# You, sir. Yes, you! Are a partisan asshole. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 6, 2011, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-sir-yes-you-are-a-partisan-asshole/591780 "2011-08-06T23:10:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-sir-yes-you-are-a-partisan-asshole/591780/261 "2011-08-16T06:32:03Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > This may be true of the terminally stupid, but to try to claim this is the default position for the majority? No. You have what can only be described as a completely disingenuous way of arguing. You throw out that which you don’t like, and then proceed to claim that you’re right, even if what you assert flies directly in the fact of empirical evidence (evidence, mind you, you throw out on account of it being ‘biased’). I’ve a mind to ask how that works, but I already know it doesn’t. > [@](#): > > Unbiased sources, who researched all the factors, or just the one you are trying to “prove”? If you provide these studies, will they be PDFs alone, or will they be linked to whoever funded the studies and/or whoever did them? Please, for all that’s good and holy, stop using words you don’t understand, as you _clearly_ don’t know what it means to be biased. It should be telling that even though I’ve asked you to point out to me what’s biased about the sources I gave you, you’ve failed to do so. Apparently, it appears that you think that setting out to test a certain hypothesis makes one biased which, for the record, is downright laughable. > [@](#): > > Hahahahahahaha. Yeah, I know. Apparently facts are super funny now. > [@](#): > > Then, you are stupid. I’m stupid for not knowing that a woman is obligated to have sex with a man? What… the… fuck? There really aren’t any adequate words to describe just how ridiculous, how asinine, how totally, utterly and completely ridiculous that is. > [@](#): > > However, that has zero to do with what I said. You said that a woman can only buy a condom and everything after that is out of their control. The only-- and I mean the only-- way this could possibly be true is if the woman is obligated to sleep with a man. But we all (well, most of us, sans you) know this to be false. No woman is obligated to sleep with a man, and she can say no to sexual intercourse at any point in time. No woman has to sleep with someone who refuses to wear a condom; she willingly chooses to do so. > [@](#): > > You really have no idea how many women live do you? Actually, it appears that you have no idea how most people live. We’ll just take one example of situation where a woman is going to lack control of the situation. Asshole husband who has been caught cheating but the wife cannot afford to divorce him. She wants him to wear a condom so she doesn’t catch any diseases he may have, he says no. She doesn’t service him, he may decide to abandon her. That’s just one situation. Men who are not allowed to “stick it in” don’t tend to, er, stick around. She can say ‘no’ and leave or say ‘no’ and let him leave. Bam. I really don’t think you understand anything you’re typing out. The only situation in which a woman has no control is the one in which she’s raped. Otherwise, she always has control, as a guy can’t stick it in unless she allows him to. > [@](#): > > No, I don’t realize that. For one thing it completely ignores the large number of women who never want to have children for any reason. It also ignores the women who don’t want that child because: > > 1. The sire is an undesirable mate for some reason (incest, rape, etc). > 2. The woman/couple have as many children as they want and/or they are getting older and don’t want to start over raising a baby again. > 3. The fetus has a health issue. > 4. The woman would rather continue college or some such than have a baby at that time. … … …Seriously? Did you, like, fail economics? I do hope you realize that “cost” doesn’t just mean money. It also means the lost benefit, for example, derived from a certain action or course of action relative to something else (i.e., opportunity costs). A woman who has an abortion because she’d rather hold a career than raise a child places a relative cost on raising that child. The same is to be said of a woman who wants an abortion because it would interfere with her education or something similar. And, just for the record, (1) and (3) aren’t exactly oft cited reasons for having an abortion. > [@](#): > > That’s just off the top of my head - there are MANY reasons why women get abortions that have nothing to do with the cost of raising a child. Hell, it seems to me that the cost of raising a child is one of the last thing women consider since so many have kids they cannot afford. It would do you well to-- I don’t know-- look shit up once in a while. Cost, as in the amount of money needed to raise a child, is actually a top reason for why women abort. [Page 113](http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf). But I’m sure you’ll be ignoring that. > [@](#): > > Do you really believe this shit? Honestly? Women should not have sex unless they want to get pregnant? Leaving aside how women might feel about this, do you really only want to have sex as often as it takes your wife to get pregnant a couple of times? You might want to go back and read what I wrote out again. …But, yeah. Novel idea, I know. (Of course, I won’t point out to you the fact that married women are underrepresented when it comes to abortion.) > [@](#): > > Uh, yeah. Given recent events I’m not sure