[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth, it’s funny, because your point leads me to imagine something like the following for recruitment commercials… as if it was a deciding factor:
Join the army, you’ll be less likely to kill yourself!
This of course both ignores and implies the obvious…[/quote]
Ouch. Well, I certainly wouldn’t advocate such an approach. No matter how statistically true it may be.
If I’m not mistaken the number of suicides is less then 100 total. Of those 28% were folks in a combat zone or who were deployed.
That leads you to infer that the rest were stateside. It doesn’t seem like an insurmountable task track the reasons down. Based on my life experience you will find the following reasons:
For men 17-45 those reasons will cover most cases. They are not specific to the military and whether they were in the service or not they still would have happened. In fact a few probably didn’t because they were in the armed forces.
As to Lixy’s question on how he could of posted this information and not be questioned the answer is easy and he no doubt knows the answer. Why? Why post it at all. Why post it on T-Nation. He certainly despises the US and in particular the military. His intention is to spread bad news, even if it has to be twisted or not really bad or relevant at all. When confronted he retreats to the familiar territory of “I just want to debate the evil nature of the US…why hate me…you are the evil ones”
Why, not how is the important question?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The point being that the suicide rate in the army, a heavily male body that predominantly falls in the age range of 18-45 or so, should be compared against the overall U.S. rate for that same demographic - and if you do so, the number seems to indicate that soldiers are less likely to commit suicide than civilians. [/quote]
That would still not be satisfactory from a strictly scientific point of view. You have to realize that there are less junkies, and obese folks in the military.
But all of this is a waste of time. You know…lies, damned lies, and statistics.
What is relevant here, is the increase. No matter how you look at it, it has increased. We can argue forever what’s a good level to start considering it as a mere outlier, but that’s not gonna lead anywhere.
My point - as am sure everyone has realized by now - is that the war is doing more harm than good to the American people. Bush has borrowed a trillion dollars in the past four years alone, and more and more people are violently dying every day.
There has to be a threshold where you people say “enough is enough!”. I’m inquiring about where everyone puts that. Is it a sudden 100% suicide rate increase? Is it 100,000 Americans in boxes? Is it 1 million paraplegics?
And one more thing; do you see this war as policing a state or as defending yourselves?
[quote]hedo wrote:
Why? Why post it at all. Why post it on T-Nation. [/quote]
Frontpage BBC news material a good place to start debating “Politics and World Issues”, don’t you think?
[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
Why? Why post it at all. Why post it on T-Nation.
Frontpage BBC news material a good place to start debating “Politics and World Issues”, don’t you think?[/quote]
Sure if that was your reason but I think we both know it’s not. If a more credible person posted this information it would be a different story but coming from you the reasons are clear.
Much like you villified an author in the F Irish thread, when you consider the reputation and history of the OP then the motivation becomes suspect. If it holds for that author it certainly holds for you.
And no, based on the data, the war cannot be blamed for the rise as no data points to that conclusion. You are making an assumption based on statistics and it has more to do with personal bias then valid reasoning. If anything war tends to create a high espirit de corp in the military which would would lead to less suicide as the military tends to bond closely during combat.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Sure if that was your reason but I think we both know it’s not. If a more credible person posted this information it would be a different story but coming from you the reasons are clear. [/quote]
Credibility is a tough beast. You can lose it in a second, but regaining it requires a long time and lot of effort.
I didn’t write the article, so I don’t see why you’re bringing up my credibility. My only commentary on the article was the following:
“It’s always bad news to hear people dying. Is it bad enough, or should it reach Vietnam proportions to get people to pay attention?”
Note also that I rephrased the author’s title in a more neutral stance.
I don’t know how familiar you are with the BBC, but it is as reputable and unbiased a source as it comes these days. They have excellent editors and audit themselves on a regular basis to avoid losing points on the credibility scale.
First of all, I certainly didn’t vilify anyone in FightingIrish’s thread (entitled “Islam’s problem with democracy”). FIrish didn’t say where he got the article from, so I looked it up.
