Discussion I think the days of the United States being one country are numbered..

[MichaelMay]

It's not obvious to me, because it very clearly depends on the nature of that society that one is born into. I don't see why that isn't obvious to you, in fact. I also don't see why you presume that 'unwanted' equates to 'being born into poverty'. Nor do I see any reason for you to get so insanely aggressive and abusive about that point (unless you've ingested too much lead, perhaps?). And why the leap to 'being in a gang', as if criminal gangs are some sort of universal thing, and not a product of particular societies.

You do get that we are discussing a nation where welfare for these kids and their mothers is non-existant, right? A nation where pretty much everyone in poverty is in a gang, right? It can be proud boys or Hells Angels or some small gang but they'll be in a gang or they will starve to death.

I'm just reading what the twat said and he's wrong, obviously so and he CHOSE to misinterpret it as "more kids more crime" which was quite obviously not the point Amused made, that pissed me off a bit because Amused explained it and he STILL did it.

 

[ivwshane]

If lead is a factor in the crime rate (the data is compelling), shouldn’t we see a correlation in areas that have a high lead exposure rating and the crime rate?

Here is a lead exposure heat map:

Where is the lead exposure risk in your community?

The risk of lead poisoning isn’t just in Flint. So we mapped the risk in every neighborhood in America.

www.vox.com

I had trouble finding a good crime map so if you have something better let me know.

The Most and Least Dangerous Counties in the U.S. - Vivid Maps

The crime rate combines recorded occurrences of violent and property crime, particularly aggravated assault, arson, burglary, larceny, murder, rape, robbery,

vividmaps.com

 

[MichaelMay]

So, don't read what I wrote, and then throw a tantrum. Nice.

First off, your idiotic quip that I said unwanted children do better than wanted children is just that, an idiotic quip.

Second off, in my mother fucking post that you either chose not to read, or lack the reading comprehension to understand, LITERALLY stated that there are multiple reasons for crime. So, go back and read it, practice your reading comprehension, or go scream hysterically at someone else.

Third, point to where I stated in any fucking way or form that children who aren't being cuddled or whatever the fuck you're thinking about doesn't play a role in child development. Please, I'll wait right here, master debater.

If this is the first post you've read by me, then you must not only be real fucking new here, but you must also skip any post that requires more than 10 seconds of reading, which sure the fucking isn't my bad.

Because guess what champ. You missed my entire fucking multiple posts in this very thread that laid out links and details.

Holy shit, who the fuck are you?

You're going to skip the other posts in this thread where I had a discussion and just start hurling insults and tell me to shut up?

You're a fucking clown.

I read "First off, your idiotic quip that I said unwanted children do better than wanted children is just that, an idiotic quip."

And nothing else, if you can't have a discussion without strawmanning people like you did with me and Amused then why would anyone ever want to have a conversation with you? You are either fucked in the skull to the point where your reading comprehension is zero or you're just trolling, it's one or the other and either way I'm not playing.

 

[nickqt]

I read "First off, your idiotic quip that I said unwanted children do better than wanted children is just that, an idiotic quip."

And nothing else, if you can't have a discussion without strawmanning people like you did with me and Amused then why would anyone ever want to have a conversation with you? You are either fucked in the skull to the point where your reading comprehension is zero or you're just trolling, it's one or the other and either way I'm not playing.

Are you serious? Strawmanning YOU?

Me, trolling?

Wow!

You literally didn't read my previous posts, and then strawmanned my argument into "you don't think poverty or parental care has an effect on children".

That's strawmanning.

You skipped my previous posts and started hurling insults calling me idiotic and telling me to shut up.

LOL

My arguments with Amused were respectful, and backed up with links with scientific studies.

Your argument was all about your feelings and hysterical rage.

You can keep trying to deflect what you did, but it's here permanently locked into this very thread.

I'm just going to go ahead and keep all of my posts exactly how they were made and anyone interested can read them and decide whether somehow I strawmanned and attacked you (!).

Because spoiler alert, if anyone made strawman arguments and trolled, it wasn't me.

 

[pmv]

You do get that we are discussing a nation where welfare for these kids and their mothers is non-existant, right? A nation where pretty much everyone in poverty is in a gang, right? It can be proud boys or Hells Angels or some small gang but they'll be in a gang or they will starve to death.