anything I do or say is going to make an impression. Besides, I said I was conservative in most areas so obviously I am going to have opinions that won’t go down well with someone who is a rigid conservative. No, you give conservatives a bad name because you’re a complete dumb ass who is so impervious to facts and are so prone to inane rambling it boggles the mind. And to think I was almost starting to feel bad for you in the birth control thread. > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t know since there was no background given with those PDFs. You wouldn’t know if my sources were biased even though you’ve been claiming that my sources are biased? Only in your mind would that make any amount of sense. > [@](#): > > Well, for one thing, consistently posting something as “proof” of your argument in a way that it cannot be easily researched… …Yeah. It took me all of ten minutes to find the requisite information I gave you. I guess ten minutes for you is ten minutes too long. Well, that’s quite the exaggeration. What else are you exaggerating? [/quote] And yet, it is not. That’s the sad thing about it. > [@](#): > > Nope! Given your track record in multiple threads (I’m looking at the one on free birth control, in particular), I’d have to say “Yup!”. > [@](#): > > Unilateral decision to have sex? Women are considered to have unilateral decision making power once they become pregnant. If that’s the case, then the burden of preventing pregnancy should fall squarely on them. You don’t get to have your cake and eat it too by claiming both parties are equally responsible for preventing pregnancy but only one party responsible for deciding what happens to and with that pregnancy. > [@](#): > > You say it but cannot or will not prove it. I see that you are ignoring the rest of the requirements for a cite to actually be considered proof - respected source, that takes into account all factors, not just the one(s) you are currently pushing. What the hell? The authors are testing a certain hypothesis. They do this by controlling for other factors to test the significance of the factor they’ve hypothesized to be significant. I have a hard time believing someone could be **this** dumb. > [@](#): > > I don’t waste time reading anything that starts out with serious logic flaws right off the bat, so apparently this was past the first page. Do you not have a problem with “**(1)** As long as the use of these birth control methods does not systematically vary across states and over time,” or " **(2)**…As discussed previously, data on the use of contraceptive pills are available only at the national level for most of the period studied. Since we use year fixed effects, it is not possible to net out the effect of possible changes in pill use. Presumably this is not troublesome since birth control pills were available nationally prior the period we examine in this paper. " or really any part of that quote? They are _assuming_ the level of use of the pill because the data wasn’t available! I… don’t think you understand what the fuck you’re reading. I really don’t. I mean, it’s deathly apparent that not only did you not read the study in its entirety, but that you don’t even understand the little portions you’re trying to quote. (1) Which is why, in some specifications, the authors controlled for state-specific time trends to check for robustness. Of course, you probably have no Earthly idea what that means. (2) My God, you’re dumb. That is not what they’re saying at all. The authors didn’t assume the level of pill use. They had national data available to tell them that (and state data in certain years, though not all of them). All that quote says is that the authors cannot knowingly separate the effects of increased sexual activity away from the effects of increased risky behavior when they examine year fixed effects. I.e., they can’t say something like 80% of all new STD cases are because people are engaging in unsafe sex while 20% of all new STD cases are because people switched from the condom, which protects against STD’s, to the pill. They can simply say, as they did if you would have read the damn thing, that legalized abortion causes people to engage in riskier sex, which itself is a pooled effect. (Of course, the effect of people switching from the condom to the pill is probably minimal, since when the authors controlled for states changing their laws to make the pill more accessible, the results did not change.) > [@](#): > > Uh huh. Uh-huh is right. > [@elucidator](#): > > **OMG** , your premise appears to be that liberals are guilty of corrupting the society at large, because they advocate a sexual freedom that leads to abortions and STDS. Suppose this were no longer true? The “morning after” pill, better preventative practices, education, etc, could largely erase those issues. You seem to be confusing pointing out the fact of a matter with advocating for some particular premise or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-sir-yes-you-are-a-partisan-asshole/591780/262 "2011-08-16T06:37:39Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > But is it a problem that needs regulation? Or just parents slapping their kids upside the head? Presumably, I don’t think that kids giving other kids blow jobs in grade school is exactly much of a problem, much less a widespread problem. