Trump 42%, Clinton 39%, Johnson 10%

BroncoBot wrote:

If only we had more prostitution, drug use, and abortions, then our society would really be on the right path.

I totally agree that we could use less of it. But disagree that making it legal would have any significant difference on how much of it is happening.

For me, it's not whether I believe it would reduce them or not, it's about having a moral baseline. This is one of the things I disagree with libertarians on--I think that our country was founded on moral principles and it's okay for laws to reflect that. Do we really think that we won't lose even more favor with the Lord if we call things like prostitution acceptable in our society? Politics have come to the point of being theological for me, which is why this is the first time I'll be voting third party--because I do believe that the Lord will bless us more if more of us take a stand for what we think is actually right, not just the lesser of two evils.

hawkwing wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
If only we had more prostitution, drug use, and abortions, then our society would really be on the right path.

I totally agree that we could use less of it. But disagree that making it legal would have any significant difference on how much of it is happening.

And that's where and why I'll never be a Libertarian. Because I do think it would.

This isn't an evidenced based belief.



Self reported rates of drug use have increased minimally in places where drugs have been decriminalized. Actual drug use rates may have gone up or down, it's hard to know, but most people estimate rates of heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine use has remained stable or decreased slightly, while marijuana use has remained stable or increased slightly.



In any event, what sort of illegality of drug use are you talking about? Do you want to jail all the young Utah mothers using amphetamines so they can keep up with their kids, or just the young black mothers from Detroit who use cocaine for the same reason?

Schmoe wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
If only we had more prostitution, drug use, and abortions, then our society would really be on the right path.

I totally agree that we could use less of it. But disagree that making it legal would have any significant difference on how much of it is happening.

For me, it's not whether I believe it would reduce them or not, it's about having a moral baseline. This is one of the things I disagree with libertarians on--I think that our country was founded on moral principles and it's okay for laws to reflect that. Do we really think that we won't lose even more favor with the Lord if we call things like prostitution acceptable in our society? Politics have come to the point of being theological for me, which is why this is the first time I'll be voting third party--because I do believe that the Lord will bless us more if more of us take a stand for what we think is actually right, not just the lesser of two evils.

I understand your view as well. And believe it has it's merits in a society where everyone has more or less agreed to certain morals. I simply don't believe that the role of government is to decide all moral values and enforce them on everyone. Of course society could use less prostitution, drugs, abortion, etc etc etc and I'm a very pro life guy myself. However, it becomes a slippery slope when we want government to decide where our morals should be instead of the home and our churches. When we rely on GOVERNMENT to make moral decisions, everyone loses rights and liberties.



If someone believes it is his right to smoke marijuana, tobacco, cocaine, heroin or peyote I see no problem with that if he is not harming others and knows the risks involved. And before you go all socialist on me about the cost/toll of using drugs, remind yourself of the last time you had some sugar which is one of the largest health care costs facing America today



I think we've been brainwashed into thinking that some "drugs" are morally reprehensible and other are fine. Marijuana vs tobacco? which one would you have a family member using? I with 100% certainly would rather have a loved one tell me they use some recreational pot vs tobacco if we are looking at long term health effects.



What's legal isn't always morally correct. What's illegal shouldn't always be condemned. However, this thought is not reflected in the blessed society we find ourselves a part of. If you oppose gay marriage currently you are a bigot, a religious zealot who can be sued. If you oppose transgenders using the bathroom of their choice or voice opposition to the idea of gender neutral, you may be labelled a criminal. The government and those who are using the government to break apart family values are pushing their PC legislation as moral issue with criminal charges if opposed. I've never liked the idea of government deciding what my morals and what my children's morals should be through legislation. If it means we become a more "libertarian" society where religious ideas are not suppressed, values are not criminalized and actual moral thoughts and beliefs can be taught freely, I'd gladly exchange that for legalization of prostitution and decriminalization of drugs.

jvquarterback wrote:

Abortion is tough, because legalizing it dropped the National crime rate about 20%. There would be major repercussions to making it illegal again.

