# Stupid liberal idea of the day **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 20, 2011, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086 "2011-04-20T15:35:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 222
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4421 "2016-02-04T04:06:15Z")
> [@andros](#): > > From the article: > > If it works, I’m not sure it’s a stupid idea. The details make it sound less stupid. It’s more an incentive program to get at risk offenders into therapy. Although I’d take what “advocates” say with a grain of salt. They are looking at 200 offenders. Even if all 200 became angels, it would not result in a “deep reduction in crime”. Plus you could achieve the same effect by passing a law keeping the most at risk offenders from leaving prison in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Projammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/projammer/32/559_2.png) [@Projammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Projammer)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4422 "2016-02-04T04:09:08Z")
> [@andros](#): > > If it works, I’m not sure it’s a stupid idea. [Did This City Bring Down Its Murder Rate by Paying People Not to Kill?](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/richmond-california-murder-rate-gun-death) > [@](#): > > So far, the results have been promising: As this story went to press, 65 of the 68 “fellows” enrolled in the program in the previous 47 months were still alive. So 68 people are creating a statistically significant amount of crime in a city with a population over a 100k? I don’t have to be a statistics major to know that something isn’t adding up. Let me see the raw/uncooked data over the period of the program and 10 years prior. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4423 "2016-02-04T04:12:41Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > Jack Ohman in this morning’s _Sacramento Bee_: > > [http://tribunecontentagency.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/20151229edohc-a.jpg](http://tribunecontentagency.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/20151229edohc-a.jpg) Why are there fingers on the edge of the first panel? And why is that little girl a zombie? ---
**Author:** ![Dumbguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Dumbguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dumbguy)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4424 "2016-02-04T06:46:21Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Plus you could achieve the same effect by passing a law keeping the most at risk offenders from leaving prison in the first place. We’re already doing that. We have the world’s highest prison by both percentage and total. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4425 "2016-02-04T06:52:09Z")
And we have indeed seen steep drops in crime. ---
**Author:** ![Dumbguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Dumbguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dumbguy)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4426 "2016-02-04T07:21:04Z")
I guess we’ve cracked the code then. We should, with the highest incarceration rates, have the lowest crime rates. But things take time. Or we just haven’t found the threshold yet. It’d be nice to know what the target is, but I guess when you’re forging new horizons you just have to keep plugging away. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4427 "2016-02-04T12:01:42Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > … They are looking at 200 offenders. Even if all 200 became angels, it would not result in a “deep reduction in crime”. … I believe the program was developed after it was determined that a relatively small number of people are some how linked - within a couple of degrees of separation? - of most crime in a community. Very rough broad example: if one person shuts down a chop ship, ten people stop stealing cars. > [@Projammer](#): > > [Did This City Bring Down Its Murder Rate by Paying People Not to Kill?](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/richmond-california-murder-rate-gun-death)So 68 people are creating a statistically significant amount of crime in a city with a population over a 100k? I don’t have to be a statistics major to know that something isn’t adding up. Let me see the raw/uncooked data over the period of the program and 10 years prior. Do you think the commission of crimes has a normal distribution across the population? But please post a link to the data when you find them, I’d be very interested. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4428 "2016-02-08T02:02:52Z")
[Genuinely retarded tweet by NARAL tonight](https://twitter.com/NARAL/status/696485576040714240): > [@](#): > > #NotBuyingIt - that @Doritos ad using #antichoice tactic of humanizing fetuses & sexist tropes of dads as clueless & moms as uptight. #SB50 Yes because millions of pregnant women never, ever consider their children as such as long as they are in their wombs which is why they remain completely emotionless during ultrasounds, never say anything to them nor try to name the, :dubious::rolleyes: I suppose I should be glad that NARAL decided to shoot themselves in the foot like that by coming across as robots devoid of natural affection. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4429 "2016-02-08T03:31:49Z")
That tweet is so retarded on many levels, but I have to point out just how sinister it sounds to be protesting “humanizing fetuses”, especially one as well developed as the one in the picture. Is NARAL actually claiming that a third trimester fetus is not human? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4430 "2016-02-08T12:43:59Z")
