🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@lizstl13

To be clear, this study, as they explicitly state, in no way directly counted pregnancies. This is simply an **estimate** made by taking the number of rape events and multiplying it by the typical background fertility rate.

So these are **not** actual numbers, simply an estimate. Here is the relevant text explaining this.

More importantly what this study intentionally ignores is that many of these women likely went out of state to get abortions. Meaning the actual number of pregnancies resulting from rape in these states is almost certainly far lower than the numbers stated here. In fact 10% of the numbers explicitly occured in states where they would legally be allowed abortions.

So yea these numbers are grossly inaccurate and they make it clear these are not "real" numbers.

> To estimate rape-related pregnancies, we multiplied the state-level estimate of vaginal rapes by the fraction likely to result in pregnancy (eMethods in Supplement 1)6 and then adjusted for the number of months between July 1, 2022, and January 1, 2024, that a total abortion ban was in effect. We used Stata, version 16.1 (StataCorp), to analyze the BJS survey data and Microsoft Excel for other calculations.

@GayDeceiver

Liberal Jesus: Hey kids, dont even go to school at all. Just lie and say your doing it for some good cause.

@JoeStewart Its fair to blame Nixon as the originator in much the same way that it is fair to blame George Washington for the Kardashians because without George Washington the USA would have never gotten to the place it is today.

Basically Nixon started the DEA, and the existence of the DEA ultimately led to the abysmal state we are in. But the DEA when he started it wasnt the abusive organization in the way it is today, in fact it was quite reasonable at first compared to today.

@JoeStewart

> Thank you. I’m continually surprised by my ignorance and the ease with which I accept as fact things I read and watch….

For what its worth before seeing this post I beleive the typical narrative of Nixon being the bad guy who started the war on drugs too.

What got me was when i was reading this i went "wait a second, they made it sound like he made heroin illegal, coulda swore it was already illegal"... I looked it up and sure enough it was made illegal 44 years earlier.

So then, beleiving my original assumptions must be true I went "Well surely he at least made it more illegal".. so i looked up his exactly policy and read it and read his quotes. To my shock he actually passed laws that specifically reduced criminality, making pocession a misdemeanor for all drugs which used to be a felony.

After that I went and researched the quote and found it to be utterly fake. and well... we arrived at my post :)

> The outcomes I was referring to relate to those delivered by decades of the “war on drugs.” In particular, the narco traffickers and the induced migration of those fleeing the resulting violence not to mention the focus on enforcement and incarceration rather than treatment and prevention.

The war on drugs certainly started with Nixon **indirectly** with the formation of the DEA. Nixon wanted less criminality, but actual enforcement. He thought drug abuse was a true ill to society as far as I could tell, so he did want to eliminate it, but he didnt want everyone to just wind up in jail. He largely wanted to target,it seems, the dealers and producers and leave the users out of it as far as severe punishments go. This was absolutely an improvement from the felony charges people used to get.

The problem is the DEA took on a life of its own, after Nixon it grew, became more pervasive, and the penalties started to increase again.

So one can argue that Nixon started a chain of events that ultimately led to the drug war and its abuse on the people. But when Nixon started it it wasnt like that, and as I said it actually was a lessening of charges.

@JoeStewart

No. The point of the reply was

1) To show the objective facts stated in the quote are the literal opposite of what actually happened.

2) Show the quote is fake both as a result of #1 and the fact that it has been exposed as such (other links in the thread).

3) that what people inferred these actual imply, with regard to Nixon's intent makes no sense since the actions didnt occur in the first place and is a gross misrepresentation

4) That Nixon explicitly lessened the criminality of drugs didnt increase it

The above 4 points were the point of my post. The fact that that may be used, by a reasonable person, to infer the points you said may be perfectly reasonable, but was not my intent. My intent is to make sure the facts are clearly stated, what conclusions you draw from the facts is still up to you to make and debate freely.

> Is it fair to associate the outcomes that his policies delivered to his sponsoring them? Or, again, insufficiently nuanced?

Id need more nuance to know what policy and what outcome you mean. The outcome of his policies, for example, is that people who used to be arrested and getting very serious charges for simple possession now got simple misdemeanors. He reduced the consequences and criminality of processioning and consuming drugs. Yes he very much is to blame this reduction in criminality.

@trinsec Absolutely.

My step dad actually raises mountain-raised cows like this. So he is the one who enlightened me on the morality considerations of it.

@AmpBenzScientist To minimize lives taken you should have lots of ethically grown veggies and some portion of mountain raised beef.. the mor mountain raised beef the better for lives lost, but there is a limit to how many can be raised, and there is health concerns. So in a world where everyone is doing that then meat would be part of but a small portion, of the diet.

@bonifartius They are the only ones who can turn land that otherwise cant produce food into food. The fact they do it with no loss of life but their own (and their own life makes 3000) meals is a nice moral bonus.

Just a reminder, if you care about reducing lives lost a diet that includes meat responsibility in the right proportions will result in significantly less lives lost than eating a salad.

Compared to mountain-raised beef eating beef will result in significantly FEWER lives lost than a salad. One salad probably cost quite a few insects and mice their lives to make. A mountain-raised cow is wild grazed, so the land isnt suitable for crops, and no animals other than the cow dies. So one cow makes 3000 meals, thats a much better deal than the multiple deaths per plate you expect from a salad.

#Vegan #Veganism #Vegetarianism #Vegetarian #Keto #Diet

"Whose nilly is this I just found?"

"Oh, that's Willy's nilly, he is always loosing it".

@SETIEric Maybe i misunderstood but you said there was a video of him confusing the two people, saying it many times, and looking confused. Its that video that sounds very damning and that I'd like to see.

He says plenty of idiotic and nonsensical things in tweets, and its hard for me to judge how much of that is just idiocy.

Then again im not sure what difference it will make. I mean everyone obviously sees biden is quickly becoming senile, he already is. Meanwhile Trump is either a moron or having a stroke, so at best we just have two choices with broken brains. Not sure even if Trump is discredited there is a solution on the other side of that without an actual sane candidate in the mix.

@SETIEric yea i just want to see him actually talking and making the slip so i can assess for myself if it seems like a stroke. The look of confusion is kinda what would be an indicator to me.

@SETIEric Thats about him confusing nikki haley with nancy pelosi. It doesnt appear to be what you wanted to share where he accused her for jan 6th.

@SETIEric Oh, interesting theory. Do you have a link to the video, I couldnt find it.