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

@AlphaKiloPapa I've got a hand gun that shoots shotgun shells... its pretty cool. But its the smaller ones.

@johnabs pretty sure silver choloride is at least partly soluble in water... isnt it?

@johnabs Very good point :) Aluminum Sulfate FTW!

@FeralRobots

Thats not what happened.

How is me agreeing with you about people getting hurt in large numbers, while stating the specific number is wildly off a "libertarian sounding argument"?

Us agreeing that the actual numbers are still large and unacceptable is **not** at odds with pointing out a fictional and largely inflated number is fictional and largely inflated.

Science means telling the truth and being accurate is your first priority, and you can do so while still admitting the underlying point. This is not at odds, and certainly not a "libertarian thing"

@cturnbow @lizstl13

I wonder if a 50BMG SBR exists... I kinda want one just for the absurdity of it.

#Gun #Guns #2A

@lonelyowl

I mostly agree, the interesting option is #3... I thik your perspective is really trying to say "There is no objective measure".. i think that is debatable but we must agree that what is the objective measure is itself a matter of opinion. Its just that one of those opinions is the right one, good luck figuring out which :)

Remember folks, pointing out an objectively true error in a statement shoudl always be judged not on its factual accuracy, but based on what party it sounds the most like, then reject it on those grounds.....

Yea, lets not.

@FeralRobots

> Yes, at a minimum 90% of them can go out of state because interstate travel is lawful in the US. That fact loses some meaning when one's state can & does aggressively pursue information that would allow it to prosecute abortion-seekers for murder.

Agree, we know for a fact the number is at a **minimum** 10% to high and at most quite a bit more off.

> *My* main point is you're doing a lot of work to cast doubt on that number, by making some suspiciously libertarian-sounding arguments about freedome of choice.

The what now... it is an objective fact that some portion of that **estimate** will go out of state. How is an objectively true fact a "libertarian sounding argument". What would be a libertarian sounding argument would be if i said "This isnt a civil rights injustice because people can just go out of state, problem solved". Thats not what I said though. I said the numbers were wrong, I stated why its wrong, I was objectively correct. Thats not a "libertarian sounding argument" that is what we call "Data Science sounding argument". Its the argument anyone objectively assessing the accuracy of the numbers would make, regardless of your political standing.

@cturnbow @lizstl13

I just got a very random inkling to want to build a row boat... made out of pure salt.

@FeralRobots

You misunderstood (or i wasnt clear in how I conveyed what was in the study).. the 90% figure is from the study itself and represents the portion of the numbers stated (64K) that were in states where they couldnt get abortions. 10% of the 64K number were already known to be in states where getting an abortion for them would have been legal.

So we already know that at a minimum 90%, but in reality some portion of them can go out of state. I have no idea what that is, but whatever it is we know these numbers are just made up esitmates and the real number is quite a bit smaller than this, at least 10% smaller for sure, but in reality probably much much smaller.

The main point is, this number does not remotely represent the real number. It was a low-effort estimate made, as the study itself states.

@cturnbow @lizstl13

If you had Thanos ability to snap your fingers and kill some portion of people by blinking them painlessly out of existence, would you?

@cturnbow

I agree with you, 1 is too many.

But check the actual study, these arent real numbers as the study itself states. This is just the rape count multiplied by expected fertility rate. Teh real numbers wouldnt be anywhere near this because 1) 10% of those numbers occur in states where they could legally get abortions 2) the other 90% could and probably did go out of state for abortions so the real number is likely a very small portion of the number stated.

@lizstl13

@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.