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-sir-yes-you-are-a-partisan-asshole/591780/263 "2011-08-16T07:29:05Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > You have what can only be described as a completely disingenuous way of arguing. Well, that’s your problem right there - I’m not arguing with you, I’m merely pointing out all your mistakes. > [@](#): > > Please, for all that’s good and holy, stop using words you don’t understand, as you _clearly_ don’t know what it means to be biased. Hahahahahahaha! > [@](#): > > Yeah, I know. Apparently facts are super funny now. Dunno yet, haven’t seen many. > [@](#): > > I’m stupid for not knowing that a woman is obligated to have sex with a man? Yes. Anyone who has paid any attention at all knows that if a woman doesn’t have sex with a man, he’s going to move on. Women without the ability to take care of themselves cannot chance that. > [@](#): > > She can say ‘no’ and leave or say ‘no’ and let him leave. Bam. You going to feed, shelter and clothe her and her kids? > [@](#): > > … … …Seriously? Did you, like, fail economics? I do hope you realize that “cost” doesn’t just mean money. It also means the lost benefit, for example, derived from a certain action or course of action relative to something else (i.e., opportunity costs). A woman who has an abortion because she’d rather hold a career than raise a child places a relative cost on raising that child. The same is to be said of a woman who wants an abortion because it would interfere with her education or something similar. Oh boy, dodging and weaving! > [@](#): > > And, just for the record, (1) and (3) aren’t exactly oft cited reasons for having an abortion. Never said they were. > [@](#): > > It would do you well to-- I don’t know-- look shit up once in a while. Cost, as in the amount of money needed to raise a child, is actually a top reason for why women abort. [Page 113](http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf). But I’m sure you’ll be ignoring that. Did you read that? (I notice you are now claiming that cost is “a” reason instead of the majority and that “cost” is now back to dollars). They listed the same reasons twice at times, such as would interfere with education and student or planning to study, or would interfere with job/employment/career and can’t leave job to take care of baby. And you apparently didn’t look at the next page, which had a much better breakdown, showing “can’t afford a baby” in second place just under “bad timing” and just above “done having kids”. So, yeah, your cite that you wanted to prove you right about “the majority of abortions are done precisely because the woman obtaining the abortion deems raising a child to be costlier than it is to have an abortion” isn’t really supporting your claim. So, you can add that to your list of people who “flatly ignored it. People tried calling me out on my claims-- calling them false, stupid, ridiculous, asinine and whatever else came to mind” > [@](#): > > You might want to go back and read what I wrote out again. This is exactly what you said: > [@OMG](#): > > Second of all, women who do not have sex, unless they’re raped, capable of parthenogenesis or are the Virgin Mary, do not become pregnant. And I asked you if you really meant that women should not have sex unless they wish to be pregnant. If that isn’t what you meant, telling me to reread it isn’t going to magically make it clearer. > [@](#): > > (Of course, I won’t point out to you the fact that married women are underrepresented when it comes to abortion.) The only mention I made regarding married women was to ask you if you wanted to restrict yourself to sex only when your wife wanted to be pregnant. > [@](#): > > No, you give conservatives a bad name because you’re a complete dumb ass who is so impervious to facts and are so prone to inane rambling it boggles the mind. And to think I was almost starting to feel bad for you in the birth control thread. Hahahahahaha. > [@](#): > > You wouldn’t know if my sources were biased even though you’ve been claiming that my sources are biased? Only in your mind would that make any amount of sense. It makes sense if you remember that I’ve never claimed your sources were biased, I merely said that I would only accept those that weren’t and that I had to have enough information to be able to tell that. > [@](#): > > …Yeah. It took me all of ten minutes to find the requisite information I gave you. I guess ten minutes for you is ten minutes too long. You do know that there is a big difference between finding something on Google and being able to figure out where you found a random PDF? \ > [@](#): > > Women are considered to have unilateral decision making power once they become pregnant. If that’s the case, then the burden of preventing pregnancy should fall squarely on them. Nope. It takes two people of the opposite sex to create a pregnancy, so if both of those people don’t want a pregnancy to occur, they are equally responsible for assuring to the best of their abilities that it doesn’t happen. This is why so many women have no sympathy for men who get oops’d. However, once the pregnancy is established, the only person it is going to affect physically (and in the real world, in most other ways) is the woman, so she has the only say as to whether or not it continues. > [@](#): > > What the hell? The authors are testing a certain hypothesis. They do this by controlling for other factors to test the significance of the factor they’ve hypothesized to be significant. I have a hard time believing someone could be **this** dumb. Must be looking in the mirror on that one. For one thing, they shouldn’t be testing a certain hypothesis, they