in a tied election.

 

I think the whole state of Florida just said "phew!"

 

 

At this point, ironically, Northam seems to be the lesser of 3 evils. 

 

Maybe that's exactly what Northam's team had in mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T-RAC   
26 minutes ago, WG53 said:

Yes, really.

 

Abortions are performed by doctors.

 

Any guy can sell a gun.

 

Absolutely is a false equivalency. 

Strictly speaking, not true.

 

The fear is that, under an abortion ban, desperate women might seek an abortion from 'any guy' claiming to to know how.

 

I'm not sure how pointing this out constitutes a false equivalency. I'm not even making a claim that the downsides are equal in some quantitative way

 

In both cases, enforcement of a ban creates a black market. That's not even really debatable. Every ban creates a black market. My opinion only comes into play to say it's hypocritical to ignore that downside (or play it up) and deny it in the other debate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tgo said:

At this point, ironically, Northam seems to be the lesser of 3 evils. 

 

Maybe that's exactly what Northam's team had in mind. 

huh? Northam yearbook picture disgusting and his press conference was a circus. I'd rank them from worst to best  Fairfax, Northam and then this AG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WG53   
7 minutes ago, T-RAC said:

Strictly speaking, not true.

 

The fear is that, under an abortion ban, desperate women might seek an abortion from 'any guy' claiming to to know how.

 

I'm not sure how pointing this out constitutes a false equivalency. I'm not even making a claim that the downsides are equal in some quantitative way

 

In both cases, enforcement of a ban creates a black market. That's not even really debatable. Every ban creates a black market. My opinion only comes into play to say it's hypocritical to ignore that downside (or play it up) and deny it in the other debate. 

It is a false equivalency because if you ban abortion you are forcing women to undergo a medical procedure that requires specific medical knowledge with the possibility of not having a medical professional to perform the procedure.

 

Selling a gun requires nothing but physical ownership of a gun. These two issues are not at all the same. You think they are because of the formation of a black market. That is the only similarity. Nothing else involved is remotely the same.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T-RAC   
1 hour ago, WG53 said:

That is the only similarity. Nothing else involved is remotely the same.

 

Good job. That is the similarity. And that similar drawback is used by detractors of each ban as a warning so that 'lack of compliance' can be presented as a reason to maintain status quo. That was the full extent of my comment. I'm lamenting the hypocritical way people support their claims, not the issues themselves.

 

Either I didn't explain my original point clearly, you didn't read it carefully, or you're broadening my assertion into, 'gun control and abortion bans are the same' just so you have something to argue with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WG53   
4 minutes ago, T-RAC said:

 

Good job. That is the similarity. And that similar drawback is used by detractors of each ban as a warning so that 'lack of compliance' can be presented as a reason to maintain status quo. That was the full extent of my comment. I'm lamenting the hypocritical way people support their claims, not the issues themselves.

 

Either I didn't explain my original point clearly, you didn't read it carefully, or you're broadening my assertion into, 'gun control and abortion bans are the same' just so you have something to argue with.

I understood exactly what you meant. That doesn't change anything that I said.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bink   
2 hours ago, T-RAC said:

 

Good job. That is the similarity. And that similar drawback is used by detractors of each ban as a warning so that 'lack of compliance' can be presented as a reason to maintain status quo. That was the full extent of my comment. I'm lamenting the hypocritical way people support their claims, not the issues themselves.

 

Either I didn't explain my original point clearly, you didn't read it carefully, or you're broadening my assertion into, 'gun control and abortion bans are the same' just so you have something to argue with.

Let's dive into this then. First, you are choosing a singular line of argument about two different issues and using that as a kind of measure to determine whether or not people are hypocritical in their claims. Fair enough. 

 

A couple of points to consider: 

  • As far as I am aware, there is not serious policy recommendation to ban guns or ban one's access to guns in general. That is a non-starter. Therefore the lack of compliance issue manifests in different ways. 
  • What constitutes the black market argument ? What are the policy goals of each individual law? 

 

Black market argument: Women will seek unsafe abortions if they do not have access to abortion services. What do we know about this? 

  • In the US, as a state by state issue, women will actually be more likely to leave to go to another, more progressive state to seek these services. 
  • As abortions is a medical procedure, there is an ideological difference as to whether or not it should be allowed--this means that, obviously, what each law does and how contentious it should be is based on that individual law. 

 

Relevant questions: 

Read the information and draw your own conclusions. Here is mine. 

 

In the US, the "black market" argument isn't really that relevant. Why? Women who do not have access to an abortion in their state or who are living in a state with more restrictive laws will go out of state to seek the procedure. This is more costly, but cost (in general) really impacts a variety of health care services. 

 

The last link, I posted above provides data that 97% of unsafe abortions occur in developing countries. This tells us that this high percentage is due to the availability of abortion services in a particular country. 

 

Does Planned Parenthood and similar abortion service providers decrease abortion rates?

 

The links above demonstrate that abortion is on the decline in the US and the data suggests this is due to the availability of services that make abortion less necessary for women because they are able to plan more effectively for pregnancies and have more access to contraceptives. 

 

Further, the data does support that some of the harsher restrictions to abortion reduce rates, but also increase the number of unwanted pregnancies carried to term and non-medical abortions. We can look at the impact that has on society from a public health lens. 

 

What about this law in particular? What's interesting about this conversation is that it moved the goal posts from talking about a particular law to compairing two generalized arguments in different areas that have a similar theme. 

