Right-wing governments increase the suicide rate. - legit, u

[ArgueEverything]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2263690.stm

"The suicide rate increases under Conservative governments, research suggests.
Australian scientists found the suicide rate in the country increased significantly when a Conservative government was in power.

And an analysis of figures in the UK seems to suggest a similar trend. "

"The researchers took into account periods of drought and World War II, because of their economic and psychological impact.

Suicide rates were higher during periods of drought and lower during WWII.

But after adjusting for these factors, the figures clearly showed the highest rates of suicide occurred when both Conservative state and federal governments were in power."

"When the Conservatives ruled both state and federal governments, men were 17% more likely to commit suicide than when Labour was in power. Women were 40% more likely to kill themselves. "

So now we know. Capitalism isn't just bad, it's downright evil.

I found these two other links, if you're interested in reading more about it:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservativ...,794594,00.html (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,9061,794594,00.html)
http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s680129.htm

[Pinko]

I saw an atricle on that in a news paper. I was going to hunt down a copy of it, but I see you beat me to it.

[antieverything]

Nothing new or groundbreaking here. Researchers have known for years that income inequality (and not just poverty) has terrible effects on a society...Higher mortality rates at every level, higher crime, more medical problems, more personal problems...

[ArgueEverything]

I'm not surprised the cappies here have nothing to say. After all, its just the "weak" killing themselves, as SN has said.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Darwinism at work, folks.

Bettering the gene pool for all.

Besides, this study proves nothing. There could easily be false correlations here.

It is funny how commies will cite 1 study, and then somehow claim that this is the be-all, end-all, undisputed unequvocal proof that "capitalism is pure evil".

How simplistic.

The overall mortality rate under communist regimes has traditionally been much higher than in capitalist governments, so I guess that is undisputed proof that communism is pure evil.

[antieverything]

You forget that the mortality rates in communist countries were higher before communism...notice that Cuba has better health statistics than the US in several categories...while we have the most advanced care and facilities, only a few can actually afford them.

[ArgueEverything]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 2:16 am on Sep. 22, 2002
Darwinism at work, folks.

Bettering the gene pool for all.


You may just have written my new sig.

[PunkRawker677]

More kids between the ages of 13-18 kill themself in the United States then anywhere in the world.

[Capitalist Imperial]

But, Hold on...

http://www5.who.int/mental_health/main.cfm...fm?p=0000000021 (http://www5.who.int/mental_health/main.cfm?p=0000000021)

Apparently, Asia and most of Europe, traditionaly more liberal/leftist, both have higher overall suicide rates than the more conservative US and Canada.

Get your facts straight, pukes.

[Stormin Norman]

I agree, CI. The people who generally conduct such studies on behavior have no clue as to what the scientific method entails. Most of these so-called 'studies' are put out there by social 'scientists' that have no clue how to conduct research. Recently I saw a study about the number of years it takes for a person to graduate college. The statistics that the published were something like 25% in 4 years, 30% in 5 years, and 60% in 6 years. Do any of you see anything wrong with these numbers?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Exactly, SN, and as an actual scientist you have a much deeper understanding of this phenomenon than me anyway.

It is like the old allegory I learned in college:

"A study was released today in California showing that increased ice cream sales increases the risk of drowning."

How does increased ice cream sales make swimming more risky?

It doesn't.

It just so happens that when it gets hotter, more Ice cream is sold, AND more people go to the water to cool off, simply increasing the number of people in the water therefore the chances of drowning.

This is a vey simple example, but it illustrates my point. I am confident that these social scientists did not bother to determine a coefficient of correlation in their regression analysis, that is, if they really even did a regression analysis.

[PunkRawker677]

Seems your right, CI. The map you showed definitly proves me wrong, good job. My figures must be outdates or my book must be complete bullshit, i'll do more research.

"pukes."

wtf?