should be looking at the data and seeing what the facts are. This is one way these things end up being biased - the authors are interested to see if what they want to believe is true, so they go forth and find the facts that support their theory. When they find facts that won’t support it, they explain them away. For another thing, they didn’t control for other factors, they just apparently made up numbers, because they didn’t have them. > [@](#): > > I… don’t think you understand what the fuck you’re reading. I really don’t. I mean, it’s deathly apparent that not only did you not read the study in its entirety, but that you don’t even understand the little portions you’re trying to quote. I suppose this is how you think you can claim with a straight face that no one pays attention to any of your cites… Anyway, yes I told you that I didn’t read the study in its entirety, which I’d think you’d have figured out anyway since I only responded to the part you quoted. > [@](#): > > (1) Which is why, in some specifications, the authors controlled for state-specific time trends to check for robustness. Of course, you probably have no Earthly idea what that means. As it applies to (1)? No. > [@](#): > > (2) My God, you’re dumb. That is not what they’re saying at all. The authors didn’t assume the level of pill use. They had national data available to tell them that (and state data in certain years, though not all of them). All that quote says is that the authors cannot knowingly separate the effects of increased sexual activity away from the effects of increased risky behavior when they examine year fixed effects. I.e., they can’t say something like 80% of all new STD cases are because people are engaging in unsafe sex while 20% of all new STD cases are because people switched from the condom, which protects against STD’s, to the pill. They can simply say, as they did if you would have read the damn thing, that legalized abortion causes people to engage in riskier sex, which itself is a pooled effect. So, in other words, you are calling me dumb because you picked a quote out of that thing to make a point, and when I respond to that quote you say that what you quoted didn’t say what you wanted it to and I was supposed to go read that whole thing? After I told you that the first page had a logic problem and I wasn’t going to waste time reading the whole mess? I am really beginning to see how you “win” all these interwebs arguments… And of course, you don’t notice that if the authors can’t tell how many of their STD cases were using condoms as birth control instead of the pill, that kind of messes up their data… And of course, you don’t have anything in there about the fact that condoms cannot be expected to protect 100% from STDs… But yeah, lets use this as proof that legal abortion means that more people are getting STDs! Good job. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-sir-yes-you-are-a-partisan-asshole/591780/264 "2011-08-16T16:23:11Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Well, that’s your problem right there - I’m not arguing with you, I’m merely pointing out all your mistakes. You’ve yet to point out any mistakes. Actually, as is your MO, you tend to obfuscate and engage in some dubious logic, not to mention you have a knack for simply arguing things which are wrong no matter how many sources you are given to the contrary. > [@](#): > > Dunno yet, haven’t seen many. Funny (hah!). You seemed to laugh at one just a few hours ago. Actually, you seem to laugh at them in general. > [@](#): > > Yes. Anyone who has paid any attention at all knows that if a woman doesn’t have sex with a man, he’s going to move on. Women without the ability to take care of themselves cannot chance that. That… is such a BS statement. For your sake, I hope you’re not a woman. > [@](#): > > You going to feed, shelter and clothe her and her kids? Nope 🙂 > [@](#): > > Oh boy, dodging and weaving! How, on Earth, is that dodging and weaving? If anyone is dodging and weaving, it would be you, as you didn’t even attempt to provide a valid response to what I typed. > [@](#): > > Did you read that? (I notice you are now claiming that cost is “a” reason instead of the majority and that “cost” is now back to dollars). They listed the same reasons twice at times, such as would interfere with education and student or planning to study, or would interfere with job/employment/career and can’t leave job to take care of baby. And you apparently didn’t look at the next page, which had a much better breakdown, showing “can’t afford a baby” in second place just under “bad timing” and just above “done having kids”. So, yeah, your cite that you wanted to prove you right about “the majority of abortions are done precisely because the woman obtaining the abortion deems raising a child to be costlier than it is to have an abortion” isn’t really supporting your claim. _sigh_ Not that it matters much to you, because I know it doesn’t, but you really need to read. I “ignored” it because the average number of reasons given was **FOUR** , not one. And when paired reasons were given, one of the top pairs was-- you guessed it-- inability to afford a baby. From page 113 (right underneath the friggin’ table, actually): > [@](#): > > Of the 1,160 women who gave at least one reason, 89% gave at least two and 72% gave at least three; the median number of reasons given was four, and some women gave as many as eight reasons out of a possible 13 (not shown). Among women who gave at least two