[*after a slight hesitation at Orfamay Quest's Cephalopodian condition... hugs him too !*]
Hey, Sissyl: I love you too [in a totally platonic way (or would that be a christian way ;-), I should add] !
Hey, Sissyl: I love you too [in a totally platonic way (or would that be a christian way ;-), I should add] !
Does that mean you love BigNorseWolf and Orfamay Quest in a non-platonic way?
[*pauses to think hard, frowning*]
[*a hole suddenly opens in the ground, swallowing Quiche Lisp in an instant, mauve pyjamas and all*]
EEEAAeeeaaa [*falling deep down the well*]
Don't believe in evolution at all? Like they don't believe in different strains of the flu? Or they don't believe in Abiogenesis or whatever?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, I understand that you have your reasons to hate what we religious folks believe in, but please, it wouldn't hurt to be a bit more sensible about shooting the "moronic religion" and "religious stupidity" messages every third paragraph.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pinkskins have existed unchanged since the beginning of time: evil, rapacious, anti-goblin bigots who eat all the large animals into extinction wherever they go.
Die, pinkskins, die!!!
I very much doubt this. Just through achievements in medicine we aren't who we were as a species 100 years ago.
Factor in centuries of different kinds of humans all inter-breeding, I seriously doubt we are close to what we were whenever we came about.
Doubt all you want, pinkskin. The Gobbo revolution's gonna getchya!
100% of the people who complain that Sissyl's description of ID was "factually incorrect."
Nothing about this misrepresents the religious community -- and if you choose to stand up and claim the label of "religious," then the only person labeling you is yourself.Well, this is the only part that i have an issue with. It only doesn't misrepresent the religious community who was pushing for that disclaimer to be enforced in that school, or for the people pushing ID as a way of pushing evolution out of public education.
How much of the religious population in America do you think that actually represents?
Lol. Fair enough. I’m not trying to defend Charlie D. I don’t know him (or her), and I don’t know exactly what he (or she) believes about ID.
I was trying to bring the conversation back up to a broader level. Sissyl used a pretty big, sweeping brush to paint religion as the primary reason life-span is decreasing when compared to the world’s best countries. Sissyl even went so far as to assign motive to all religious folk. “Thus, they have a deeply seated, vested interest in making sure quality of life goes as far down as it can go.”
That’s a hell of a motive to assign to many different social, political, cultural, and ethnic groups who have very different belief systems based on a supernatural creator of some flavor or another.
Which is why I made sure to refer to CHURCHES having such interests, not groups. And why I referred to "moronity such as intelligent design". And even so, I find my position constantly misrepresented. By people who complain about being misrepresented. I find it... interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why does the chart exclude females? Not a statistically significant portion of the population?
The chart shows that males life expectancy is higher than ever, yet this is a problem, because in other countries it is higher still. "I've got more than ever, but you have more than me, so I'm in decline."
Well whatever the answer to this conundrum, you can rest assured that it provides me a chance to hop on my own personal political/cultural hobby-horse. Roll 1d20 for my well-reasoned, strongly-held opinion :
1)This is why we need mandatory health insurance!
2)This is why we need to ban smoking in public places!
3)This is why we need to provide healthier school lunches!
4)This is why we need to end corn subsidies!
5)This is why we need to increase the tax on gasoline!
6)This is because too many people are religious!
7)This is why we need to put a tax on junk food!
8)This is why we need more free-market reforms!
9)This is why we need to increase welfare spending!
10)This is because [party] doesn't have enough power!
11) This is because your portion sizes are too large, fatty!
12) This is why everyone should be a vegetarian!
13) This is why everyone should bike to work!
14) This is because there are too many chemicals in your food!
15) This is why childhood vaccinations should be mandatory!
16) This is because your country as a whole is morally deficient!
17) This is because too much wealth is in the hands of the 1%!
18) This is because not enough people believe in evolution!
19) Because you're(1d4) 1:lazy 2:stupid 3:irresponsible 4:roll twice
20) Roll on random race / gender / orientation identity politics table.