[Stormin Norman]

I do believe that is one of the first things that they teach you in business school. Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. That mathematics and logical thinking are taught in economics classes these days is one of the reasons I truly respect economics as a field. At least there is some rhyme and reason behind their theories. Although they do not always hold up, they are based on common sense ideas. The reason these theories do not always hold true is due, in large part, to the fact that people do not always behave within the limits of common sense. As social science goes, economics does a better job of predicting outcomes than many of its counterparts.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from PunkRawker677 on 6:04 pm on Sep. 22, 2002
Seems your right, CI. The map you showed definitly proves me wrong, good job. My figures must be outdates or my book must be complete bullshit, i'll do more research.

"pukes."

wtf?


LOL, the "pukes" thing is just a joke, its funny, right?

[KickMcCann]

I couldn't agree with the study more. In the US, and especially in the hyper-capitalist urban areas of Japan, the death rate due to stress or poor diet is outrageous. Since all those buisness people are in such a rush to do buisness, they end up eating unhealthy fast-food, and lack good exercise. So if all the stress and pressure of working with large amounts of money and "important" buisness deals doesn't break them down to suicide, the stress and bad food will do them in by the time they're 50.
In other societies, there is a much more relaxed and steady working atmosphere. For instance, in China and Mexico, the government encourages it citizens to take a 1 hour nap everyday. In traditional Europe there's tea time or lunch break, where pretty much everything stops and shuts down for an hour, giving everyone a much-needed break. Plus the food is usually much better and healthier; but if the Imperialist McDonalds has its way, everyone in the world will suffer the same stress and malnurishment that busy Americans do.
You have to wonder which society will last longer, the one that encourages the people to take their time and relax, or the one that sends its people to an early grave.

(Edited by KickMcCann at 5:49 am on Sep. 23, 2002)

[ArgueEverything]

My, my, the right-wingers have really got their knickers in a knot over this one, haven't they. I bet it really hurts to see the BBC, a capitalist news source, publish an article linking high suicide rates with laissez faire governmental policies. The facts do hurt, don't they?

First, I'll address the accusation of bias. The study was "published in the Journal of Epidemiolgy and Community Health (JECH) -- a politically neutral research organ that is part of the British Medical Association (BMA) publishing stable." (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/Health/story_39382.asp). Got that? POLITICALLY NEUTRAL. I'm sorry, you can't accuse the British Medical Association of being commies. It doesn't work.



"Apparently, Asia and most of Europe, traditionaly more liberal/leftist, both have higher overall suicide rates than the more conservative US and Canada.

Get your facts straight, pukes. "

Do you have any idea what you are talking about, or what the study i cited was aiming to show?

It showed that within the UK and Australia, suicide rates were significantly higher under conservative governments than Labor governments. Then you, like the troll that you are, make the utterly foolish, completely unscientific statement that Asia and Europe "traditionally" have leftist governments. Don't you realise that the whole point of the research was to clearly distinguish between leftwing and rightwing governments in these countries?

Besides, I challenge your assertion that Europe and Asia has traditionally been leftist. Most European countries swing regularly between left and right, and Asia isn't leftwing in the sense that the study was looking at. The study was looking at social-democrat type Left, not Maoist/Stalinist-type Left (there's a big difference, you know.)

"I agree, CI. The people who generally conduct such studies on behavior have no clue as to what the scientific method entails. Most of these so-called 'studies' are put out there by social 'scientists' that have no clue how to conduct research. Recently I saw a study about the number of years it takes for a person to graduate college. The statistics that the published were something like 25% in 4 years, 30% in 5 years, and 60% in 6 years. Do any of you see anything wrong with these numbers? "

Great non-response. You remind me of that nitwit functionalist sociologist Parsons, who wrote pages and pages of bullshit. Since he shoved in tonnes of statistics, and sounded good, people thought he was saying something special, but it turned out he was just a professional bullshit artist, like yourself.

I wonder, was your anecdotal study on the years it takes to graduate published in the BBC?

I didn't think so.