You might have been, I was discussing the general issue. The world isn't just one nation or one society. Indeed that paper linked to by Cytg111, that I repeated the link for above, claimed to find that the abortion law/crime relationship did not apply for the case of the UK, and thus was quite likely a spurious correlation in the first place.

That the claim came from those right-wing Freakanomics guys means I don't find that surprising. (In general I don't trust anything connected with Freakanomics - I was irked when David Halpern, a guy who has been lauded by the Freakanomics podcast in the past, was given a major role in devising the UK's COVID strategy - my feeling was that meant it probably wouldn't go well, and indeed it didn't because they dabbled with the daft herd-immunity-via-mass-infection idea, that seems to be popular with those libertarian types).

The lead theory - which I don't regard as 'proven', but at least reasonably plausible - at least has the advantage of seeming to fit the data across different nations and societies, something that doesn't seem to be the case with that abortion theory.

 

[dank69]

First, my initial sentence is cold hard fact. Every single crime ever committed was committed by a :
1. Human being
2. That wasn't aborted.

Full stop. If you'd like to argue that there have been crimes committed by aborted fetuses, I'd love to hear it. Should be interesting.

Additionally, because there is literally NO MEASURABLE DATA from the absent crime being committed by non-existent people, again, it's all economic variables being measured, rather than actual measurable results, which is how science is typically conducted.

Second, leaded gas began phaseout in the early 1970s, was almost entirely complete by 1980, and the decades-long crime increase began to drop in the late 80s and early 90s. Crime isn't just committed by 18 year olds, and plenty of under-18 children get charged as adults, so just focusing on one year instead of multiple years of a change isn't realistic.

And, by the way, we can even look at geographic maps that show roads and highways where crime was higher than the surrounding areas even in sub-state geographic areas. Same with urban vs. rural areas.

Arguing that abortion caused the drop in crime is based on inferred statistics. Because, again, I don't believe we're able to measure the absence of crime committed by aborted fetuses. But more importantly, legalizing abortion in 1973 offers absolutely zero argument for THE INCREASE IN CRIME starting in the late 60s. Meanwhile, leaded gas that had existed since the mid-1920s began getting burned on a societal scale in the mid-to-late 1940s as the US economy skyrocketed during and after WWII.

Was abortion legal up until the mid-to-late 1940s and then curtailed? If not, again, we're stuck inferring data.

Third, just saying "statistically unwanted children are more likely to commit crime. That's fact is going to require some statistics, and I look forward to your measured data of the absence of crime committed by aborted fetuses.

And finally, let's be real clear. I never said the ONLY reason that the increase in crime from the 1960s to 1990s decreased was due solely to phasing out leaded gasoline. I'm saying the vast majority of the decrease was due to stopping burning lead...because again it is 100% solid, measurable fact that blood lead levels decrease brain function, executive control, and impulse control, leading to 100% solid measurable crimes committed by those poisoned children. Not to mention, INCLUDED in the lead hypothesis is the actual INCREASE IN CRIME that we're talking about, that cannot be explained by legalizing abortion in 1973.

Like I said in my first sentence, there has for sure been less crimes committed because of aborted fetuses, since every crime ever committed was done by a non-aborted fetus.

Economics is still probably one of the most important drivers of crime, even with lead. I mean, if you already have money and privilege, you're less likely to be in a situation where you need to steal/rob/burgle to stay alive. So, there are obviously other factors.

PS: while "unwanted children" commit crimes, so do "wanted children".

So, why did crime increase from the 1960s to 1990s, when abortion had been almost universally illegal already?

Why were there more "unwanted children" being born starting in the 1940s to the 1970s causing the increase in crime from the 1960s to 1990s? Remember, it's not just the number of crimes, but the per capita number of crimes, so "more babies" isn't a correct answer.

Again, those two questions have no explanation that can be derived from a future 1973 Supreme Court decision. But guess what, leaded gas can answer why the crime increase itself even happened.

And leaded gas can be used to explain outside-the-US crime increases and subsequent crime decreases (except, in fact, where they still use leaded gasoline).

Look, I'm going to go with lead because lead is measurable, has been measured, and has actual measurable evidence in how it decreases brain function and specifically makes it more likely that someone poisoned by lead as a child will partake in riskier behavior and potentially criminal behavior.

