[RD] Abortion, once again

[Senethro]

in order to claim barriers, you must demonstrate barriers in that particular case.

Ok, I get it, I have to demonstrate barriers but you don't have to demonstrate population differences. You're allowed to just assume specific ones that are useful to you exist in particular circumstances, due to their general existence being so obvious. Very dishonest framing.

in order to claim racism, you must demonstrate discrimination of the policy itself on basis of race. that is not possible by looking at statistical disparity alone, for reasons we've already covered (aka doing that takes us back to the moon).

No, you don't. You can have racist policy without a word of race in the text of the law. Just like how if the law omits mention of stairs, that doesn't prevent stairs from existing previously, occupying a position of false neutrality/naturalness, and existing as a barrier.

report from their department of health:

https://www.partnersforfamilyhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2018_PAMR_Report_FINAL_MF.pdf

unsurprisingly, while their overall maternal death rate is higher, the trends otherwise follow the national average. as in, it is still objectively false to claim that it's "people of color" who have a higher maternal death rate. only black americans suffer the increased mortality rate.

looking at a breakdown of what counts towards the statistic, it's easier to see why that is.

• a surprising % of people identified as pregnant/toward maternal mortality weren't, and that was only somewhat up from the previous year. this is a common mistake, apparently?
  
• #1 cause of maternal death was accidental overdose, followed by vehicle crashes and homicides.
• actual pregnancy-related death proportions align more closely to us national average (3.2x)
  • it seems even the government reports fall into the same pattern of mentioning observed disparity, and generalizing outcomes for black americans to "people of color" or "non-white" generally, which is false. They go so far as to claim "implicit bias/racism" as a result, despite that such "logic" implies louisiana is biased in favor of hispanic mothers (do we actually believe louisiana of all states would explicitly favor hispanic americans over both white and black americans?)

ignoring "maternal deaths to weapons or physical trauma" for now, if you are not prepared to conclude that there is systemic bias in favor of hispanic mothers wrt maternal mortality, then you must specifically claim that black americans in particular either have worse health baselines or receive worse care (or some combination). *why* does that happen? have to keep going back along a causal chain until you get there, and will probably encounter dozens of factors making it hard to pin any one factor down.

to claim that it's "systemic based on isolated observed outcomes alone" is to skip doing that work and attribute equal basis to the moon's tidal forces. aka, nonsense. we don't consider that sound reasoning in other disciplines and it doesn't suddenly become sound reasoning for abortion policy either.

You did get that I was quoting the original text in mockery, right? Not sincerely?

Because he was doing what you were doing? And are still doing.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Ok, I get it, I have to demonstrate barriers but you don't have to demonstrate population differences.

??? that there are "population differences" is something you assert...central to your claim in fact. the thing you're asserting that's special is that it's magically worth attention when you see differences among races rather than other categories.

i think you mean to claim that differences do not exist generally? making that claim more or less requires you to deny the existence of different cultures and/or different outcomes based on those differences. are you denying that?

let's compare two groups: video game players and golfers. the government reduces/increases (doesn't matter which) income tax by 5%. do you anticipate literally identical impact between these two groups? or maybe because they imply different things about their demographics, that there would be some difference? which answer do you expect to be correct?

if we observe a difference, do we then conclude that income tax changes are necessarily biased against either gamers or golfers, *innately*? do we claim that these activities are *themselves* innately racist? the rationale presented in this thread for abortions must make such claims, to be self-consistent.

i guess you could also claim that literally everything is innately racist, and thus so is abortion policy. i don't think that's useful to work with, and suspect it also does not consistently track to reality.

No, you don't. You can have racist policy without a word of race in the text of the law.

what you wrote here does not make sense in the context of what you quoted.

Just like how if the law omits mention of stairs, that doesn't prevent stairs from existing previously, occupying a position of false neutrality/naturalness, and existing as a barrier.

it also does not demonstrate that the stairs or their construction were in any way biased. nor that they "created a barrier". before those stairs existed, folks in wheelchairs still couldn't get to the second story of this hypothetical building because there was no building.

you cannot accommodate everyone all the time. in many cases, a ramp or other accommodations for those with disability makes sense. it does not always make sense, for the same reason you don't see people in wheelchairs playing professional sports at a comparable level to those with full use of their legs.