"This is a vey simple example, but it illustrates my point. I am confident that these social scientists did not bother to determine a coefficient of correlation in their regression analysis, that is, if they really even did a regression analysis. "

And what makes you so confident? The fact that you don't like the results? Fact is, there were TWO studies done, in TWO different countries, which gave the SAME results. Both studies were done by competent authorities who know more than both you, Storman Norman or I do.

"I do believe that is one of the first things that they teach you in business school. Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation."

As the article says, "The researchers took into account periods of drought and World War II, because of their economic and psychological impact". You don't seem to understand that this study was done over a hundred-year period in two different countries, by fully competent scientists. They fully understand that "correlation doesn't necessary mean causation" and account for that. These people are experts.

[Stormin Norman]

To tell you the truth, I don't care one way or the other about your study. Is your study a huge revelation in the field of science? No, it is not. Does your study affect me as an individual? No it does not. Is this an important study that suggests something new and profound? No it does not. Read my signiture, if you want to know how I feel about these types of studies. They are using people's ignorance as a way of influencing opinion. Does your study have an agenda attached? I think it does. Is the BBC a conservative media outlet, like you suggest? I think not. Now, will I read the next bullshit study they come out with tomorrow? No, I will choose to read a study that a consequences in the real world, something that may have applications in the fields of science and industry. I choose to concentrate my time on things of value, something your study lacks. It is funny how you accuse me of being the type of manipulation of data and information that your beloved BBC seems to be guilty of doing. Tell me, who is the bullshit artist?

[ArgueEverything]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 11:15 am on Sep. 23, 2002
To tell you the truth, I don't care one way or the other about your study. Is your study a huge revelation in the field of science? No, it is not. Does your study affect me as an individual? No it does not. Is this an important study that suggests something new and profound? No it does not. Read my signiture, if you want to know how I feel about these types of studies. They are using people's ignorance as a way of influencing opinion. Does your study have an agenda attached? I think it does. Is the BBC a conservative media outlet, like you suggest? I think not. Now, will I read the next bullshit study they come out with tomorrow? No, I will choose to read a study that a consequences in the real world, something that may have applications in the fields of science and industry. I choose to concentrate my time on things of value, something your study lacks. It is funny how you accuse me of being the type of manipulation of data and information that your beloved BBC seems to be guilty of doing. Tell me, who is the bullshit artist?

Ah, the rant of the loser. How beautiful.

You seem to fail to understand that this is not "my" study, nor is it the the BBC's study. As i have already said, the study was "published in the Journal of Epidemiolgy and Community Health (JECH) -- a politically neutral research organ that is part of the British Medical Association (BMA) publishing stable." (source: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/Health/story_39382.asp). That source, btw, is another capitalist news outlet. In addition to these two news outlets, i posted another two in my opening post on this thread. Yet for some reason your whole (non-)response seems to focus on the BBC, and your perception that it is biased.

You didn't need to tell us that you don't care about this study. We already know you think "suicide is for the weak". Capitalist Imperial, in this thread, wrote that suicide is simply "Darwinism at work".

In other words, your both finished on this board. You are completely discredited. We now all know that you both are, as vox has been saying all along, inhuman filth.

Now kindly fuck off.


(Edited by ArgueEverything at 12:18 pm on Sep. 23, 2002)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from ArgueEverything on 12:16 pm on Sep. 23, 2002
Ah, the rant of the loser. How beautiful.


(Edited by ArgueEverything at 12:18 pm on Sep. 23, 2002)


Yes, argueeverything, I agree. Your rant is beautifully idiotic.

Take your biased studies supporting an obvious agenda elsewhere. The few intelligent people on this board are not buying.

[ArgueEverything]

"Take your biased studies supporting an obvious agenda elsewhere. The few intelligent people on this board are not buying"

I'll simply repeat what i said in my last post: You seem to fail to understand that this is not "my" study, nor is it the the BBC's study. As i have already said, the study was "published in the Journal of Epidemiolgy and Community Health (JECH) -- a politically neutral research organ that is part of the British Medical Association (BMA) publishing stable." (source: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/Health/story_39382.asp).