reasons, the most common pairs of reasons were inability to afford a baby and interference with school or work; inability to afford a baby and fear of single motherhood or relationship problems; and inability to afford a baby and having completed childbearing or having other people dependent on them. Honestly. If you’re not going to read, then do me a favor and stop responding. > [@](#): > > So, you can add that to your list of people who “flatly ignored it. People tried calling me out on my claims-- calling them false, stupid, ridiculous, asinine and whatever else came to mind”. At this point, I’d much rather you ignore things than to be subjected to your absolute abysmal reading skills. > [@](#): > > This is exactly what you said: > > \ > > And I asked you if you really meant that women should not have sex unless they wish to be pregnant. If that isn’t what you meant, telling me to reread it isn’t going to magically make it clearer. I know exactly what I said, which was in response to this: > [@You](#): > > And no I’m not going to bother with a cite because if nothing else its simple logic - if a women becomes pregnant, which can happen no matter how much birth control she uses or how much she restrains “herself” (hahahahahahaha!!!), if she cannot abort, there is going to be another birth. Quite simple, really. > [@](#): > > It makes sense if you remember that I’ve never claimed your sources were biased, I merely said that I would only accept those that weren’t and that I had to have enough information to be able to tell that. Hmmm, really? > [@You](#): > > What you need to find is a cite from an unbiased, respected source, that takes into account all factors, not just the one(s) you are currently pushing. ^ > [@](#): > > You do know that there is a big difference between finding something on Google and being able to figure out where you found a random PDF? It’s called “using a search engine”. > [@](#): > > Nope. It takes two people of the opposite sex to create a pregnancy, so if both of those people don’t want a pregnancy to occur, they are equally responsible for assuring to the best of their abilities that it doesn’t happen. **This is why so many women have no sympathy for men who get oops’d**. However, once the pregnancy is established, the only person it is going to affect physically (and in the real world, in most other ways) is the woman, so she has the only say as to whether or not it continues. …Right. You remember what I said about trying to have your cake and eat it to? Oh, wait. No, you don’t. Because you ignored it. Go figure. Again I point out, unilateral decision making power begets unilateral responsibility. You see, if she’s the only one who is going to be affected physically, then she has an increased vested interest relative to the man to not become pregnant if she doesn’t want to. After all, it’s her body, right? Of course, your thinking causes this to be untrue, because she doesn’t have to be a mother when she chooses not to be, while a man has to be whatever the woman decides for him to be. In this case, the burden of preventing pregnancy falls almost squarely on him, as he has no recourse of action once she does fall pregnant, whereas a woman can simply waltz into an abortion clinic the same day (_points to NYC_) and solve all her problems. If the situations were reversed and he was a she, it’d be deemed misogyny. But since it is what it is, then it’s okay 😛 (And good luck proving the bold.) > [@](#): > > Must be looking in the mirror on that one. For one thing, they shouldn’t be testing a certain hypothesis, they should be looking at the data and seeing what the facts are. What… the… fuck? You’re joking, right? Hypothesis testing is an integral part of any kind of statistical analysis. Really, now. To say people shouldn’t test their hypotheses is ridiculous. > [@](#): > > This is one way these things end up being biased - the authors are interested to see if what they want to believe is true, so they go forth and find the facts that support their theory. When they find facts that won’t support it, they explain them away. I have a mind to ask you how on Earth you know this, considering that you didn’t, you know, **READ THE STUDY**? You’re really just typing out of your ass now. > [@](#): > > For another thing, they didn’t control for other factors, they just apparently made up numbers, because they didn’t have them. False. This was a lie when you said it the first time, it’s still a lie now and if you repeat it again in the future, it will still be a lie. > [@](#): > > As it applies to (1)? No. So the authors of the study don’t know what the hell they were doing? :smack: > [@](#): > > So, in other words, you are calling me dumb because you picked a quote out of that thing to make a point, and when I respond to that quote you say that what you quoted didn’t say what you wanted it to and I was supposed to go read that whole thing? After I told you that the first page had a logic problem and I wasn’t going to waste time reading the whole mess? I am really beginning to see how you “win” all these interwebs arguments… No, I’m calling you dumb because (1) you don’t read what you’re given and (2) you like to make shit up. That “logic problem” you keep going on about doesn’t actually exist. For example, first you claimed this: > [@You](#): > > For example, your “cite” assumes that a rise in STDs must be because abortion is available, which is just stupid. Which was an outright lie, as no such thing was assumed. The authors analyze the rates