You did get that I was quoting the original text in mockery, right? Not sincerely?

it's not politically sound to point out that most of the excess mortality above us baseline is from people knifing/shooting each other or doing domestic violence, lol. "we have more violent crime than us average" is probably not a good way to get voters to favor you. since this is the probable reason for louisiana's maternal mortality rate being elevated, i can see why it was danced around.

you might notice i made other points in what you've quoted. i certainly noticed that you chose not to address them, including that bit about "people of color" generally being false. and including this repeated tendency to ignore statistical disparities whenever they don't align with the narrative.

unless you really are willing to argue that louisiana implements policies that specifically favor its hispanic population? are you willing to make that claim, knowing what we know about that state? if you're not willing to make that claim, however, then you have yet to explain how a lower maternal death rate for hispanic mothers there is conceptually different from a higher rate for black mothers. you have given equal basis (observed disparity) for both conclusions. yet you ignore one, and insist on the other...

 

[Valka D'Ur]

you cannot accommodate everyone all the time. in many cases, a ramp or other accommodations for those with disability makes sense. it does not always make sense, for the same reason you don't see people in wheelchairs playing professional sports at a comparable level to those with full use of their legs.

A ramp or other accommodations for those with disabilities makes sense in ALL cases.

ALL.


As for your sports example... I think the Paralympians would disagree with you. Ever hear of the Invictus Games?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

As for your sports example... I think the Paralympians would disagree with you. Ever hear of the Invictus Games?

sorry, but nobody in a wheelchair is going to block or get past a lineman in the NFL, or cover/run routes. they're not going to beat pro basketball players at basketball, etc. that sort of thing is fantasy.

A ramp or other accommodations for those with disabilities makes sense in ALL cases.

when you use language like "all" you deny the possibility for edge cases/exceptions entirely. even a single counter-example ruins the statement. you seem way too confident no such example exists. but no, sometimes the expense of elevator or having a ramp really doesn't make sense. not just in pro athletics, but also in areas where having someone in a wheelchair would be unusually dangerous to that person.

 

[Gorbles]

when you use language like "all" you deny the possibility for edge cases/exceptions entirely. even a single counter-example ruins the statement. you seem way too confident no such example exists. but no, sometimes the expense of elevator or having a ramp really doesn't make sense. not just in pro athletics, but also in areas where having someone in a wheelchair would be unusually dangerous to that person.

You have a habit of alluding to vague generalisations when discussion would be better-aided by concrete examples. When shouldn't a ramp be put in, and why in that scenario would a wheelchair be "unusually dangerous"?

The problem with such vagueness is it presents the concern as reasonable, instead of something that's rather contrived. But it's impossible to prove without giving concrete examples. It's just "something that you think".

 

[Angst]

if the argument is that a wheelchair ramp shouldn't lead headfirst into the grand canyon, i mean sure, noone thinks that's a good idea. but that's not at all what proponents of wheelchair accessibility argue for. i also need something concrete

stringently holding valka's actual point up like this for scrutiny is why it's counterproductive. it's hyperliteral, as it's very clear what valka meant. and it's why logical constructions aren't always useful. it seems like a very poor attempt at a gotcha.

again, concrete?

 

[Lexicus]

if the argument is that a wheelchair ramp shouldn't lead headfirst into the grand canyon, i mean sure, noone thinks that's a good idea. but that's not at all what proponents of wheelchair accessibility argue for. i also need something concrete

What's really important, though, isn't that the wheelchair user can't enter the building, it's that you can't mathematically prove that the person who designed the stairway had a specifically malicious intent, and so you cannot describe the situation where the wheelchair user can't enter the building as "ableist". Top Logic

 

[Angst]

What's really important, though, isn't that the wheelchair user can't enter the building, it's that you can't mathematically prove that the person who designed the stairway had a specifically malicious intent, and so you cannot describe the situation where the wheelchair user can't enter the building as "ableist". Top Logic

so the argument is still using moon logic then? is that what it's about?

(i know moon logic is an idiom in english, and that's unfortunate, but it's literally what tmit did)

the silly thing is that actual philosophical logicians don't treat logic the way the moon construction did

 

[Lexicus]

so the argument is still using moon logic then? is that what it's about?

It's about more than just that. There is no interpretation, and nothing has any qualities. There are only statistics, and logic, and errors using those two things. There is no such thing as history and events in the past do not affect the present.