I know the freakonomics guys believe this and would have us all believe it but their analysis is garbage.

I think I'll side with the professional statisticians, since you brought no facts to the party.



But yeah. Utah should make marijuana legal for medical purposes.

It's an easy debate to review. Levitt made errors in his analysis which have been reviewed in multiple publications.



One rebuttal (Lott and Whitley 2001) was that they overestimated the effect and there was no effect or at most the effect was 2/3 of what Levitt previously reported. Joyce confirmed the lack of correlation and said it was more likely due to changes in drug use (by the mothers of the children). Levitt responded with an unreviewed blog post on his website.



The second more damning rebuttal (Foote and Goetz, 2005) showed no correlation between abortion and crime rate. The article contends and Levitt admits to an "error" in the computer program that inflated the relationship between abortion and the decrease in crime rate. Donohoe Levitt published an unreviewed editorial response admitting the error, but continued to claim that the reanalyzed data still showed a correlation. Foote and Goetz reran the data as Levitt proposed and again found no positive correlation between abortion and decreased crime rates and published the results in a peer reviewed journal.



There is another paper from the UK that initially reported a correlation, however after review, the authors rescinded their claims (unlike Levitt and Donohoe).



If people were honest this would get the same treatment as the vaccine causes autism madness but because Levitt's original conclusion was in line with what NPR producers believe you won't hear about it.

jvquarterback wrote:
It's an easy debate to review. Levitt made errors in his analysis which have been reviewed in multiple publications.



One rebuttal (Lott and Whitley 2001) was that they overestimated the effect and there was no effect or at most the effect was 2/3 of what Levitt previously reported. Levitt responded with an unreviewed blog post on his website.



The second more damning rebuttal (Foote and Goetz, 2005) showed no correlation between abortion and crime rate. The article contends and Levitt admits to an "error" in the computer program that inflated the relationship between abortion and the decrease in crime rate. Levitt published an unreviewed editorial response admitting the error, but continued to claim that the reanalyzed data still showed a correlation. Foote and Goetz reran the data as Levitt proposed and again found no positive correlation between abortion and decreased crime rates and published the results in a peer reviewed journal.



If people were honest this would get the same treatment as the vaccine causes autism madness but because Levitt's original conclusion was in line with what NPR producers believe you won't hear about it.

That's very interesting. If you have any links I would love to read them.

Mars wrote:

That's very interesting. If you have any links I would love to read them.

Added links above - some of them require subscriptions. It's been a few years since I've reviewed the literature and it's looks like the data are more and more against the conclusion that abortion reduces crime.

Interesting. So Freakanomics may have doubled the impact numbers, though the correlation does still seem to exist (as shown in Romania, Canada, and Australia, as well as the United States).



Freakanomics also overlooks the impact of crack cocaine (marginal) and the reduction of lead in homes (undetermined, but likely quite large). Interesting. That leaves abortion as the lead known cause in the crime drop, but far from the only factor. Though newer lead studies may disagree by now, I didn't look yet.

Mars wrote:
Interesting. So Freakanomics may have doubled the impact numbers, though the correlation does still seem to exist (as shown in Romania, Canada, and Australia, as well as the United States).

It shows you can make stuff up and get people like you to believe it. There is no correlation in the Levitt data. And they likely fabricated the results in the first place.



BTW you're advocating the murder of a more than a million innocent babies per year and justifying it with that fabricated data.

jvquarterback wrote:

Interesting. So Freakanomics may have doubled the impact numbers, though the correlation does still seem to exist (as shown in Romania, Canada, and Australia, as well as the United States).

It shows you can make stuff up and get people like you to believe it. There is no correlation in the Levitt data. And they likely fabricated the results in the first place.



BTW you're advocating the murder of a more than a million innocent babies per year and justifying it with that fabricated data.

I would say that I advocate adoption. For many too poor to raise a child, this is a much better option than either abortion or parenting.

Mars wrote:
I would say that I advocate adoption. For many too poor to raise a child, this is a much better option than either abortion or parenting.