You can ignore that if you want and go with a couple of economists' inferred data, but I'm sticking with the best available hard science. Feel free to read the link I made, I'm not a scientist and it's not "my" argument.

I think we can all agree that increased poverty leads directly to more crime. If we think about it for 2 seconds I think we can all agree that criminalizing abortion leads to a significant increase in poverty.

I have not looked into the data but would be willing to bet that the cost of raising a kid increased dramatically from the 40s(60s) to the 70s(90s). This factor could help explain how the amount of extra crime due to unwanted children could increase without a change in the abortion laws themselves. It could also also explain why other countries might not see equivalent results to ours if they have better safety nets to reduce the poverty effect. Let's also not forget that the poorer you are, the more criminalization of anything affects you more. Fines and legal fees only matter to the little people.

 

[MrSquished]

There is no doubt that poverty and lack of resources or being in an unloving family or in a weak familial structure or system lead to criminal actions.

These things happen regardless of unwanted children or not of course. There is zero doubt it happens more in situations where the kid is unwanted or born because of no option to not have them, for whatever reason.

This is called common sense.

 

[nickqt]

I think we can all agree that increased poverty leads directly to more crime. If we think about it for 2 seconds I think we can all agree that criminalizing abortion leads to a significant increase in poverty.

I have not looked into the data but would be willing to bet that the cost of raising a kid increased dramatically from the 40s(60s) to the 70s(90s). This factor could help explain how the amount of extra crime due to unwanted children could increase without a change in the abortion laws themselves. It could also also explain why other countries might not see equivalent results to ours if they have better safety nets to reduce the poverty effect. Let's also not forget that the poorer you are, the more criminalization of anything affects you more. Fines and legal fees only matter to the little people.

There is no doubt that poverty and lack of resources or being in an unloving family or in a weak familial structure or system lead to criminal actions.

These things happen regardless of unwanted children or not of course. There is zero doubt it happens more in situations where the kid is unwanted or born because of no option to not have them, for whatever reason.

This is called common sense.

Common sense. Gut feelings.

Sure.

Poverty is probably going to increase the likelihood of someone committing a crime. I'm not sure why everyone keeps making this argument as if it isn't already included in both the abortion hypothesis and the leaded gas hypothesis.

A planned child born into the middle class who has their brain lead-poisoned is probably going to have a tougher time getting a decent-paying job as an adult, leading to poverty and a higher likelihood of committing crime. And just imagine that lead poisoned-brain adult's child born into poverty, and then their brain also poisoned by lead.

Lead poisoning, again, is measurable, and has been measured. As has the likelihood of a child with lead poisoning committing crime.

So, this fixation on "poverty" is included in both abortion and lead poisoning.

The "increase" cost in raising a child from the 40s to 80s didn't all of a sudden go away in the 80s. And abortion had long been illegal before 1940.

I can't help but think that because the Supreme Court is about to overrule Roe v. Wade that y'all are for some reason ignoring the link I provided that not only analyzes the hard data, but provides links to the hard data, of leaded gasoline and crime, not just in the US, but around the world. Don't let common sense blind you from the measurable data.

Women should be able to control their own bodies. But, data for the leaded gasoline hypothesis exists, whereas the abortion hypothesis is inferred and argued primarily by economists, not scientists.

I can "common sense" all day that burning lead and poisoning the brains of children so that their executive functioning and impulse control functioning are impaired is going to lead to increased crime. But I'm also going to provide links to scientific studies because "common sense" is a feeling and not measured data.

 

[MrSquished]

Common sense. Gut feelings.

Sure.

Poverty is probably going to increase the likelihood of someone committing a crime. I'm not sure why everyone keeps making this argument as if it isn't already included in both the abortion hypothesis and the leaded gas hypothesis.

A planned child born into the middle class who has their brain lead-poisoned is probably going to have a tougher time getting a decent-paying job as an adult, leading to poverty and a higher likelihood of committing crime. And just imagine that lead poisoned-brain adult's child born into poverty, and then their brain also poisoned by lead.

Lead poisoning, again, is measurable, and has been measured. As has the likelihood of a child with lead poisoning committing crime.

So, this fixation on "poverty" is included in both abortion and lead poisoning.