 

Here's a relevant piece on late term abortions: https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/health/late-term-abortion-explainer/index.html?fbclid=IwAR1U-j4k4Iihh1mcSYLK4Efz0NSNtJRCYP2tK1VtslHC8xtbULOmR-37kUk

 

Alright, let's tackle gun laws. I'm going to try to save myself some time and just use one source, a gun violence fact sheet with data from the CD: https://injury.research.chop.edu/violence-prevention-initiative/types-violence-involving-youth/gun-violence/gun-violence-facts-and#.XFtTzFVKjcs

 

What is relevant here: 

 

  • There are more than 393 million guns in circulation in the United States — approximately 120.5 guns for every 100 people(as compared to 188 abortions per 1000 live births and 600,000-700,00 abortions performed in the US) 

  • Those people that die from accidental shooting were more than three times as likely to have had a firearm in their home as those in the control group.

  • Among children, the majority (89%) of unintentional shooting deaths occur in the home. Most of these deaths occur when children are playing with a loaded gun in their parent’s absence.

  • People who report “firearm access” are at twice the risk of homicide and more than three times the risk of suicide compared to those who do not own or have access to firearms.

  • Suicide rates are much higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership, even after controlling for differences among states for poverty, urbanization, unemployment, mental illness, and alcohol or drug abuse.

  • Among suicide victims requiring hospital treatment, suicide attempts with a firearm are much more deadly than attempts by jumping or drug poisoning — 90 percent die compared to 34 percent and 2 percent respectively. About 90 percent of those that survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide.

  • States implementing universal background checks and mandatory waiting periods prior to the purchase of a firearm show lower rates of suicides than states without this legislation.

  • In states with increased gun availability, death rates from gunshots for children were higher than in states with less availability.


    What about mass shootings?
     

  • These weapons are responsible for a minority of gun deaths in the US, but have become the weapon of choice for the assailant whose intent is chaos and casualties.
     
  • In an April 2018 review of mass shootings in the U.S., 99 mass shootings have occurred since 1982, from which approximately 76 semi-automatic handguns and 89 assault weapons and weapons with high magazine capacity were recovered.
  • In 2017 alone, 11 mass shootings in the US caused 117 fatalities and 587 injuries occurring in concert, religious, workplace, airport, and shopping venues and in the community.
  • States that restrict assault weapons also have the lowest per capita homicide rates. However, because guns are easily trafficked in interstate and international commerce, federal rules are needed.
  • Researchers from Harvard School of Public Health demonstrated that from 1982 to 2011, mass shootings occurred every 200 days on average. From late 2011 to 214, they found mass shootings had occurred at triple that rate—every 64 days on average.

 

 

 

So let's make sense of this. Here are my takeaways, you can draw your own. 

 

In both cases, we are talking about the outliers. 

  • "Back alley" abortions do not occur at high rates in the US. 
  • Late term (terminology we shouldn't be using anyway) occurs at very, very low rates in the US
  • Likelihood of dying to a mass shooting is very low. 
  • Even though both things being dicussed here are outliers, abortion rates are declining while mass shootings are rising. 

 

What do we know about gun violence? It isn't a bad guy with a gun that makes it likely you are the victim of gun violence--it is that you have access to a gun. Further, the argument that is consistent by both means here is that you have a regulated process to obtain a gun or an abortion. 

 

 A key difference is the argument that certain regulations recommended by conservatives aren't based on best practices by the medical community. Are the call for gun recommendations, like increased background checks, similarly decided by professionals who would treat or respond to gun violence? 

 

This brings it back to the false equivalency argument. First and foremost, the abortion law at question here doesn't even fit into that schema or doesn't rely on that defense. Abortion is a complicated issue, they all are. 

 

Second, what is the equivalent example when thinking about gun violence? If it is what sparked these debates, here's what we know: 

 

The law being debated argues for a "late-term" abortion when the fetus is a) non-viable or b) the mother's life is at risk as deemed by a logical professional. 

 

The gun control law, let's go to the extreme here and generalize, calls for banning assault rifles. 

 

In the first example, I can see a utilitarian purpose as clear as day--the life of the mother. Source after source demonstrates this. 

 

What's the utilitarian purpose behind a person owning, specifically, an assault rifle. There is no evidence that this particular fire arm is needed for self-defense or hunting than, a different type of gun. Further, the evidence shows simply owning a gun put you more at risk by statistically significant means. I'm not using that argument to advocate banning your gun--but it does show the nuance of these two arguments pretty easily. 

 

What we can tell you from the data we have is that the idea of a bad guy out there with a gun is the absolute outlier. This is different we think about women seeking abortions and terminating unwanted pregancy--we can chase the reasoning why this "lack of compliance" occurs to social and public health issue, just as we can trace what makes you more or less likely to be the victim of a crime (bad guys) and, yes, gun-violence. 

 

Last data point: was this a waste of my time. Sure. But if I can educate myself in like 40 minutes it's not so hard to ask people to at least talk about specific policies on their own accord, or track with how a health care provider looks at an issue as opposed to how the TV or radio tells us to think or what we've always known. 

 

 

Edited by Bink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

It’s nothing. I’m sure she’s telling the truth but is simply misremembering who did it...

Yep, unlike that liar Ford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OILERMAN   
6 hours ago, Legaltitan said:

the next in line would be the speaker of the house who is a Republican.

meaning black face or sexual assault won't disqualify him 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rogue   
1 hour ago, Little Earl said:

Yep, unlike that liar Ford.

Not only did you miss the point, but made yourself look like an ass as well.  

 

Good job Republican.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...