Re: Twelve Statements - Agree or Disagree?
1. 'There are some groups in society that are inherently more privileged than others, and policies such as Affirmative Action are needed to bridge the gaps.'
Yes, but no.
2. 'Western countries have a duty to repay disadvantaged peoples for the crimes of colonialism and slavery.'
No.
3. 'There very well could be other reasons for poverty and homelessness, but chief among the reasons must be laziness.'
No.
4. 'Meat-eating is wrong, and an anachronistic practice that should be challenged'
No, but yes.
5. 'It's all well and good for countries to be independent, but there are some that would benefit from vassalization.'
Theoretically speaking, sure. Things like that seldom work out so seamlessly, though.
6. 'Climate change driven by human action is happening, and requires government intervention in the form of regulation and taxes to remedy.'
Yes, although I think we could do well to be a little more creative than just taxes and regulations.
7. 'It is appropriate to criminalise the presence of a wage gap between men and women in companies.'
If a gap exists between people with the same occupation, qualifications, performance, and investment, then I'd say that's criminal, yeah. I don't suspect that's common, though, and I don't think legislation to address it with sweeping strokes would be beneficial.
8. 'There are only two genders.'
Frankly, as far as I'm concerned the word "gender" doesn't really mean anything all that important, so I really couldn't care less if people want to have two or two million.
9. 'Those who are unemployed for prolonged periods should be conscripted into community service.'
No.
10. 'The media and academic elite are virulently hostile to white people.'
"The media and academic elite," aren't unanimously anything, but sure, that hostility is definitely out there.
11. 'Black Americans were better off during Jim Crow than they are now, all things considered'
I don't see how.
12. 'Healthcare should be government subsidised, so that all can afford it.'
Depends.
Re: Twelve Statements - Agree or Disagree?
Originally posted by lazybonesYes to the first part, no to the second part.
1. 'There are some groups in society that are inherently more privileged than others, and policies such as Affirmative Action are needed to bridge the gaps.'
2. 'Western countries have a duty to aid disadvantaged peoplesFixed.
3. 'There very well could be other reasons for poverty and homelessness, but chief among the reasons must be laziness.'In the UK 60% of people below the poverty line are from working families, and 41% of homeless people are employed. In the U.S the statistics are similar. So the answer is no, definitely no.
4. 'Meat-eating is wrong, and an anachronistic practice that should be challenged'It's not particularly ethical, justifiable, or necessary in this day and age. But I still eat meat myself so... 😮
5. 'It's all well and good for countries to be independent, but there are some that would benefit from vassalization.'Not in anyway that couldn't be achieved without taking away their liberty.
6. 'Climate change driven by human action is happening, and requires government intervention in the form of regulation and taxes to remedy.'Yes, though I would also add education to that list, as some people get very confused by this, and need help understanding.
7. 'It is appropriate to criminalise the presence of a wage gap between men and women in companies.'Only if its a a result of clear gender discrimination, which we have laws for. Ideally the problem of the gender pay gap should be dealt with internally by raising awareness and without legislative intervention.
8. 'There are only two genders.'Only if you conflate sex with gender (though even then, not really), if you don't, as they are not the same, then no, the science does not support it and facts don't care about your fee fees. 🙁
9. 'Those who are unemployed for prolonged periods should be conscripted into community service.'No. Only if by choice and if its of some benefit to them skill wise or something.
10. 'The media and academic elite are virulently hostile to white people.'Lol, I'm sure some of them are but to say yes unanimously would only confirm a bias.
11. 'Black Americans were better off during Jim Crow than they are now, all things considered'Lol, no.
12. 'Healthcare should be government subsidised, so that all can afford it.'Yes, and so life expectancy can be improved and rampant overspending done away with, as most countries have already worked out. 🙁
Yes, and so life expectancy can be improved and rampant overspending done away with, as most countries have already worked out. sad
Wait, that can't be right. If you adjust for fatal injury the United States has the highest life expectancy in the world. So, certainly, our healthcare system cannot be at fault.
That says 1980-1999. According to this article, the United States is 53rd in life expectancy.
Originally posted by MythLord
That says 1980-1999. According to this article, the United States is 53rd in life expectancy.
You have to show metrics which account for fatal injury. Violence rates have no correlation to the strength of a healthcare system. And there are numerous studies which have concluded that our healthcare system is not responsible for our life expectancy.
1)Disagree, affirmative action is simply reverse discrimination
2)Absolutely Not! Where does it start and where does it end
3)Disagree. The system is definitly rigged in favor of the super rich, and it's only getting worse.
4)Agree. Eating meat is cruel and unnecessary. The human body did not evolve to eat meat.
5)Disagree
6)Agree 100%
7)Agree
8)Im assuming this refers to humans, then yes, only two
9)Disagree, but those who refuse to work AND ARE ABLE TO should not recieve any public assistance
10)Disagree, the media and elite are against the poor and glorify the rich and fameous
11)Is this question a joke?