I named some of the author’s colleagues, dug out her boss’ previous job, and pointed out that she contributed to another publication than the one the article came from. All the while, I didn’t use a single adjective that may reflect as much as my personal opinion, let alone “vilification”.
Take the time to re-read it if you must. I put a considerable amount of thought in that post, and it saddens me to see that an educated grown-up like yourself, skims through it then rushes to some conclusion just because of some reputation he’s been trying to pin on me.
The casual T-folks who linger around this section know pretty much everything there is to know about me. They also know where I stand on many political and ideological issues. I interacted with them asking questions and answering theirs, in the hope of learning something new and broadening my perspective.
In short, there is little need - if any - for you to introduce me to the community.
The author of the article on “Islam’s problem with democracy” in Irish’s thread is probably not an acquaintance of the readers. I presented the public with a quick image of who she is, who she and what she believes. Was it necessary to do so before tackling her argument? No. But it’s a quirk of mine to look up writers and journalists biographies to put things into perspectives.
I presented the context in which the piece was written in a purely (and I mean 100%!) informative post. Because of that, and because I tackled the arguments without using her background, it wasn’t an ad hominem.
But, we all use ad hominems against ideas. Are they inherently bad? Hardly. You may unearth as much dirt as you want on the authors of articles I post and it still wouldn’t disturb the debate. However, throwing ad hominems at your interlocutor is clearly the worst thing one can do - if striving for a constructive debate.
Journalists, news editors, TV anchors, and other public figures should come under scrutiny. Because of the one-way mode of communication that is the newspaper, the magazine or TV, it is very important to know who is behind the stories. It shouldn’t be used to invalidate their arguments, but as a way of getting a better feel of the context.
That is a bold statement. Iscariot’s analysis is better.
The suicide rate is rising, and that much we know. Should we conclude that it’s the fault of the war? It is tempting to do so, because of the nature of the war (guerrilla), extended duty tours , and rising unpopularity of the war among the American soldiers. But the data is inconclusive as Iscariot rightly pointed out. We need to harvest more data and analyze them.
Ultimately, this is like that Global Warming “controversy”, and where people draw the line and start doing something about it. Is being “certain” the point where action is warranted? Is it “sure”? Is it “sure enough”? And how does one define those terms?
Lies, damned lies and statistics…
[quote]lixy wrote:
That is a bold statement. Iscariot’s analysis is better.
[/quote]
Only because it comes to the conclusion that agrees with you.
He has no factual basis for his analysis. Ergo, far too many assumptions.
The numbers are what they are. Interpreting them one way or another requires bias.
Lixy
You presented the past history of the author with the intent to use it to discredit the article, not for context or background. If you did so and let others draw their own conclusions then I wouldn’t have pointed it out.
I drew a comparison to what you did in another thread and pointed out, that by that standard, and considering your posting history on this site, the same comparison is valid. Simply reviewing the titles of the threads you have started indicates a clear bias towards news stories of a certain type.
Your credibility would greatly be enhanced if your perspective was a true “worldview” as opposed to an “anti US view”. There are many other topics to discuss…earthqauake in Peru? Russians at the North Pole? Banning memorial services in Brussels?
As to the suicide rate, claiming it is “rising” is not supported by the stats. The stats show it rose last year. It may drop next.
I like the BBC. They have self admitted to their problems as I am sure you are aware. Quiet a blow to their reputation. No better or worse then others.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Only because it comes to the conclusion that agrees with you. [/quote]
Did you even read Iscariot’s post?
He argues that the present data is not enough to correlate the rise of the suicide rate with the war.
So, when folks explain how cigarettes cause cancer, do you shrug and say they have bias? That conclusion was based on numbers you know.
[quote]hedo wrote:
As to the suicide rate, claiming it is “rising” is not supported by the stats. The stats show it rose last year. It may drop next.
[/quote]
Hedo, from what I saw on CNN, the numbers (expressed in suicides per 100,000) rose a little for a couple years and then spiked even higher in the last measurement.
It probably is fair to say it has been rising for the last 3 (I can’t remember the period displayed) years, but that in itself doesn’t mean very much of anything.
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Only because it comes to the conclusion that agrees with you.
