jasory @ jasory @programming.dev

Posts

0

Comments

300

Joined

2 yr. ago

The data is asking leading questions. The mere fact that one has declined a job in a certain state does not follow that the reason was specific to a single law.

Additionally you realise that Ob-Gyn services far more than abortion. If they are shutting down, it's primarily due to aging populations in small communities, not abortion laws.

FYI if you want to throw around statistics it helps to have some formal education in statistics that way you atleast know what kind of conclusions the data actually supports. Hint, it's rarely what uneducated journalists think.

"You cannot claim to know the opinions of hundreds of women... Dunbar's number"

Destroyed by a weakly defined social science term, that bears little application to the topic. One can easily exceed Dunbar's number over a period of time spanning decades. If I ask hundreds of women privately their reason for moving, laws, specifically ones about abortion are going to play very little role. The primary reasons for moving are economic and familial, you know things that actually effect day-to-day life.

Additionally if the opinions of multiple women contradicted mine (as a woman), would I really have a logical basis for asserting that my opinion is representative of the group of women?

"right-leaning" You're confusing criticism of a circle-jerk of unfounded nonsense as being right-leaning. If that's the case then why don't you want to be right-leaning?

"As they can't attract talent"

You realise industries built up around a workforce? It's why you have complexes of related companies in regions because they poach each other's workforces. They don't just build a multi-million/billion dollar facility and hope that their workforce materialises out of thin air.

Tech companies like any high-skill field, built up around universities that produce the talent. Unless you think UT-Austin is suddenly going to stop producing students, why do you think that tech companies are going to abandon all their investment?

"Look at the demographics"

Why don't you read the US Census inflow and outflow of populations between the states? (I don't have the software to read it on my phone rn, but I seriously doubt it supports your argument, as far as I know low COL states are attracting everyone from high COL states. The low COL states are due to low market demand from being rural and just happen to be Republican).

If it were really true that "red states" only import "red voters", then how come cities in "red" states become increasingly "blue" over time? Keep in mind that the majority of the population even in relatively rural states is in cities. If they were really just importing Republican voters, then one would expect the voting patterns to stay the same. Anecdotally, basically every state in the West Coast and the adjoining states have been flooded with Democratic voting Californians driven out by COL in the past several decades.

"That's exactly what I'm worried about"

You're worried about something only supported by a fringe group (some conservative Catholics) and legal for your entire lifetime. Keep in mind that the only opposition that the general pro-life movement has is towards abortifacients, of which IUDs are not.

Just because something is vaguely similar doesn't mean that it is necessarily affected by a policy. Banning slavery, doesn't mean that you can't make your children do chores.

"The 'pregnancy crisis's centers that are legally allowed to spread misinformation" Everyone is legally allowed to spread misinformation.

Maybe your heart wouldn't be so broken if your head wasn't so broken. But who am I kidding, you likely don't actually care about this to any actionable degree, just typed out a response since the topic was broached.

Is there evidence for this? People move primarily for job, education opportunities and existing family. Local laws don't really factor in that much, again unless you are participating in activity that your daily life revolves around, like drugs or maybe guns if you are a real freak about them.

"Marijuana is and has already been effectively legal"

Absolutely. The war on drugs failed, not because of abuses of police or that it's impossible to ban products. But because Americans love drugs and has always culturally permitted it's use. The reason why countries like Singapore don't have drug problems is cultural suppression, in addition to draconian laws.

The rest of your comment is irrelevant conspiracism. Prison labor and private facilities comprise zilch to the US economy (billions sounds large until you realize that the US economy is on the order of 20 trillion), infact many people are released specifically because it is cheaper.

Marijuana use additionally increased with cultural acceptance, it wasn't illegalised when it would actually have been an effective way to hassle innocents.

I know literally hundreds of women were this is not the case. The fact that I can only find them on a web forum that specifically selects for people that have your viewpoint (a far-left {no you're not mainstream Americans no matter how much you want to believe it} website with a post that specifically targets people interested in abortion), is pretty strong evidence of how little it factors in.

