Mikie2times

Because 86% of non religious people support abortion. Apparently the other 14% on this forum.

I wonder what % of people are religious that support banning abortions. If it wasn't a religious issue I would expect that to be fairly neutral right?

So the groups that pursued the federal amendment did so for moral reasons and not religious reasons?

So it's not a religious issue?

I mean, I think women should have the right to do what they want with their body? The right to life movement is not on moral grounds, it's on religious grounds. We are supposed to have clear separation of church and state. So now we are seeing rights taken away for religious reasons right?

I don't keep up as much with the trendy "gotcha" stuff. My attention is more on limiting peoples rights for religious purposes.

Most of us just want equality and basic separation of church and state.

So your position is Trump exaggerating less than Joe Biden? Are you F'n serious?

Most "liberals" don't believe in the one issue you want to target. As much as you want that to be the case. Most republicans don't believe in removing access to abortions. Yet here were are withe parties representing things we don't believe in as a nation. The president has been a walking caricature of grandiose statements from day one. It's literally who he is. It doesn't matter what political spectrum you fall in. To hear somebody say "I think the left has a problem with extreme positions" with the sitting president being Donald Trump is utterly hilarious.

You see what you care to see. Idiots everywhere with extreme takes, most of all in the White House.

Dying, I love these

It's a single stat from a single game, but it's really not a bad stat as all encompassing statistics go. I like EPA more personally. Then you have EPA hybrid stats which probably are even better, but I prefer simplicity when getting advanced. In any event, this is QBR from last year. It has Lamar and Josh with an identical rating. So while most people had Lamar with better stats, QBR didn't measure any separation. Unlike QB rating, it includes rushing performance. So I do like that element to it and generally find it to be a solid indicator as sample size grows.

It’s a lot more possible than harsher penalties as was implied by the poster I was responding to. But that’s a much longer conversation at this point.

Are the stats true or not? You are confusing what is statistically relevant with what I condone. You can acknowledge something as relevant and also not condone it. My entire response was to a poster who suggested major metros are more infected with crime because of left leaning policies. No, they're more infected with crime because they have higher %'s of the population represented by indicators of increased crime. I'm glad you made a solid life for yourself, but this huge backlash over just recognizing what is clearly an increased likelihood of a behavior is a bit of needless outrage.

1000% agree. You put peoples names on it, all the BS goes away.

Ultimately people have lessons from parents, siblings, peers, religion. A lot of things. To the extent that most of us have a guy on our shoulder that knows what is right or what isn't right. Most of us don't ever think of hurting people for no reason. Those that do and do so for political reasons aren't representing anybody's political beliefs. No morally decent person condones this stuff. I hate how all this stuff is just political ammunition at this point as it just increases the already big divide, but that's just the nature of internet with no accountability for what is said.

I agree man

Do you feel your own personal experiences are reflective of all people? I'm glad you tuned out ok. That doesn't mean the probability that you did is as high as somebody who had a more conventional upbringing. I can call out things I have done that very few people have. Should I expect they all should be able to do so?

I'm happy you made a good life for yourself. Statistics are pretty conclusive you had a higher likelihood than other people to not turn out ok. Does that mean they shouldn't be held accountable? Not all. Does that mean we should throw away a clear statistical pattern when trying to understand our environment? I hope not.

For petty theft? Sure. Nobody who is about to do 2-3 years in jail is stopping because they might do 4-5. Look further up the line. It's how you're raised, the environment, the education. All of it. More poverty, single parent families, less education in major metros. You aren't fixing violent crime unless you fix the underlying issues (which will never happen).

Are we saying the major metro areas have higher crime rates than rural or suburban areas? What exactly does that tell us again? Violence is an act by individual people who fall on the fringe. It has nothing to do with politics or religion. You would find much stronger correlations with violent crime and socioeconomic status/education as you did with major metros but identified it for the wrong reasons.

He grazed the ball