The "increase" cost in raising a child from the 40s to 80s didn't all of a sudden go away in the 80s. And abortion had long been illegal before 1940.

I can't help but think that because the Supreme Court is about to overrule Roe v. Wade that y'all are for some reason ignoring the link I provided that not only analyzes the hard data, but provides links to the hard data, of leaded gasoline and crime, not just in the US, but around the world. Don't let common sense blind you from the measurable data.

Women should be able to control their own bodies. But, data for the leaded gasoline hypothesis exists, whereas the abortion hypothesis is inferred and argued primarily by economists, not scientists.

I can "common sense" all day that burning lead and poisoning the brains of children so that their executive functioning and impulse control functioning are impaired is going to lead to increased crime. But I'm also going to provide links to scientific studies because "common sense" is a feeling and not measured data.

There are a lot more variables going on. What type of things happened to combat poverty in the 18 years after roe v wade? Was systemic racism reduced even by a little bit? Did education improve? Did integration into schooling get better also helping education for poorer minorities? Did any food programs help alleviate the sufferings of poverty? Did adoption per capita increase? So many variables. Get to measuring all that.

 

[nickqt]

There are a lot more variables going on. What type of things happened to combat poverty in the 18 years after roe v wade? Was systemic racism reduced even by a little bit? Did education improve? Did integration into schooling get better also helping education for poorer minorities? Did any food programs help alleviate the sufferings of poverty? Did adoption per capita increase? So many variables. Get to measuring all that.

All of those variables exist whether you're talking about the abortion hypothesis or the leaded gasoline hypothesis.

Of the two hypotheses, guess which hypothesis can be measured?

Again, all of the variables regarding crime exist, but you can measure lead poisoning, and in fact, it has been measured, in multiple places over decades.

So, if you're telling me that things need to be measured, you're also saying that the abortion hypothesis is already inherently weaker than lead poisoning. And with that, I agree with you.

 

[MrSquished]

All of those variables exist whether you're talking about the abortion hypothesis or the leaded gasoline hypothesis.

Of the two hypotheses, guess which hypothesis can be measured?

Again, all of the variables regarding crime exist, but you can measure lead poisoning, and in fact, it has been measured, in multiple places over decades.

So, if you're telling me that things need to be measured, you're also saying that the abortion hypothesis is already inherently weaker than lead poisoning. And with that, I agree with you.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying you aren't accounting, if it is even possible, for all the variables involved, of which I just listed a few off the top of my head.

 

[nickqt]

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying you aren't accounting, if it is even possible, for all the variables involved, of which I just listed a few off the top of my head.

You seem to be OK with the abortion hypothesis that isn't measured scientifically, because it's common sense.

You seem to be doubtful of the lead poisoning hypothesis even though it has been measured extensively over time and geographic location.

And you're saying that a list of variables need to be measured for the lead hypothesis, that don't need to be measured for the abortion hypothesis, even though those variables play the same part in both hypotheses.

Why is that? Because of "common sense" of abortion compared to already measured data on lead poisoning?

I'm confused on the pushback on the lead poisoning hypothesis. Especially since it's the one with actual published studies.

By the way, I have already linked multiple times to the hard data. Have you checked the hard data, because I didn't come up with the lead poisoning hypothesis, and I'll let the already-published science stand on its own since I'm not a scientist.

 

[ivwshane]

I’m not aware of anyone pushing back on your lead theory. And unless you are saying the theory explains the rise and fall of crime perfectly I don’t see why both theories can’t be factors. The degree of which theory had an impact isn’t being debated either.

 

[dank69]

You seem to be OK with the abortion hypothesis that isn't measured scientifically, because it's common sense.

You seem to be doubtful of the lead poisoning hypothesis even though it has been measured extensively over time and geographic location.

And you're saying that a list of variables need to be measured for the lead hypothesis, that don't need to be measured for the abortion hypothesis, even though those variables play the same part in both hypotheses.

Why is that? Because of "common sense" of abortion compared to already measured data on lead poisoning?

I'm confused on the pushback on the lead poisoning hypothesis. Especially since it's the one with actual published studies.

By the way, I have already linked multiple times to the hard data. Have you checked the hard data, because I didn't come up with the lead poisoning hypothesis, and I'll let the already-published science stand on its own since I'm not a scientist.