Did you even read Iscariot’s post?
He argues that the present data is not enough to correlate the rise of the suicide rate with the war.
The numbers are what they are. Interpreting them one way or another requires bias.
So, when folks explain how cigarettes cause cancer, do you shrug and say they have bias? That conclusion was based on numbers you know.[/quote]
I think the studies done wrt to smoking is a far cry from some nutjob posting raw data posted from another source, and drawing conclusions.
But nice attempt at the bait and switch.
I’m sure vroom will be in here momentarily to give you a great big pat on the back.
[quote]dusty bottoms wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Bad news for lixy,
In 2006 the branches of the United States military reached or exceeded their recruiting goal.
JeffR
The Army was able to reach their quota because they’ve lowered the overall number set as the recruiting goal. Plus, waving $10,000 and up in the faces of 18 year olds for signing up also helps too.
dusty bottoms[/quote]
Hey, db.
This last post is illustrative of your thought process in general.
Each post and thought you express leads one to ask the simple question: “So?”
JeffR
[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Bad news for lixy,
In 2006 the branches of the United States military reached or exceeded their recruiting goal.
I see. So, the strategy is to keep a fresh supply.[/quote]
lixy,
I don’t like the “fresh supply” comment.
The strategy is to kill your pals until they no longer threaten us. At the same time, minimize the loss of American and civilian lives.
Your M.O. is to sow discontent and defeatism. That the quotas are being met and exceeded six years into this war, illustrates clearly that your efforts have been in vain.
Ha. Ha.
JeffR
[quote]hedo wrote:
You presented the past history of the author with the intent to use it to discredit the article, not for context or background. [/quote]
So, now you know my intent???
Well, I guess that’s what I get for forgetting to put on my tin foil cap…
You seem to have problems with basic logic.
My history on this site, what I “did on another thread”, the number of kittens I have dismembered alive, my CD collection of the “Dave Matthews Band”, and how many grams of creatine I put in my shake have absolutely nothing to do with the argument presented in the article. It’s data straight from the DoD, that a journalist at the BBC has used to write a piece.
Well, duh! I have a propensity to post things that would help me argument my ideas…
that the occupation of Iraq has caused too many deaths should be ended immediately,
that the planet Earth is strained and cannot sustain the way humanity lives much longer,
that overthrowing or supporting the overthrow of democratic regimes is wrong,
that everyone is equal regardless of sex, ethnicity, or faith,
that resolution 141 should be implemented as soon as possible,
that the rights of corporations should not supersede those of the people,
that current IP laws should be thoroughly reformed,
that oligarchies should be fiercely opposed,
…
I can go on, but you catch the drift, right? Those are my beliefs and I will try put forth arguments (start threads, present figures, link to articles…) to convince others that I am right. Others might disagree and post something of their own.
RJ calls it a fight, Ren calls it debate, I call it exchanging ideas.
I recommend that you try it once in a while. It’s fun!
I don’t care about enhancing my credibility. I focus on is assuming good faith, respecting others, cross-checking everything, and being honest. If I lose my credibility by applying the principles I believe in, tough luck.
I put my principles above my image.
Sure there is. But I don’t see how we can prevent an earthquake in Peru. Even if we all get under Vroom’s thinking tree, join hands and pray really hard, that’s still gonna happen. On the other hand, by revealing the lies swallowed by the American public (sorry, but there’s no other way to put it) in the build-up to the war, we could have averted the catastrophe that cost countless deaths and is still claiming more everyday.
Memorial services ban in Brussels? Couldn’t care less. Check my list above.
Hedo,
There are THREE scenarios.
a. Suicide rate is rising.
b. Suicide rate is falling.
c. Suicide rate is stagnating.
If “‘rising’ is not supported by the stats”, as you claim then what is it doing? d. playing blackjack? Pray tell.
Trust me on that, it is better than others.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hey, db.
This last post is illustrative of your thought process in general.
Each post and thought you express leads one to ask the simple question: “So?”
JeffR
[/quote]
What does my posts illustrate? I pointed out that the Army was able to reach their goal because they lowered the standards for quotas. I’m telling you that the Army is having trouble recruiting despite what you posted.