Which is why I made sure to refer to CHURCHES having such interests, not groups. And why I referred to "moronity such as intelligent design". And even so, I find my position constantly misrepresented. By people who complain about being misrepresented. I find it... interesting.
Fair enough. and my apologies if I've misrepresented your position. I assure it was a misunderstanding on my part; I certainly wasn't trying to misrepresent you or what you believe. I missed the switch from "religious people" to "churches".
Non-sarcasm: The real, actual reason is that people in the US drive more often, and for longer distances, and therefore get in more car accidents, and therefore are more likely to die young.
Young males being young males, this effect would be expected to be more pronounced in them, which is why charts showing male life expectancy are especially handy for "why is the US falling behind in life expectancy" doomsaying.
But this explanation does not fit into any of the above-enumerated convenient all-purpose narratives (maybe "This is why people should bike to work," or "This is why we need mandatory car insurance"?) and so is not handy for rhetorical purposes and corresponding messageboard hot-air production.
EDIT: Just remembered. "This is why we need more public transporation."
Kinda hard to go on an anti-religion rant if it's due to the driving habits of young adult males.
BTW, when I see the "anti-religion" rhetoric, I always assume it's meant as anti-organized religion.
Kinda hard to go on an anti-religion rant if it's due to the driving habits of young adult males.
BTW, when I see the "anti-religion" rhetoric, I always assume it's meant as anti-organized religion.
I agree, but don't let that stop anyone from trying.
I can think of several hypothetical reasons to be opposed to disorganized religion as well, but most people in the axe-grinding business are largely focused on the organized kind.
Understood, Krensky. No worries.
For the record, I don't think religion out the lack of it has anything to do with life expectancy.
I was just sharing depressing reality regarding the level of people who reject science for superstition.
It's an interesting data point. And serves to illustrate why (rolls die) we need more money for science education in public schools.
So, Sarcasmancer are you (rolls 1d6):
1. Above the melee.
2. Uninterested in the discussion.
3. Already knowing the answer but choosing not to disclose it.
4. Having no clue, but always ready to have a good sarcastic laugh.
5. On the opinion that "Nothing is true" (and "everything is permitted." Haaa, the wisdom of ages !)
6. Just taking the piss (in the Brithish sense).
7. Really serious when you say: "The real, actual reason is that people in the US drive more often, and for longer distances, and therefore get in more car accidents, and therefore are more likely to die young."
:-P
Pinkskins have existed unchanged since the beginning of time: evil, rapacious, anti-goblin bigots who eat all the large animals into extinction wherever they go.
Die, pinkskins, die!!!
I'll give you some love, Goblin :-P !
[*hugs the goblin in a ferocious grapple of Love, which slowly turns him blue in the face (the goblin, not the gnome)*]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, Sarcasmancer are you (rolls 1d6):
1. Above the melee.
2. Uninterested in the discussion.
3. Already knowing the answer but choosing not to disclose it.
4. Having no clue, but always ready to have a good sarcastic laugh.
5. On the opinion that "Nothing is true" (and "everything is permitted." Haaa, the wisdom of ages !)
6. Just taking the piss (in the Brithish sense).
7. Really serious when you say: "The real, actual reason is that people in the US drive more often, and for longer distances, and therefore get in more car accidents, and therefore are more likely to die young."
My pet peeve is when people use every discussion, regardless of the topic or whether they have relevant information to add, as an opportunity to shill for their pet political or cultural opinions. Most people's opinions are so predictable, unoriginal, and lacking in substance they really could be rolled on a table and no one would know the difference - I was trying to make this rhetorical point in a humorous way by actually producing such a table. I am particularly annoyed when people use these opinions essentially as thought-terminating cliches.
You see this on every messageboard, regardless of topic. Question changes but the answer never does, like if you asked a talking doll their opinion on tariffs.