So you're for increased crime. I'm shocked. We need to do everything we can to decrease crime. You should be advocating for a 100% abortion rate to completely eliminate crime.

jvquarterback wrote:

I would say that I advocate adoption. For many too poor to raise a child, this is a much better option than either abortion or parenting.

So you're for increased crime. I'm shocked. We need to do everything we can to decrease crime. You should be advocating for a 100% abortion rate to completely eliminate crime.

I sometimes wonder if jv is a real person or just a troll bot, but most of his recruiting tweets are fantastic. It must be very discouraging to the other Libertarians on this site to have him as the face of Libertarianism to Cougar Nation. But maybe not, maybe he captures the essence perfectly.

jvquarterback wrote:

I would say that I advocate adoption. For many too poor to raise a child, this is a much better option than either abortion or parenting.

So you're for increased crime. I'm shocked. We need to do everything we can to decrease crime. You should be advocating for a 100% abortion rate to completely eliminate crime.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/995/415/b30.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

hawkwing wrote:

Mars wrote:
I would say that I advocate adoption. For many too poor to raise a child, this is a much better option than either abortion or parenting.

So you're for increased crime. I'm shocked. We need to do everything we can to decrease crime. You should be advocating for a 100% abortion rate to completely eliminate crime.

I sometimes wonder if jv is a real person or just a troll bot, but most of his recruiting tweets are fantastic. It must be very discouraging to the other Libertarians on this site to have him as the face of Libertarianism to Cougar Nation. But maybe not, maybe he captures the essence perfectly.

Let me give you a summary of the debate here so you can understand the sarcasm of my quote above.



Mars cites fabricated data to say abortion reduces crime. I say the data are fabricated and there is no such correlation, let alone any causation. Mars says he still believes the fabricated data anyway and makes a recommendation (that I agree with) which is completely unsupported by his argument which is based on the fabricated data. I make a sarcastic comment deriding Mars' unsupported conclusion to his argument.



The key points to take home here are 1) There is no correlation between abortion and crime rates in the data presented by the freakonomincs losers. 2) Mars won't admit the data used by Levitt and Donohoe are fabricated despite their admission, the admission of the editors who initially reviewed their paper, and the people who discovered their misrepresentation and then properly reviewed that specific data set and showed a lack of correlation.

It's difficult to find many scientific studies that other scientific studies don't disagree with. Scientists can't even agree whether red wine is good for you or bad for you. Crime rose in Romania when they banned abortion. It dropped in America when abortion was legalized. It dropped first in states that allowed it first. It dropped most in states that made it easiest. The correlation isn't in question, only the causality, of which I've stated that there are many. But most studied have shown very minor impact in this case (police, laws, jails, etc).

Mars wrote:
It's difficult to find many scientific studies that other scientific studies don't disagree with..

We're not talking about studies that show different results from different data sets. We're talking about manipulation and misrepresentation of a single data set that does not show what the authors purported.

jvquarterback wrote:
One rebuttal (Lott and Whitley 2001) was that they overestimated the effect and... at most the effect was 2/3 of what Levitt previously reported.

Scientist #1: I discovered 100 bones!

Scientist #2: Upon closer inspection, that looks more like 66 bones.

jvquarterback: Bones don't exist!

;)

Scientist #1: I discovered 0.023 bones!

Scientist #2: Upon closer inspection, that looks more like 0.007 bones but the data are so foggy we can't really say whether there are any bones at all.

Scientist #3: Scientist #1 lied about there being any bones at all.

NPR producer/Scientist #1: Yes I lied the first time but believe me this time, there are 0.012 bones.

Scientist #3: Nope you lied again. There aren't any bones. And you're really bad at math.

Scientist #4: I may have found 0.008 bones . . . oh wait nevermind, the data are too foggy. We can't tell if there are any bones. But at least I have a shred of self respect and am a scientist, not some turd paid by planned parenthood.



Mars: Kill the babies! I believe the NPR prod ... I mean Planned Parenthood exec ... I mean scientist #1.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/51/51c82965d7cf10a74bdc009c9a30a58818c4e7d9d899d605db9e479f6cb7b5ac.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">