Thread: What Is It With The Left And Child Prostitution?

Originally Posted by pramjockey

I'm sorry that you're incapable of understanding. Your loss. I'd try to explain further, but, well, it's really not worth it, is it?

Take your argument up with this tree stump. He wrote:

Group A has no clinics - infection rates are approximately 50%, resulting in a20% decrease in fertility.
Group B has clinics - infection rates are reduced to 20%, resulting in only a 5% decrease in fertility.


The key word is decrease. Neither group increased its fertility, quite an obvious conclusion. The writer understands that. That was you.

Originally Posted by LJ2

Take your argument up with this tree stump. He wrote:

Group A has no clinics - infection rates are approximately 50%, resulting in a20% decrease in fertility.
Group B has clinics - infection rates are reduced to 20%, resulting in only a 5% decrease in fertility.


The key word is decrease. Neither group increased its fertility, quite an obvious conclusion. The writer understands that. That was you.

Why are you setting the baseline at an impossible ideal under which the infection rate is zero? That makes no sense at all. We are considering the effect of having clinics on fertility. That means the baseline should be set at the fertility rate given no clinics, i.e., Group A's position. That 50% infection rate doesn't result in a 20% decrease in fertility, because there is no real-world group that has a zero infection rate for it to decrease from. Group A is the normal condition without public-health action, and so its fertility rate should be the baseline.

Of course, strictly speaking both mean exactly the same. But your preferred analysis plays deceptive mathematical games to avoid acknowledging that Planned Parenthood's activities improve fertility. They don't improve fertility over a cloud-cuckoo-land impossible ideal, that's true -- but they certainly do improve it over anything that would otherwise exist in the real world.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

Why are you setting the baseline at an impossible ideal under which the infection rate is zero? That makes no sense at all. We are considering the effect of having clinics on fertility. That means the baseline should be set at the fertility rate given no clinics, i.e., Group A's position. That 50% infection rate doesn't result in a 20% decrease in fertility, because there is no real-world group that has a zero infection rate for it to decrease from. Group A is the normal condition without public-health action, and so its fertility rate should be the baseline.

Of course, strictly speaking both mean exactly the same. But your preferred analysis plays deceptive mathematical games to avoid acknowledging that Planned Parenthood's activities improve fertility. They don't improve fertility over a cloud-cuckoo-land impossible ideal, that's true -- but they certainly do improve it over anything that would otherwise exist in the real world.

The claim was that preventing stds increases fertility. It's plainly not true.

There is nothing decepive at all about it. The deceptive claim is that one can increase their fertility by not getting an STD. They can't. Their fertility will not increase, but remain the same.

Mr. Smith has $100.
Mr. Smith encounters a thief who demands his money.
Mr. Smith prevents the theft by showing the thief his handgun.
How much money does Mr. Smith have?
a) $100
b) less than $100
c) more than $100 and quit making deceptive arguments

Originally Posted by LJ2

The claim was that preventing stds increases fertility. It's plainly not true.

Wrong. It plainly IS true. Here's why:

Mr. Smith has $100.

But Mr. Smith DOESN'T have $100. That is, the normal rate of infection we must use as a baseline is NOT zero. And so you cannot honestly begin with the assumption of zero infection and use that as representing "normal" fertility. Normal fertility INCLUDES adjustment for the rate of infection with STDs that would happen without clinics available.

Mr. Smith encounters a thief who demands his money.
Mr. Smith prevents the theft by showing the thief his handgun.
How much money does Mr. Smith have?
a) $100
b) less than $100

Less than $100, because he already lost $40-$50 to another thief who picked his pocket before he could even pull his gun. And that's the real-world analogy that applies to fertility as impacted by STDs.

and quit making deceptive arguments

You are the one doing so (as usual). You quit.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

Wrong. It plainly IS true. Here's why:



But Mr. Smith DOESN'T have $100. That is, the normal rate of infection we must use as a baseline is NOT zero. And so you cannot honestly begin with the assumption of zero infection and use that as representing "normal" fertility. Normal fertility INCLUDES adjustment for the rate of infection with STDs that would happen without clinics available.



Less than $100, because he already lost $40-$50 to another thief who picked his pocket before he could even pull his gun. And that's the real-world analogy that applies to fertility as impacted by STDs.



You are the one doing so (as usual). You quit.

Does preveting a brain injury by wearing a bycicle helmet increase one's IQ?
Does preventing digit loss by wearing steel toed shoes increase the number of toes one has?