As Shane pointed out, you're confused because nobody is pushing back against the lead theory. Most of the pushback is from your statement in post 77 that the reduction in crime "has little-to-nothing to do with Roe v. Wade."

 

[pmv]

There is no doubt that poverty and lack of resources or being in an unloving family or in a weak familial structure or system lead to criminal actions.

There is doubt, because it depends on the wider social context. Being "unwanted" in the sense that your parents didn't plan or wish to have you at the time you were born, does not automatically translate into a life that primes you for crime, because the effects will depend on the society your parents are in and their position within it.

 

[pmv]

As Shane pointed out, you're confused because nobody is pushing back against the lead theory. Most of the pushback is from your statement in post 77 that the reduction in crime "has little-to-nothing to do with Roe v. Wade."

The trouble is, those righteously defending the 'abortion' argument don't seem to grasp that it's an argument that was pushed by libertarian conservatives. It's an economist's argument - i.e. a theory promoted by those libertarian types who love anything that sounds 'clever' and counterintuitive and have a strong tendency to neglect sociological factors.

It may well have contributed _something_ to the pattern of surging and then falling crime, but it's been over-hyped as the definitive explanation, for political reasons (like many of their theories, e.g. broken windows policing). I don't see why some are so invested in defending it. You're defending conservatives.

 

[dank69]

The trouble is, those righteously defending the 'abortion' argument don't seem to grasp that it's an argument that was pushed by libertarian conservatives. It's an economist's argument - i.e. a theory promoted by those libertarian types who love anything that sounds 'clever' and counterintuitive and have a strong tendency to neglect sociological factors.

It may well have contributed _something_ to the pattern of surging and then falling crime, but it's been over-hyped as the definitive explanation, for political reasons (like many of their theories, e.g. broken windows policing). I don't see why some are so invested in defending it. You're defending conservatives.

I am defending an idea, not people. I'm not sure how a pro-choice argument is being classified as a conservative argument, but that's mostly because modern conservatism is so far from an honest libertarian conservative perspective that continued use of the term conservative is as useful as the word socialism is today.

There are some areas where a libertarian approach make sense, if we think of libertarian as "government shouldn't be involved unless they need to be" instead of "government should never be involved if I'm personally inconvenienced."

 

[pmv]

I am defending an idea, not people. I'm not sure how a pro-choice argument is being classified as a conservative argument, but that's mostly because modern conservatism is so far from an honest libertarian conservative perspective that continued use of the term conservative is as useful as the word socialism is today.

There are some areas where a libertarian approach make sense, if we think of libertarian as "government shouldn't be involved unless they need to be" instead of "government should never be involved if I'm personally inconvenienced."

On a purely intellectual level, though, the curious thing about that crime wave, is how international it was. A big increase that then subsided has been the pattern in most developed countries, and the abortion-hypothesis doesn't seem to fit internationally. Whereas lead-in-petrol seems to fit that pattern better.

And I suppose I just don't see abortion-rights as something that is so in need of defence that it justifies giving an inch to the libertarians (who I sometimes feel I dislike even more than other kinds of conservative - at least other kinds of conservative believe there is such a thing as society, not just an economy. Say what you will about Evangelical Christianity, at least it's an ethos.). I suppose that's a parochial perspective on my part, as I don't think of abortion-choice as being something strongly under threat (even Thatcher never made any move to restrict abortion, it's not something the right here focus on very much).

 

[dank69]

On a purely intellectual level, though, the curious thing about that crime wave, is how international it was. A big increase that then subsided has been the pattern in most developed countries, and the abortion-hypothesis doesn't seem to fit internationally. Whereas lead-in-petrol seems to fit that pattern better.

And I suppose I just don't see abortion-rights as something that is so in need of defence that it justifies giving an inch to the libertarians (who I sometimes feel I dislike even more than other kinds of conservative - at least other kinds of conservative believe there is such a thing as society, not just an economy. Say what you will about Evangelical Christianity, at least it's an ethos.). I suppose that's a parochial perspective on my part, as I don't think of abortion-choice as being something strongly under threat (even Thatcher never made any move to restrict abortion, it's not something the right here focus on very much).

Well here in the US choice is clearly being threatened. I'm not aware of any serious movement to bring back leaded gasoline.