We will continue our journey into TMIT's mind palace on the next exciting installment of Lexicus' CFC posts

 

[Valka D'Ur]

sorry, but nobody in a wheelchair is going to block or get past a lineman in the NFL, or cover/run routes. they're not going to beat pro basketball players at basketball, etc. that sort of thing is fantasy.

Where did I get into either of these scenarios?

when you use language like "all" you deny the possibility for edge cases/exceptions entirely. even a single counter-example ruins the statement. you seem way too confident no such example exists. but no, sometimes the expense of elevator or having a ramp really doesn't make sense. not just in pro athletics, but also in areas where having someone in a wheelchair would be unusually dangerous to that person.

You seem to have omitted specific examples.

You said:

for the same reason you don't see people in wheelchairs playing professional sports at a comparable level to those with full use of their legs.

I guess you've never seen wheelchair basketball or hockey played with the players strapped to sledges. No, they're not going to compete with full-bodied humans, but then they aren't intending to. They are competing with each other, and your "anti-ramp" notions are that they shouldn't be allowed to.

Thanks for the bigoted attitude, from someone who had to push the management in the building I live in to restore wheelchair/walker access to the front of the building here so people like me and my mobility-disabled neighbors could get in and out of the building to access the parking lot. Without that, we were trapped and at risk of serious injury when trying to get over the curb that was left.

Now there's no curb. The front parking lot is accessible. What a shame the ramp in back is too steep to be safe, and in any case the door is impossible for someone to open if in a wheelchair.

 

[MaryKB]

We will continue our journey into TMIT's mind palace on the next exciting installment of Lexicus' CFC posts

Why on earth would you want to do such a thing?

 

[Angst]

It's about more than just that. There is no interpretation, and nothing has any qualities. There are only statistics, and logic, and errors using those two things. There is no such thing as history and events in the past do not affect the present.

We will continue our journey into TMIT's mind palace on the next exciting installment of Lexicus' CFC posts

another silly thing is that eg critical theory, which tmit hates, was built on the discrepancy between the world according to logic and the world according to statistics. ie the law was worded neutrally and had statistically disparate outcomes. here some people cling to logic that doesn't reflect the world. logicians would rewire the logical constructions and find a solution accordingly, since we have empirical consequences of our designs in the lived world.

 

[Lexicus]

Why on earth would you want to do such a thing?

Building a capital case in my mind palace, obviously

 

[Lexicus]

So, same Supreme Court that's gonna get rid of Roe v Wade just ruled that killing people is important. So important that the need to do so actually outweighs the Constitutional right to due process.

 

[Samson]

So, same Supreme Court that's gonna get rid of Roe v Wade just ruled that killing people is important. So important that the need to do so actually outweighs the Constitutional right to due process.

How can it be states rights for the federal judge not to have access to all the information about the case they are deciding on?

In a 6 to 3 ruling, the newly-dominant rightwing majority of the nation’s highest court barred federal courts from hearing new evidence that was not previously presented in a state court as a result of the defendant’s ineffective legal representation.

In his opinion, Thomas presented the case as one of states’ rights. He said that federal courts should not be allowed to override the states’ “core power to enforce criminal law”.​

 

[Lexicus]

How can it be states rights for the federal judge not to have access to all the information about the case they are deciding on?

In a 6 to 3 ruling, the newly-dominant rightwing majority of the nation’s highest court barred federal courts from hearing new evidence that was not previously presented in a state court as a result of the defendant’s ineffective legal representation.

In his opinion, Thomas presented the case as one of states’ rights. He said that federal courts should not be allowed to override the states’ “core power to enforce criminal law”.​

All their reasoning is just bullfeathers. The issue at bottom is that six Supreme Court justices (and tens of millions of Republican primary voters) get giant boners when the state kills people. Then they claim to be so invested in the sanctity of life that women shouldn't be allowed to get abortions, but that's also just bullfeathers: they also get boners from women dying from pregnancy complications.

Now there's no curb. The front parking lot is accessible. What a shame the ramp in back is too steep to be safe, and in any case the door is impossible for someone to open if in a wheelchair.