The normal state of being is to be without STD. Almost all of us are born that way.

Originally Posted by LJ2

Does preveting a brain injury by wearing a bycicle helmet increase one's IQ?

Fertility RATE is not equivalent to one person's IQ. It's equivalent to the average IQ of a whole population. Preventing brain injurIES by all riders wearing bicycle helmets does increase the average IQ.

The normal state of being is to be without STD. Almost all of us are born that way.

The normal state of being for a population, which is what we're dealing with when discussing fertility RATE, is to have a certain percentage of that population suffer from STD. An individual does not have a fertility "rate." That applies only to an aggregate population. Considerations of theoretical norms for individuals (especially before the age when anyone is fertile anyway) are therefore irrelevant and inappropriate.

So much for it being an isolated incident...

An anti-abortion group released on Friday three more undercover videos, which it said show Planned Parenthood employees helping a man posing as a pimp get abortions and birth control for underage girls.

The footage, said to be filmed in January at Planned Parenthood clinics in Falls Church, Charlottesville and Roanoke, Virginia, is the latest in a series of videos made public by Live Action, a California-based group that opposes abortion.

Live Action said in a statement that the videos are evidence Planned Parenthood is "willing to aid and abet the sexual trafficking and exploitation of minors and young women."

Anti-abortion group releases more video of Planned Parenthood | Reuters

The heart of Planned Parenthood is the exploitation of women for their political agenda of performing as many government paid abortions as possible.

This shows that...

After O'Keefe's fraud, the default position is that any video evidence coming from conservative advocacy groups is doctored and fake. The burden is on those presenting such evidence -- you, in this case, tsquare -- to prove that it is valid. You may do so by finding something that is NOT from an anti-abortion-rights group, for example.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

After O'Keefe's fraud, the default position is that any video evidence coming from conservative advocacy groups is doctored and fake. The burden is on those presenting such evidence -- you, in this case, tsquare -- to prove that it is valid. You may do so by finding something that is NOT from an anti-abortion-rights group, for example.

The really sad part of all this is how the lefties keep on their culture of inhumanity meme.

It would be really, really easy for someone - even a hard core left-a-holic - to say, "Gee, it might have been a good idea for one of these abortionists to have commented on the cruelty of child prostitution". They could have defended their position regarding abortion on demand and still come off as having some semblance of a soul but it looks like that just isn't in the "social progressive" makeup.

The core of the pro-life position is that life should be held as precious. It is the idea that if we begin to choose to treat one class of life as worthless or inconsequential then we are heading off down a path that leads to an ever diminishing regard for life. It is little wonder that such a belief runs in direct conflict to the social progressive commitment to self edification at any and all cost.

Originally Posted by lutherf

The really sad part of all this is how the lefties keep on their culture of inhumanity meme.

It would be really, really easy for someone - even a hard core left-a-holic - to say, "Gee, it might have been a good idea for one of these abortionists to have commented on the cruelty of child prostitution".

If any of that had actually happened, if it weren't -- I'm reasonably certain -- a complete pile of cooked-up doctored fake BS, that's exactly what I'd say.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

I love it when the kooky kons get all foamy at the mouth and start ranting and raving and can't recognize the truth any more.

It's pretty amusing.

Science Declares That A Human Being Begins To Live At Conception

I'll make you a bet. I'll bet you $10 by PayPal that I can go longer (time wise or volume of posts) without any kind of derogatory statement about another forumgoer; either direct or implied. That includes the generic insults that many like to throw around here (libs are idiots, etc.).

So's the $10 you're now going to be sending to.....

The Alabama Republican Party

A copy with the relevant personal data redacted out posted here will do nicely btw.

Thanks for playing.

Originally Posted by lutherf

The core of the pro-life position is that life should be held as precious. It is the idea that if we begin to choose to treat one class of life as worthless or inconsequential then we are heading off down a path that leads to an ever diminishing regard for life. It is little wonder that such a belief runs in direct conflict to the social progressive commitment to self edification at any and all cost.

If every pro-lifer was against the death penalty, I'd be more inclined to believe that.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

After O'Keefe's fraud, the default position is that any video evidence coming from conservative advocacy groups is doctored and fake. The burden is on those presenting such evidence -- you, in this case, tsquare -- to prove that it is valid. You may do so by finding something that is NOT from an anti-abortion-rights group, for example.

1. Hold your breath.
2. MSM, having reviewed the story... the video, both raw and edited, have published all of it. The only one crying foul is PP
3. Yeah, right after you hold the left to the very same standards.