I believe there is objective truth that can be gotten at. It's not like differences in death statistics are some unknowable cosmic mystery. But it's not helpful when people pop up to recite their entirely predictable stock phrases that they trot out at every opportunity. I don't like it when people are lazy in their thinking and they deserve to be called out on it when they are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing that irks me the most is that it's predictable. If a person has reasoned themselves into an opinion that I never heard before, but is wrong, that is a lot better in my mind than if a person is just parroting something they heard from someone else, but happens to be correct.
Don't believe in evolution at all? Like they don't believe in different strains of the flu? Or they don't believe in Abiogenesis or whatever?
The usual phrasing is something like "all life on earth has existed since the beginning in substantially unchanged forms."
This is actually a very touchy subject among creationists, because it's hard to argue with things like the effectiveness of selective breeding in farmers. Usually they focus on the word "kind," (in Hebrew, baramin), with the idea that life forms can vary within a baramin but can't change beyond that. So a dog could be bred into a chihuahua or a Great Dane, or have been bred from a wolf, but a cat and a dog are fundamentally different kinds. And, of course, humans are fundamentally different from other great apes.
Abiogenesis except via special creation is of course, right out, but so is panspermia or anything else that might suggest that humans are just another ape species.
Why does the chart exclude females? Not a statistically significant portion of the population?
Female life expectancy is largely controlled by a single factor -- childbirth. Hard to pull information about health generally when 90% of the variance is due to one aspect.
Why does the chart exclude females? Not a statistically significant portion of the population?Female life expectancy is largely controlled by a single factor -- childbirth. Hard to pull information about health generally when 90% of the variance is due to one aspect.
Chart purports to show "life expectancy at birth." OP asks why US is falling behind. I'm sure what you say is true, but I don't see how that warrants ignoring or excluding the data. Wouldn't death-in-childbirth be more or less comparable in all countries listed, and thus a net wash, if you are using these data to compare health or quality of healthcare? (which I actually don't think is the issue, but plenty of responders to the post are running in that direction with it)
EDIT: Your post above, about Creationist theories of biological "kinds" as opposed to species, is the second one today where I must compliment you on being informative and interesting
USA needs free but compulsory medical care.Check out this graph. Each line is the life expectancy of the world's best countries and America is the dot.
Notice how we are falling down the line.We are getting better, but at a lower rate than other countries. WHY??
.
I disagree with the idea that medical care should be compulsory. If someone has an issue and doesn't wants to refuse care, that's their business. I won't shed a tear when they croak. Also, there is no such thing as a free ride. Government run programs aren't paid for by the government, they are paid for with ever increasing taxes.
As for OP, I say CONVENIENCE is the reason for lower life expectancy in the states. You can wet everything at a local store, appliances to make home life easier, computers to allow for greater efficiency, vehicles to allow for greater ability to live in a desirable area far away from employment. CONVENIENCE...err...laziness is the cause. The more efficient something becomes the less time you have to talk care of yourself because now you are expected to get more done.
As for OP, I say CONVENIENCE is the reason for lower life expectancy in the states. You can wet everything at a local store, appliances to make home life easier, computers to allow for greater efficiency, vehicles to allow for greater ability to live in a desirable area far away from employment. CONVENIENCE...err...laziness is the cause. The more efficient something becomes the less time you have to talk care of yourself because now you are expected to get more done.
Yes, because other first world nations don't have that...
|
Religion. Why is it so hard to accept that "% of population that considers religion important in their lives" correlates inversely to high longevity, high education level, and high quality of life? Most think the arrow of consequence goes Bad life -> Religion important. I think there is quite a lot of reason to think it goes the other way.I think your cause and effect relationship is a little reversed there.
Uh-huh.
Except that if religion has a strong enough influence, religious people will have the power to actively sabotage education through hypothetical moronity like "intelligent design", abortions (which forces young women who don't want to raise a child to either go through risky illegal abortions or have the child, and the dominant reason for not wanting to have it is because they don't have the money to handle it well enough), stop vital research into various things that religious people go anal about, such as stem cells, and so on and so forth.
Now, according to you, it's damn lucky none of that is more than hypothetical, right?