 

[pmv]

Well here in the US choice is clearly being threatened. I'm not aware of any serious movement to bring back leaded gasoline.

But in general the negative effects on (disproprtionately ethnic minority and less-well-off) urban people of pollution (and traffic collisions, and impediments on mobility) from the more affluent motorists who drive through their neighbourhoods are still a live issue.

I get that choice is under siege in the US. I just personally feel the libertarian strand of the right is the greater threat here. They are the ones who may bring about fascism by accident. Heck, there's a long tradition of Christian socialism.

At one point I looked up opinion poll data here about it, when someone pointed out that in the US it's more working-class people who most strongly oppose abortion. Opinions on the topic don't seem to be correlated with class at all here. In fact, even religion doesn't seem to be a big factor, even Catholics as a group are not strongly in favour of restricting abortion. Weirdly, and awkwardly, enough, the only group that _is_ strongly for such restrictions is...Muslims.

(Also, funnily enough, the same survey showed that among religious groups, Hindus felll almost entirely into the "don't know" category.)

 

[MrSquished]

There is doubt, because it depends on the wider social context. Being "unwanted" in the sense that your parents didn't plan or wish to have you at the time you were born, does not automatically translate into a life that primes you for crime, because the effects will depend on the society your parents are in and their position within it.

I don't think all poor and unwanted kids become criminals in the slightest, not sure what you are talking about.

 

[pmv]

I don't think all poor and unwanted kids become criminals in the slightest, not sure what you are talking about.

In turn, I don't know what you are talking about with this response. It doesn't seem to relate in any way to my reply to your previous comment.

 

[Indus]

Rep. MTG Proposes “National Divorce” of Blue and Red States

Republican Representative Marjorie Tylor-Greene proposed a "National Divorce" of Blue and Red parties, suggesting the separation of the states by political affiliation.

www.telesurenglish.net

So even she agrees.

It's not such a fringe idea anymore. Only thing really in the way are corporations who own the centrist moderates.. but increasingly things are in motion and centrists are being driven out of congress by the more popular ideas.

Just look at how much of a backlash Manchin and Sinema get for their no votes on legislation the voters want. Would not surprise me if they were both driven out of their parties or worse driven out of congress all together.

There are lyrics to a very old 80's song that perfectly describes the feeling I have of the US now.. no its not "war" like sick people dream with tons of nukes and stuff but just reality

When routine bites hard
And ambitions are low
And resentment rides high
But emotions won't grow
And we're changing our ways
Taking different roads


Then love, love will tear us apart again
Love, love will tear us apart again


Why is the bedroom so cold?
You've turned away on your side
Is my timing that flawed?
Our respect runs so dry
Yet there's still this appeal
That we've kept through our lives


But love, love will tear us apart again
Love, love will tear us apart again


You cry out in your sleep
All my failings exposed
And there's taste in my mouth
As desperation takes hold
Just that something so good
Just can't function no more


But love, love wil tear us apart again
Love, love will tear us apart again
Love, love will tear us apart again
Love, love will tear us apart again

 

[SMOGZINN]

So even she agrees.

It's not such a fringe idea anymore. Only thing really in the way are corporations who own the centrist moderates.

And the literally millions liberals that live in every single so called 'conservative' state. In all these wet dreams about splitting up the nation you keep forgetting that even in places like Texas the liberals outnumber the conservatives. The only real advantage the GOP has is that they are better at getting, their mostly elderly, voters out to the polls and suppressing the Democratic voters.

It would be much easier to fix our system then to try to break it up. Just the logistics of breaking the nation up is mind boggling, how do you even start to agree on where the new borders are, who gets Arizona, If it goes red then what happens to Colorado, how do you plan to run a country that is basically split down the middle? Looking at a map it seems the US would need to be split into at least 4 new countries. Who gets what resources? Who gets control of the nukes? What about pipelines, electrical grids?
No, the only real way to do anything similar to what you are talking about would be to dissolve the United State altogether and let each state form it's own country. Then the wars start. I would guess 10-12 new wars and the Conservative states ban together right away and seize most of the military assets and use them to pick off the states that end up surrounded by the New South. Colorado would be the first to fall, followed by Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinoi, and Michigan. Then the New South just cuts off all food exports to the new Liberal states and waits for them to starve.