But hey, I guess that fact that I’m in the Army gives me no credibility anyway, huh?
Dustin
[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
You presented the past history of the author with the intent to use it to discredit the article, not for context or background.
So, now you know my intent???
Well, I guess that’s what I get for forgetting to put on my tin foil cap…
I drew a comparison to what you did in another thread and pointed out, that by that standard, and considering your posting history on this site, the same comparison is valid.
You seem to have problems with basic logic.
My history on this site, what I “did on another thread”, the number of kittens I have dismembered alive, my CD collection of the “Dave Matthews Band”, and how many grams of creatine I put in my shake have absolutely nothing to do with the argument presented in the article. It’s data straight from the DoD, that a journalist at the BBC has used to write a piece.
Simply reviewing the titles of the threads you have started indicates a clear bias towards news stories of a certain type.
Well, duh! I have a propensity to post things that would help me argument my ideas…
that the occupation of Iraq has caused too many deaths should be ended immediately,
that the planet Earth is strained and cannot sustain the way humanity lives much longer,
that overthrowing or supporting the overthrow of democratic regimes is wrong,
that everyone is equal regardless of sex, ethnicity, or faith,
that resolution 141 should be implemented as soon as possible,
that the rights of corporations should not supersede those of the people,
that current IP laws should be thoroughly reformed,
that oligarchies should be fiercely opposed,
…
I can go on, but you catch the drift, right? Those are my beliefs and I will try put forth arguments (start threads, present figures, link to articles…) to convince others that I am right. Others might disagree and post something of their own.
RJ calls it a fight, Ren calls it debate, I call it exchanging ideas.
I recommend that you try it once in a while. It’s fun!
Your credibility would greatly be enhanced if your perspective was a true “worldview” as opposed to an “anti US view”.
I don’t care about enhancing my credibility. I focus on is assuming good faith, respecting others, cross-checking everything, and being honest. If I lose my credibility by applying the principles I believe in, tough luck.
I put my principles above my image.
There are many other topics to discuss…earthqauake in Peru? Russians at the North Pole? Banning memorial services in Brussels?
Sure there is. But I don’t see how we can prevent an earthquake in Peru. Even if we all get under Vroom’s thinking tree, join hands and pray really hard, that’s still gonna happen. On the other hand, by revealing the lies swallowed by the American public (sorry, but there’s no other way to put it) in the build-up to the war, we could have averted the catastrophe that cost countless deaths and is still claiming more everyday.
Memorial services ban in Brussels? Couldn’t care less. Check my list above.
As to the suicide rate, claiming it is “rising” is not supported by the stats. The stats show it rose last year. It may drop next.
Hedo,
There are THREE scenarios.
a. Suicide rate is rising.
b. Suicide rate is falling.
c. Suicide rate is stagnating.
If “‘rising’ is not supported by the stats”, as you claim then what is it doing? d. playing blackjack? Pray tell.
I like the BBC. They have self admitted to their problems as I am sure you are aware. Quiet a blow to their reputation. No better or worse then others.
Trust me on that, it is better than others. [/quote]
Fascinating. You are actually melting down on the internet.
You contradicted yourself a few times. If your history has nothing to do with your argument why did you bring the history of the author into the discussion on the Fighting Irish thread.
If you can’t admit your errors and simply choose to deny the obvious then arguing with you is pointless. That is why everyone mocks you and dismisses anything you have to say. You’d have to be delusional not to see that.
Your intent is clear. Your history documents it. It’s why you are not taken seriously by anyone. Here’s a hint on the creatine. It doesn’t help if you don’t lift weights.
Lixy trying to educate an ignorant person like you is like wrestling a pig. You just get dirty doing it and the pig enjoys it.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
The point being that the suicide rate in the army, a heavily male body that predominantly falls in the age range of 18-45 or so, should be compared against the overall U.S. rate for that same demographic - and if you do so, the number seems to indicate that soldiers are less likely to commit suicide than civilians.
lixy wrote:
That would still not be satisfactory from a strictly scientific point of view. You have to realize that there are less junkies, and obese folks in the military.