I admit, the arrow does go both ways. The churches know splendidly well that if quality of life goes down, they get more people who think religion is important. Thus, they have a deeply seated, vested interest in making sure quality of life goes as far down as it possibly can.
Or is no cause and affect at all.
"... it seems likely that religiously observant people in the U.S. live longer than those who stay away from church."
"Yet, the apparent health benefits of religion are not found in some other developed countries. In states like Denmark and the Netherlands, where religiously active individuals are in the minority, any health advantages of religion shrink to vanishing point..."
So basically neither.
Chart purports to show "life expectancy at birth." OP asks why US is falling behind. I'm sure what you say is true, but I don't see how that warrants ignoring or excluding the data.
US maternity care is well-known to suck. Including women in the sample would have confirmed what we already know -- US maternity care sucks. Excluding women from the sample shows US that even when maternity care is a non-issue, life-expectancy in the US is falling behind. Basically, it means that there's an easy, obvious, and facile answer that we can rule out.
Wouldn't death-in-childbirth be more or less comparable in all countries listed, and thus a net wash, if you are using these data to compare health or quality of healthcare?
Not clear. First, deaths in childbirth today may be roughly comparable across the countries, but this is time-series data and we certainly can't make that statement over the past century across all countries. Second, deaths in childbirth are rare enough, again today, that they're not much of an issue -- but this wouldn't have been the case in 1900.
More seriously, I'm not sure if we're looking at quality of health care. There's certainly an argument to be made that the deaths that have the most impact on life expectancy are child and early-adulthood deaths, which means we may be looking at differential rates of death-by-violence or death-by-misadventure. I don't know.
The US CDC keeps track of "years of life lost" to various causes of death. The single largest cause of lost lives is, as was suggested earlier, "unintentional accident," followed in turn by cancer, heart disease, neonatal deaths, suicide, and homicide. So the idea that the US is unusually accident-prone is worth exploring -- obviously, if we could eliminate this as a cause of death, life expectancy would go up significantly But eliminating cancer and heart disease would have even more of an affect....
EDIT: Your post above, about Creationist theories of biological "kinds" as opposed to species, is the second one today where I must compliment you on being informative and interesting
Thanks!
...words...
I didn't know US maternity care was so poor compared to other countries, but I still don't see the relevance of leaving it out. You talk about differences over the course of a century, or deaths in childbirth in 1900, but the chart only shows to 1980. Surely there hasn't been that much of a change in basic healthcare over that time?
I can see differences in abortion law / attitudes being one possible wrench in the works. Another would be if the US has a significantly higher rate of youth suicide.
I have also heard it reported that the US has lower life expectancy because we have a higher rate of infant mortality - because babies that in some countries would never have come to term or been miscarried are instead delivered prematurely and then subsequently die.
EDIT: Link suggests obesity and increased number of C-sections as reasons for maternal death
Ah, I was misremembering the graph; I thought it covered a longer time range.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Crimson Jester: Thank you for a VERY interesting link. I do wish you had read on a bit longer than you did, though:
In predominantly secular countries, community involvement is very high (6) so that atheists are much more active in their communities than they would be in a comparatively religious country such as the U.S. Instead of feeling like second class citizens the non religious are fully integrated in their communities with all of the health advantages this brings. So what had looked like advantages of religion could be simply an advantage of being in the mainstream.
In the U.S. some health researchers are fond of giving religion the credit for boosting life expectancy. Yet, despite being a nation with a large religious majority, Americans have much lower life expectancy than is enjoyed by secular countries at a similar level of economic development such as Japan and Sweden. Evidently, the lower quality of life here both provides a market for religion and reduces life expectancy.
From that perspective, it seems bizarre that health researchers would be so keen to tout the alleged health advantages of religion (2). If religion really promoted longevity, how could people have such short life expectancy in sub-Saharan Africa where virtually everyone is deeply religious?
I don't really feel a need to add to this.
Guys, I understand that you have your reasons to hate what we religious folks believe in, but please, it wouldn't hurt to be a bit more sensible about shooting the "moronic religion" and "religious stupidity" messages every third paragraph.