of STD’s in early legalizing states versus states which had their abortion laws changed by Roe v. Wade to test the hypothesis that legalized abortion abortion caused a change in sexual behavior. If that hypothesis is true, you should see states which liberalized their abortion laws early have divergent STD rates from those states which did not change their abortion laws, and a convergence later once Roe v. Wade rolled around. But God forbid you understand any of that. Anyway, and then to further embarrass yourself, you claimed this: > [@You](#): > > I don’t waste time reading anything that starts out with serious logic flaws right off the bat, so apparently this was past the first page. Which is nothing more than you failing to understand what you’re, apparently, reading (see: my responses in my last post). I can see why people refuse to entertain you. It’s like trying to break a block of reinforced concrete with your head. > [@](#): > > And of course, you don’t notice that if the authors can’t tell how many of their STD cases were using condoms as birth control instead of the pill, that kind of messes up their data… Quite possibly because-- and this is a total guess-- it’s irrelevant since they don’t care about what percentage of STD’s were contracted using a condom or the pill? I don’t even know why I’m arguing this, actually, since you’ve already admitted to not even reading the study. > [@](#): > > And of course, you don’t have anything in there about the fact that condoms cannot be expected to protect 100% from STDs… Quite possibly because-- and this is a total guess-- it’s irrelevant for similar reasons stated above. > [@](#): > > But yeah, lets use this as proof that legal abortion means that more people are getting STDs! Good job. Ummm, yeah. A little reading comprehension goes a long way. Unsurprisingly enough, you’ve still yet to tackle anything in the sources I’ve provided you. I’m pretty sure you don’t even understand what’s written in the sources I gave you, seeing as how you couldn’t even understand the parts quoted for you. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-sir-yes-you-are-a-partisan-asshole/591780/265 "2011-08-16T18:18:58Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > …You seem to be confusing pointing out the fact of a matter with advocating for some particular premise or whatever. A confusion you could erase with a few simple keystrokes, by clarifying or at least stating a position. Is there some reason you are reluctant to do so? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-sir-yes-you-are-a-partisan-asshole/591780/266 "2011-08-16T20:01:03Z")
Well, my attempt at a reasoned discussion with a board conservative has again come to naught, especially now that he’s been Pitted. At least he can’t honestly claim such discussions are impossible on this board. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-sir-yes-you-are-a-partisan-asshole/591780/267 "2011-08-16T20:05:59Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > A confusion you could erase with a few simple keystrokes, by clarifying or at least stating a position. Is there some reason you are reluctant to do so? I’m not reluctant to do anything. Just pointing out that SA is correct in some of his assertions regarding liberal policies and STD rates. You got a problem with that? Take it up with him or simply reality 😛 > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, my attempt at a reasoned discussion with a board conservative has again come to naught, especially now that he’s been Pitted. At least he can’t honestly claim such discussions are impossible on this board. I don’t see how. You agreed with what Bosstone wrote out and I responded to that. Presumably, since you agreed with it, it also counts as a response to you, though there isn’t much discussion to be had there. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-sir-yes-you-are-a-partisan-asshole/591780/268 "2011-08-16T20:09:29Z")
Sure, there is. I could ask again why the regulation of sexual matters is important, but if you’d rather endlessly nitpick abortion stats of questionable relevance, more power to you. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-sir-yes-you-are-a-partisan-asshole/591780/269 "2011-08-16T20:12:16Z")
And I’d point out to you, again, because I think everyone could agree that a higher STD rate is a bad thing. That ain’t nitpicking abortion stats of questionable relevance (especially since those stats were posted in relation to a claim a fellow conservative made). Of course, that doesn’t matter to you, since I distinctly remember you saying-- on more than one occasion-- that higher STD rates than there otherwise would be if legal abortion were not available are not necessarily a terrible thing. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-sir-yes-you-are-a-partisan-asshole/591780/270 "2011-08-16T20:15:19Z")
Actually, what I said was that it was a modern problem like any other, and I was curious what your proposed (presumably conservative) solution was that promised to solve this problem and not create many others, i.e. I was unconvinced that even _if_ (granting generously for the sake of argument) that legal abortion led to higher STD rates, that banning or restricting abortion was a good solution. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-sir-yes-you-are-a-partisan-asshole/591780/271 "2011-08-16T20:18:45Z")