[sarcasm] Valka, you just don't get it. Because putting a wheelchair ramp at the 50-yard line in an American NFL game would not make sense, you cannot argue that wheelchair accessibility is a good thing. This is logic.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I guess you've never seen wheelchair basketball or hockey played with the players strapped to sledges. No, they're not going to compete with full-bodied humans

the post you quoted specifically said that's what they can't compete with, though. if you don't disagree with that assessment, why did you quote it like that?

if the argument is that a wheelchair ramp shouldn't lead headfirst into the grand canyon, i mean sure, noone thinks that's a good idea. but that's not at all what proponents of wheelchair accessibility argue for. i also need something concrete

small family owned business with some things for employees on 2nd story but most on first. that kind of setup should have a ramp outside, but not necessarily any accommodations beyond stairs to get to 2nd floor for example.

stringently holding valka's actual point up like this for scrutiny is why it's counterproductive.

typing "all" in caps twice in a row invites hyper-scrutiny in a way where saying that accommodations should be done in most/nearly all cases would not. i don't think it's reasonable to see "all" twice like that in context and assume she meant something else. even more so given her signature. i took the statement at face value.

the silly thing is that actual philosophical logicians don't treat logic the way the moon construction did

the odd thing is that the ones being purely "philosophical" here wrt abortion are those affixing innate racism to things in a manner indistinguishable from moon logic.

once you actually care about demonstrating causal links rather than just theorizing them, you're not in philosophy alone anymore.

Thanks for the bigoted attitude

Never assume you know what I think or feel or believe

another silly thing is that eg critical theory, which tmit hates, was built on the discrepancy between the world according to logic and the world according to statistics. ie the law was worded neutrally and had statistically disparate outcomes. here some people cling to logic that doesn't reflect the world.

i have already gone to some pains to demonstrate that "the statistics" don't mean what people are claiming they mean. a causal link is not a "logic" claim alone, any competent mechanistic explanation makes predictions that we can test, after which we possess empirical evidence.

guessing (with incoherent/self-inconsistent reasoning) about the "causes of statistics" is no closer to empirical reality, and that's assuming it's a good faith attempt and not race grifting, vote farming, or using ad hominem against people who disagree about your abortion policy (aka calling them racist) even though fundamentally the disagreement outright changes against whom the policy is supposedly racist. another important detail that's been skipped over in this discussion multiple times.

since we have empirical consequences of our designs in the lived world.

you have empirical consequences, but that doesn't mean statistics about them imply the causes posters here seem to think they do. what's interesting to me is that even when presented with the same reasoning basis leading to absurd conclusions, posters continue to insist on using that basis...but only selectively.

somehow, tidal forces being innately racist is *obviously* wrong or stupid, but abortion policy being innately racist, with *identical statistical basis*, is nevertheless solid data...

if your goal is to work within empirical reality, that's not it.

How can it be states rights for the federal judge not to have access to all the information about the case they are deciding on?

it isn't. scotus is screwing the country again.

*generally*, it's hard to see how barring relevant evidence, particularly for the defense, can possibly lead to more justice rather than less. if there is a hell, i hope it has a special place for prosecutors who move to ban exculpatory evidence for those who are convicted while innocent.

it's kind of amazing to me that prosecutors who intentionally withhold such evidence or tamper with it don't themselves see serious jail time. if you're going out of your way to maliciously get someone convicted for a crime with a long jail sentence, effectively cratering that person's life despite believing they're innocent...that should not be a light offense. disbarring them isn't enough, their crime is more impactful to live than many who see jail time.

 

[Lexicus]

Never assume you know what I think or feel or believe

We don't need to assume because you tell everyone lol

 

[Angst]

@TheMeInTeam i mean if you think you can talk to the tides that's on you, but as far as i can tell, it's generally why your construction is just kinda bad in people's eyes. most of us don't think we can convince the moon to do stuff, we believe it's a rock

 

[EgonSpengler]

I was just reading a Washington Post article about various racial disparities in the city of Minneapolis. A former Minneapolis Public Schools official is quoted as saying, "We often call [Minnesota] Mississippi with snow." Ouch. Anyway, among other things, the article cited a report by Urban League Twin Cities which said that Black women in Minneapolis-St. Paul are "nearly three times as likely to die during or after* pregnancy than White mothers, 'regardless of education levels and socioeconomic status'." So it would seem to me that anything that further pressures women in Minneapolis to carry a child when they don't want one knowingly puts Black women at a higher risk of death than White women.


* I assume this means 'shortly after pregnancy'? During the recovery? I guess there are some longer-term or chronic health problems that can come from pregnancy. But what do I know? I haven't looked at the report, so I wonder if the paragraph or page from which this sentence was plucked makes it clearer.