12)Yes, healthcare should be a basic human right
Harry is right, we have to account for the fact that Americans like killing each other and are bad drivers. However according to the most recent data seemingly available:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2488300?resultClick=3
Using data from the US National Vital Statistics System and the World Health Organization Mortality Database, we calculated death rates by age, sex, and cause for the United States and 12 high-income countries that had similar levels of development and quality of vital registration: Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
In 2012, the all-cause, age-adjusted death rate per 100 000 population was 865.1 among US men vs 772.0 among men in the comparison countries (Table 1), and 624.7 among US women and 494.3 among women in the comparison countries. Men in the comparison countries had a life expectancy advantage of 2.2 years over US men (78.6 years vs 76.4 years), as did women (83.4 years vs 81.2 years). The injury causes of death accounted for 48% (1.02 years) of the life expectancy gap among men. Firearm-related injuries accounted for 21% of the gap, drug poisonings 14%, and MVT crashes 13%. Among women, these causes accounted for 19% (0.42 years) of the gap, with 4% from firearm-related injuries, 9% from drug poisonings, and 6% from MVT crashes. The 3 injury causes accounted for 6% of deaths among US men and 3% among US women.They are still losers. 🙁
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Harry is right, we have to account for the fact that Americans like killing each other and are bad drivers. However according to the most recent data seemingly available:https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2488300?resultClick=3They are still losers. 🙁
Well, before I dive deep into the data, I think it is worth noting the second half of the statement you quoted.
The US death rates from injuries exceeded those in each comparison country (Table 2). Among men, these injuries accounted for more than 50% of the life expectancy gap with Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, and Portugal. Among women, they accounted for more than 30% of the gap with Denmark, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. The country-specific comparisons depend partly on the actual size of the gap in life expectancy between the United States and each country. For example, men in Portugal have lower injury mortality than US men, but a small life expectancy advantage, which results in the 3 injury causes accounting for more than 100% of the gap.
So, accounting for fatal injury certainly had a marked effect on the outcome. But, I think you are seriously misrepresenting the study. The study finding that,
Although the reasons for the gap in life expectancy at birth between the United States and comparable countries are complex, a substantial portion of this gap reflects just 3 causes of injury.
So, just accounting for three causes of injury has a significant effect on the result. But, injury is not the only effecter of life expectancy. Jessica Ho and Samuel Preston have a massive study where they look at all of the predictors of life expectancy. There are two other factors which they note of import. The first variable is other causes things like smoking and diet which cannot be attributed to our healthcare system. (Preston, Glei, and Wilmoth 2009) finding that,
if deaths attributable to smoking were eliminated, the ranking of US men in life expectancy at age 50 among 20 OECD countries would improve from 14th to 9th, while US women would move from 18th to 7th
And this is of course because the US has the highest rate of smoking over a 50-year period ending in the mid-80’s. And of course, the U.S. has extraordinarily high rates of obesity (OECD 2008; Cutler, Glaeser, and Shapiro 2003). There is also the issue diet which plays a crucial role in our life expectancy. Meat consumption is inherently linked with life expectancy, and the US has a tremendous amount of consumption.
And of course, there is a marked difference in time horizons in the studies cited. Your study focuses on just one year where my study looks at a 19-year time horizon. And when Ho and Preston looked at this exact question they found:
We conclude that the low longevity ranking of the United States is not likely to be a result of a poorly functioning health care system.
I could regurgitate "Sapiens" by Yuval Noah Harari and try and pass it off as my own opinions (I would fit right in here) and appear like a college-bound pseudo-intellectual as all these 12 issues are covered in it better than the answers here. Or I could just snigger at the lack of education that abounds. I think I'll snigger.
Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
I could regurgitate "Sapiens" by Yuval Noah Harari and try and pass it off as my own opinions (I would fit right in here) and appear like a college-bound pseudo-intellectual as all these 12 issues are covered in it better than the answers here. Or I could just snigger at the lack of education that abounds. I think I'll snigger.
I know that book quite well, I actually went to a lecture by Harari.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0He is a good writer and an interesting mind. I once went to a lecture from Dawkins many moons ago when I was at a College of the University of London, I found it less interesting, freethinking and informative than one by Alan Moore. Hey ho.
I know that book quite well, I actually went to a lecture by Harari.
So you remember the sections where Harari covered these 12 points then. Of course, you do...
Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
He is a good writer and an interesting mind. I once went to a lecture from Dawkins many moons ago when I was at a College of the University of London, I found it less interesting, freethinking and informative than one by Alan Moore. Hey ho.So you remember the sections where Harari covered these 12 points then. Of course, you do...
Yea, its a fantastic book from a really sharp guy. He has a new book called Homo Deus which is not as good, but it is still super high quality.