It’s a good solution to changing sexual behavior, causing people to have less risky sex more often (by either forgoing sex or using contraception). Actually, that would just be a positive byproduct of banning abortion. …But we’ve had this conversation before, and it goes the same way. You keep telling me of all these terrible things that will happen, yet the terrible things you tell me will happen are either (1) not born out of evidence (like adoption agencies becoming crowded with ‘unwanted’ children who would have otherwise been aborted) or (2) are without substance (such as the poverty rate increasing). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-sir-yes-you-are-a-partisan-asshole/591780/272 "2011-08-16T20:26:02Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > I’m not reluctant to do anything. Just pointing out that SA is correct in some of his assertions regarding liberal policies and STD rates. You got a problem with that? Take it up with him or simply reality :P… SA asserts that the rise in STD rates is a result of liberal policies. In support of that position, he offers evidence that STD rates have risen. Let me try to break this down for you. Suppose I say that gay marriage is more common because Jesus wants it that way. I then offer evidence that gay marriage is more common. Have I proven that its because Jesus wants it that way? Take your time. Think it over. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-sir-yes-you-are-a-partisan-asshole/591780/273 "2011-08-16T20:29:08Z")
An extra, say, five hundred thousand children born per year (or even three hundred thousand) disproportionately to women who don’t want them and can’t afford them? How much evidence of potential problems do you want? For that matter, I’ve got other conservatives (Starving Artist, at least) lamenting the number of out-of-wedlock births. Are these expected to go _down_ in a post abortion-ban America? What about proposed alternatives that _don’t_ ban abortion (and thus don’t open up the potential problems a ban creates), like stepped-up sex education, or research into vaccines for common STDs to be administered to 13 year-olds? What practices are countries with lower STD rates doing that the U.S. could adapt? ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-sir-yes-you-are-a-partisan-asshole/591780/274 "2011-08-16T20:29:39Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > SA asserts that the rise in STD rates is a result of liberal policies. In support of that position, he offers evidence that STD rates have risen. Let me try to break this down for you. > > Suppose I say that gay marriage is more common because Jesus wants it that way. I then offer evidence that gay marriage is more common. Have I proven that its because Jesus wants it that way? > > Take your time. Think it over. I know what he said. His claim was correct, even if he didn’t offer the proof for that claim. Hence my post on his claim. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-sir-yes-you-are-a-partisan-asshole/591780/275 "2011-08-16T20:44:46Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > An extra, say, five hundred thousand children born per year (or even three hundred thousand) disproportionately to women who don’t want them and can’t afford them? Iirc, they will be about 400K, and they won’t be born primarily to women who can’t afford them since the poor will be far less likely than someone who is middle-class or rich as they would be less able to care for a child than the aforementioned two groups. I’m pretty sure we went over this before. > [@](#): > > How much evidence of potential problems do you want? How much of a potential problem do you think it will be? > [@](#): > > For that matter, I’ve got other conservatives (Starving Artist, at least) lamenting the number of out-of-wedlock births. Are these expected to go _down_ in a post abortion-ban America? That depends on the number of single women who get pregnant and give birth in a post-abortion ban America relative to how many single women get pregnant and give birth now. Though, logic dictates it would probably go up. I don’t know. I’m too lazy to research it right this moment. > [@](#): > > What about proposed alternatives that _don’t_ ban abortion (and thus don’t open up the potential problems a ban creates), like stepped-up sex education, or research into vaccines for common STDs to be administered to 13 year-olds? What practices are countries with lower STD rates doing that the U.S. could adapt? While nice, those don’t solve the underlying problem. (Plus, I’d quite favor banning abortion in general.) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-sir-yes-you-are-a-partisan-asshole/591780/276 "2011-08-16T20:46:24Z")
You’re either being evasive, or are incapable of a clear statement. Which claim is correct: that STD rates have risen, or that the rise in such rates is a direct result of liberal policies? I’ll try and type this slowly: if you say that _both_ claims are correct, then you must offer support for _both_ claims. See how that works? Let me know when you have absorbed that concept, and we can move along. