This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Is the US government intentionally misleading Americans?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Adamsm
But what is true is that abortion clinics are some of the least regulated clinics in the US, giving more room for abuse than other situations.You mean the fake ones? Where they keep putting off the appointment till it's after the 32 week mark?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
But what is true is that abortion clinics are some of the least regulated clinics in the US, giving more room for abuse than other situations.You mean the fake ones? Where they keep putting off the appointment till it's after the 32 week mark?
Fake ones? I'm talking about licensed doctors and practices.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Definitive proof you can't trust the system
Post by
MyTie
But what is true is that abortion clinics are some of the least regulated clinics in the US, giving more room for abuse than other situations.You mean the fake ones? Where they keep putting off the appointment till it's after the 32 week mark?
Yes, because it is wrong at 32 weeks. 31 weeks though, that's perfectly fine...
Post by
Skyfire
But what is true is that abortion clinics are some of the least regulated clinics in the US, giving more room for abuse than other situations.You mean the fake ones? Where they keep putting off the appointment till it's after the 32 week mark?
Yes, because it is wrong at 32 weeks. 31 weeks though, that's perfectly fine...
Sigh.
You, go somewhere else.
Post by
MyTie
Why is the discussion acceptible, but unacceptible for me to be in it?
Post by
Skyfire
Why is the discussion acceptible, but unacceptible for me to be in it?
Touche, and I realized this after.
Move away from abortion plx. There are other statistics to speak on which are no (or are, depending on viewpoint) less dangerous to human life.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Move away from abortion plx. There are other statistics to speak on which are no (or are, depending on viewpoint) less dangerous to human life.
Why?
Just because you say so?
Post by
Skyfire
Move away from abortion plx. There are other statistics to speak on which are no (or are, depending on viewpoint) less dangerous to human life.
Why?
Just because you say so?
Yes. I'm tired of having to deal with it, I get crap from the higher ups when I do, and all-in-all, there are other things you can talk about which are also on-topic.
Find something else, please.
Post by
TheMediator
Why is the discussion acceptible, but unacceptible for me to be in it?
Poor MyTie : /
One area I was also interested in was the unemployment rate. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (an American governmental organization) defines unemployment so strangely and how people are categorized into the labor force or not is so nonsensical that it really has nothing to do with what one means when they say unemployment, and looking at the overall trends, unemployment really doesn't seem to correlate with any of the other economic factors unless there's really a traumatic shock to the economy. In such a scenario, other economic factors already throw the red flag up much earlier, so overall it doesn't serve much use, even if it is highly publicized.
Sigh. While there are some better indicators that can be used in place of the unemployment rate to actually help guess at the true unemployment rate like capacity utilization rate, it seems beside the point - statistics SHOULD be there to give us information, not merely to sway voters. I can only hope one day, perhaps we can get some independence for statistics producing organizations, so government can't pressure them to conform their information to what they want it to say. Some amount of funding that scales with inflation (which would be determined by some other organization), they appoint their own members, and they put out the information at set periods of time, so that there's no meddling with what's going on. That's not too much to ask IMO, plenty of resources are blown on things that entirely useless, but I wouldn't mind seeing some money going to those who'd actually help us make informed decisions.
Post by
Squishalot
In defence of the statistics collection organisations, they're under pressure to collect statistics that can be meaningfully compared back across time. So changing the definition of unemployment is actually a fairly serious issue, since it renders all your past data useless or uncomparable.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics is pretty much what you've described, with some independence and a set reporting schedule. But at the same time, it's their responsibility to report the pure data, with as minimal tampering as possible. So, for example, all they can do is report "# of crimes in 2008", for example, they won't report "% increase in crimes in 2008", unless it's right next to it. It's up to the user to correlate that back to the "% increase in population in 2008" to come up with a useful and meaningful statistic.
I don't think it's the fault of the collection bureaus. It's all the fault of the users of the information.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.