Cool, I found a way to connect the shameless use of the word “retarded” with fetuses in a topical way. > **[Ohio’s controversial abortion bill](https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2015/08/26/ohios-controversial-abortion-bill)** > > Democracy in America Just sayin’. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4431 "2016-02-08T14:53:46Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That tweet is so retarded on many levels No, just the one. That’s enough. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4432 "2016-02-08T23:14:02Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Cool, I found a way to connect the shameless use of the word “retarded” with fetuses in a topical way. > > [Ohio’s controversial abortion bill](http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/08/down-syndrome) > > Just sayin’. Much as I enjoy like to shit on Kasich’s inept candidacy, he’s doing the right thing there. Of course, I believe the most consistent anti-abortion is a progressive/liberal ones that recognizes the factor of untrammelled Capital in driving abortion and thus the need for a strong social safety net to be truly pro-life not just pro-birth. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4433 "2016-02-09T14:46:07Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Much as I enjoy like to shit on Kasich’s inept candidacy, he’s doing the right thing there. Of course, I believe the most consistent anti-abortion is a progressive/liberal ones that recognizes the factor of untrammelled Capital in driving abortion and thus the need for a strong social safety net to be truly pro-life not just pro-birth. How is it doing the right thing to ban abortion for a narrow set of circumstances while still allowing it for everyone else? If you think abortion is wrong, ban it, period. No exceptions (including rape or incest). If you have exceptions, it means you think “murder of a child” is okay sometimes. (This ignores the fact that the proposed law is unconstitutional, of course). ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4434 "2016-02-09T15:21:22Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > How is it doing the right thing to ban abortion for a narrow set of circumstances while still allowing it for everyone else? > > If you think abortion is wrong, ban it, period. No exceptions (including rape or incest). If you have exceptions, it means you think “murder of a child” is okay sometimes. > > (This ignores the fact that the proposed law is unconstitutional, of course). This…is deeply flawed on a couple levels. Perplexingly so. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4435 "2016-02-09T15:23:29Z")
Why? _If_ abortion is wrong, it’s because you accept the premise that it’s the murder of an unborn child. Why should children born as a result of rape or incest (and of course have no choice in the manner of conception) be murderable? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4436 "2016-02-09T15:29:25Z")
Hm. Ok, apologies, **lance** ; apparently it’s only perplexing and flawed to me. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Why? _If_ abortion is wrong, it’s because you accept the premise that it’s the murder of an unborn child. Why should children born as a result of rape or incest (and of course have no choice in the manner of conception) be murderable? There are a lot of people who oppose abortion who do not accept that premise. We make exceptions for homicide, why not for abortion? Making exceptions only says “_abortion_ is acceptable sometimes,” not “_murder of a child_ is acceptable sometimes.” . ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4437 "2016-02-09T15:30:59Z")
> [@andros](#): > > This…is deeply flawed on a couple levels. Perplexingly so. You mean my post? How? I’d say it’s pretty rock solid. Feel free to explain. But maybe you were agreeing with my post. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4438 "2016-02-09T15:33:05Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > How? See above. And also: > [@](#): > > If you think abortion is wrong, ban it, period. I think homicide is wrong, always. But I am willing to accept its legality in some cases. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4439 "2016-02-09T15:33:28Z")
> [@andros](#): > > There are a lot of people who oppose abortion who do not accept that premise. We make exceptions for homicide, why not for abortion? > > Making exceptions only says “_abortion_ is acceptable sometimes,” not “_murder of a child_ is acceptable sometimes.” > . I’m operating on the assumption that anyone who opposes abortion does so because they equate it with murder. If they don’t, then they have no business banning abortion for any reason. If they do, then they have no business making exceptions. If you can offer some kind of middle ground that allows for taking away the right of a woman to control her body for some reason, yet says that reason isn’t compelling enough to take it away in all cases, share it. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4440 "2016-02-09T15:35:03Z")
> [@andros](#): > > There are a lot of people who oppose abortion who do not accept that premise. We make exceptions for homicide, why not for abortion? Why would you oppose abortion if not because of that? Just for the lulz? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086.md?page=221) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086.md?page=223)