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-sir-yes-you-are-a-partisan-asshole/591780/277 "2011-08-16T21:09:00Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You’re either being evasive, or are incapable of a clear statement. Which claim is correct: that STD rates have risen, or that the rise in such rates is a direct result of liberal policies? > > I’ll try and type this slowly: if you say that _both_ claims are correct, then you must offer support for _both_ claims. See how that works? Let me know when you have absorbed that concept, and we can move along. No one is being evasive. Not sure why you’d think that. I’m not so sure how much clearer I can be. I’m talking about the claim that liberal policies led to an increase in the STD rate (legalized abortion was estimated to account for about 25% or so of the instance of gonorrhea and syphillis). I can’t find anything for syphillis, but [this](http://www.cdc.gov/std/Trends2000/trends2000.pdf) has a graph of historical gonorrhea rates dating back to 1970. Rates peaked out around the mid 1970’s and have fallen ever since. Here’s a [quote] ([http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/national/09disease.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/national/09disease.html)) on the gonorrhea rate. > [@](#): > > The gonorrhea rates began soaring in the late 1960’s and peaked in the 1970’s because of changes in sexual mores and behavior, wide use of oral contraceptives, and decreased use of condoms, said Dr. Valdiserri and Dr. John M. Douglas, who directs S.T.D. prevention at the disease centers in Atlanta. That fits in pretty nicely with that study I provided a while back. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-sir-yes-you-are-a-partisan-asshole/591780/278 "2011-08-16T21:12:37Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Iirc, they will be about 400K, and they won’t be born primarily to women who can’t afford them since the poor will be far less likely than someone who is middle-class or rich as they would be less able to care for a child than the aforementioned two groups. I’m pretty sure we went over this before. I’ve read this several times and can’t understand it. I’m _guessing_ that it means since the poor can’t afford to have children, they will have fewer children, and if that’s a correct interpretation, the statement is clearly incorrect, since there are lots of poor Americans having children they can’t afford, even with abortion being legal. > [@](#): > > How much of a potential problem do you think it will be? Well, increased poverty, increased unemployment, increased crime. Cities sliding into (or more rapidly sliding into) poverty and decay. Of course, that’s actually secondary to my default view that the government has no business regulating how many children a citizen should have - abortion exists and is a safe procedure. I can see no justification for denying access to it. I can vaguely imagine a legal restraint on someone who’s had _too many_ children, more than they could possibly care for, but regulating abortion? I don’t see the value. > [@](#): > > That depends on the number of single women who get pregnant and give birth in a post-abortion ban America relative to how many single women get pregnant and give birth now. Though, logic dictates it would probably go up. I don’t know. I’m too lazy to research it right this moment. What’s the value of chancing it? You’re dismissing a concern of post-ban problems for what post-ban benefits? Moral satisfaction? A possible reduction in STDs? I don’t get it. > [@](#): > > While nice, those don’t solve the underlying problem. I dunno, vaccines “solved” polio and they’ve solved numerous other disease-related problems. We _could_ have controlled measles by closing all the schools and playgrounds and raised children in isolation from each other, but this would be an overkill “solution” while a vaccine is much simpler. Frankly, I’m baffled and troubled by morality-based resistance to HPV vaccinations, and I expect similar resistance will pop up if someone suggested giving 12 year-olds a hypothetical anti-gonorrhea shot, even if it meant eventually reducing gonorrhea cases in the U.S. to, say, mumps levels (~6000-7000 per year, about 1% of gonorrhea totals). The vaccine connection is direct and obvious, the abortion connection rather less so. > [@](#): > > (Plus, I’d quite favor banning abortion in general.) And I can understand that, but I don’t see how that entitles questionable statistics, questionable hypotheses and questionable conclusions in pursuit of questionable goals. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-sir-yes-you-are-a-partisan-asshole/591780/279 "2011-08-16T21:19:27Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > I can’t find anything for syphillis, but [this](http://www.cdc.gov/std/Trends2000/trends2000.pdf) has a graph of historical gonorrhea rates dating back to 1970. Rates peaked out around the mid 1970’s and have fallen ever since. Wait, _after_ Roe? So of gonorrhea cases (which occur at a lower rate than pre-_Roe_ times), 25% are attributable to abortion access? This is more-or-less the argument, right? I know gonorrhea alone doesn’t comprise all STDs, but it’s being used as an indicator, right? I have follow-up questions, but I’d like to be sure I have a handle on what you’re claiming, first. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-sir-yes-you-are-a-partisan-asshole/591780/280 "2011-08-16T21:44:30Z")
Wait a minute. How did abortion rights become a liberal policy? I do not recall any pinko legislation empowering women to have abortions. As I recall, the SCOTUS issued a ruling saying that abortions are a constitutionally protected right. Do we need to now blame the Founders for this disgraceful liberal affront? What were STD rates back in the 18th Century? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-sir-yes-you-are-a-partisan-asshole/591780.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-sir-yes-you-are-a-partisan-asshole/591780.md?page=15)