I fail to see how this is an example of abuse. If someone is lying to you about evidence they have of a crime, then why would that induce a false confession? At worst you would plea guilty in court, when all the evidence (or lack of) would be presented.

This argument requires assuming that people are literally mentally incapable of knowing what they have done. They would have to be so susceptible to manipulation that they would accept any statement as true.

I can link conspiracist websites too. The fact that someone can buy a domain does not automatically confer credibility. I own a domain, does that mean that anything I post to it is automatically credible. If so then why wouldn't anything I post to Lemmy sites be credible? Including this very own comment.

The outliers don't make the rule.

On the subject of outliers, are we supposed to assume that a user named MycoBro (a user who references smoking marijuana and having a particular interest in identifying Psilocybin cubensis) is actually academically interested in fungi, and not one of the vastly more common abusers of poisonous mushrooms?

80 percent of voters haven't read political theory.

Religious delusion and ignorance isn't really unique. Nobody actually meets rigorous standards of knowledge for anything they ascribe to.

It depends on the location. Ohio isn't really that conservative, it's mostly lolbertarian meth towns.

The amount of people that move simply for abortion laws is miniscule. It's such a small part of the lives of even the people that opt for abortions, that it is of little consideration.

Marijuana on the other hand, might actually have an effect on the population because drugs are a major part of a lot of peoples lives.

This requires many assumptions that you or any computational system have no formal reason to make. Having an interpreter that just guesstimates exactly how you want the program structured, is going to run into problems when you, say want to extend the program.

"is utterly insane" Asserting an opinion as objective fact. You have completely failed to argue that this is true. Also not only does an employer terminating coverage violate COBRA, in many cases it is also a violation of your employment contract.

"The reason I didn't enunerate every option" You were never asked to enumerate every option, you were asked to not lie about how people don't know what copays and deductibles are. That was the lie you made.

"The rich pay higher taxes... it's immediately recovered".

No it's not. Unless you literally tax 100 percent of all money above a certain limit, the government will not get it back, only maybe 40 percent. You just threw away 60 percent of the funds.

"And making the rich use the same systems"

So what do rich people in countries with universal healthcare do? They use privatised services, just like in the US. So what incentive do these all powerful rich people have to improve the universal healthcare system that they don't even use?

It's unfortunate that you are selectively gullible to believe all the propaganda that brain-dead losers like Andrew Yang generate, but not actual factually-based critique.

"It's literally an empirical fact" And an insufficient one. The fact that the US system is inefficient, does not mean that the end user pays more than they would in taxation. Private insurance is cheaper than Medicare for many people. I personally know dozens of low-income people who opt for private insurance.

"Facts don't care about your feelings"

I hate Ben Shapiro, I think he has vacuous worthless opinions, the difference is that Ben Shapiro isn't the one lying to people on this post right now.

This is actually something that people are intended to understand by design.

You're either an exceptionally well-read moron or a great satirist.

"Cultural love of rights and freedoms"

Which includes being mentally ill in the streets. Despite what you are saying, it's not because of a for-profit system, it's because SCOTUS has literally ruled it to be illegal to involuntarily commit people who are not an imminent danger to themselves or others (a for-profit system actually benefits from involuntary commitment). This means that any mentally ill people can simply refuse treatment and roam the streets and that's exactly what they do.

In order to judge the effectiveness of the assault weapons ban, we need to look at if the usage of the banned weapons themselves decreased in mass shootings. If mass shootings dropped by half, but the banned weapons only compromised a third of the shootings prior to the ban, then clearly there is much more at play.

As is most mass shootings are committed using handguns, not rifles. Even on the higher-end of causalities, handguns comprise about 50 percent of the biggest mass shootings. (Incidents like Orlando and Virginia Tech were committed entirely with handguns, Ar-15s aren't actually advantageous in most shooting incidents, it's purely aesthetic).

This is exactly what leftists want (and right-wingers, but this is Lemmy).