Again, there seems to be a problem of communication here. I do not say things like "moronic religion" or "religious stupidity", and yet I have now been misrepresented several times. In fact, I have no particular feelings about what other people believe in. Their world, their thoughts, their beliefs. What I do oppose is that many people get pressured, for religious reasons, through political power, to follow tenets of a religion they do not believe in or belong to. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion. Not matter how good the intent behind using this force is. I am okay with preventing various real crimes like stealing, murder, violence... But when certain states still have laws stating that two men having consensual oral sex is punishable by prison time... that is FAR beyond anything within the bounds of reason. Or, not to be too delicate about it: It's f@$*ing batshit insane.
Good thing all christians respect freedom from religion, even if they have the political power to get the state to enforce their moralistic laws and religious tenets, right Klaus?
|
|
Crimson Jester: Thank you for a VERY interesting link. I do wish you had read on a bit longer than you did, though:
** spoiler omitted **
I don't really feel a need to add to this.
I did in fact read that. I however disagree as the proceeding evidence shows, if anything that the major component is civic involvement not religious affiliation.
|
|
Again, there seems to be a problem of communication here. I do not say things like "moronic religion" or "religious stupidity", and yet I have now been misrepresented several times.... Or, not to be too delicate about it: It's f**$ing b@*&%*$ insane.
Good thing all christians respect freedom from religion, even if they have the political power to get the state to enforce their moralistic laws and religious tenets, right Klaus?
May I point out...
Intelligent design is a way to not have to teach evolution in school, it has repeatedly been identified as such. And all because people think it's against their religion to think the world is more than 6000 years old.Pretty much the definition of moronic.
Now I want to point out. I do not disagree. It is just that the way I perceive your posts are, in my opinion, a very needlessly aggressive format. One that I am sure I have been guilty of as well.
A little sugar goes a long way for someone to see your point of view and there is little reason to be distraught or post in a way as to be seen in that light.
As for OP, I say CONVENIENCE is the reason for lower life expectancy in the states. You can wet everything at a local store, appliances to make home life easier, computers to allow for greater efficiency, vehicles to allow for greater ability to live in a desirable area far away from employment. CONVENIENCE...err...laziness is the cause. The more efficient something becomes the less time you have to talk care of yourself because now you are expected to get more done.
The rest of us have so much free time that you can't help make room for just a little self-preservation in the process. Personally? I think it's because Americans have this urge to work themselves to death. Well, congratulations, you made it.
Shorter workdays, better salaries, more vacation. That's the ticket.
Complex issue, but a good explination appears to be
High income in equality = High levels of social evaluative stress = poor health, combined with low rates of preventative care and poor diet.
Wait... is somebody saying the reason for America's poor life expectancy
relative to the other countries in that graph is because of a "religious failing"?
Do you realize by saying this you are implying the other countries in the
list are NOT having this same failing. I'm pretty sure America is more
religious than most of the other countries on that graph.
(Can everyone read that graph? It takes High School math, at least.)
.
Hey Electric Wizard....
You will probably find that the US is outside the top 5 to 10 for a lot of things.
Quality of life, wealth distribution, certain aspects of education, wage parity and so on.
Hey Electric Wizard....
You will probably find that the US is outside the top 5 to 10 for a lot of things.
Quality of life, wealth distribution, certain aspects of education, wage parity and so on.
I grew up being taught America is the greatest nation on earth, and that we are #1.
I guess my innocence is being lost.
.
Check out this graph. Each line is the life expectancy of the world's best countries and America is the dot.
Notice how we are falling down the line.We are getting better, but at a lower rate than other countries. WHY??
.
A large hunk of it is because of the countries they picked. All of those countries, (just where is West Germany?), have an infant mortality rate lower than the US. Each point of infant mortality lower is roughly .75 of year in life expectancy, a couple of those countries have infant mortality rates of 2.5 to 3 lower than the US.
A large hunk of it is because of the countries they picked. ...
I'm going to say it is 100% because of the countries they picked.
.