But all of this is a waste of time. You know…lies, damned lies, and statistics.
What is relevant here, is the increase. No matter how you look at it, it has increased. We can argue forever what’s a good level to start considering it as a mere outlier, but that’s not gonna lead anywhere.
My point - as am sure everyone has realized by now - is that the war is doing more harm than good to the American people. Bush has borrowed a trillion dollars in the past four years alone, and more and more people are violently dying every day.
There has to be a threshold where you people say “enough is enough!”. I’m inquiring about where everyone puts that. Is it a sudden 100% suicide rate increase? Is it 100,000 Americans in boxes? Is it 1 million paraplegics?
And one more thing; do you see this war as policing a state or as defending yourselves?[/quote]
Yes, the increase is what’s important. But in looking at the numbers, there is no reason to think that the increase was due to the actions in Iraq or Afghanistan. Thus your point is a non sequiter.
The key driver for the conclusion that Iraq isn’t the cause is that only 28% of the suicides were by those deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Combine that with the point relating to the expansion of the recruiting pool, and you’ll note that the increase appears to be the result of the Army population becoming more like the comparable civilian population.
Here are two stories with more complete information than the BBC provided you:
http://fe42.news.sp1.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070815/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_suicides
One final thing to ask yourself, which I already pointed out above but I will restate: If the army has been in Afghanistan since 2002 and Iraq since 2003, why is the increase that is only measured this year due to Iraq?
[i] In other years, the report showed:
– 2006: 101 suicides, 30 deployed (17.3 per 100,000)
– 2005: 88 suicides, 25 deployed (12.8 per 100,000)
– 2004: 67 suicides, 13 deployed (10.8 per 100,000)
– 2003: 79 suicides, 26 deployed (12.4 per 100,000)[/i]
[quote]hedo wrote:
You contradicted yourself a few times. If your history has nothing to do with your argument why did you bring the history of the author into the discussion on the Fighting Irish thread. [/quote]
Pay some attention for crying out loud!
Here, I’ll paste the part where I answered that in the previous post for your convenience.
[i]You seem to have problems with basic logic.
My history on this site, what I “did on another thread”, the number of kittens I have dismembered alive, my CD collection of the “Dave Matthews Band”, and how many grams of creatine I put in my shake have absolutely nothing to do with the argument presented in the article. It’s data straight from the DoD, that a journalist at the BBC has used to write a piece. [/i]
You’re attacking the messengers to discredit whoever issued the message. Surely you must have enough brainpower to see the distinction between the arguments of the BBC crew and my own.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
One final thing to ask yourself, which I already pointed out above but I will restate: If the army has been in Afghanistan since 2002 and Iraq since 2003, why is the increase that is only measured this year due to Iraq?[/quote]
I’m sure Levitt and Dubner would have a hell of a good time turning into question into green. For my part, I can only speculate…
I think Sloth outlined some of the reasons already. He mentioned the lowering of the “mental” bar in recruitment. This alone has to account for some of the increase. Common sense.
Then, we have the extended tours of duty which have been introduced. I’m not sure about why fatigue would push someone to shoot himself, but there has to be a context in which such extension may impact suicide rates. I’m not in the military so I can’t really say.
But the piece de resistance is be the increase in attacks by the insurgency.
Look at increase in the graphs of the Baghdad mortuary toll, and the one of the insurgency attack. This increase evidently translates into stress, which is a risk factor of suicide if I’m not mistaken.
Did I prove anything? Not in the least bit. I just gave two-minutes of attention to the topic and already came up with some reasons which may be the cause of the increase in suicides. I’m sure someone who knows the US army better than me and with more willingness to crunch the numbers might reach a more conclusive stance.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
One final thing to ask yourself, which I already pointed out above but I will restate: If the army has been in Afghanistan since 2002 and Iraq since 2003, why is the increase that is only measured this year due to Iraq?
lixy wrote:
I’m sure Levitt and Dubner would have a hell of a good time turning into question into green. For my part, I can only speculate…
I think Sloth outlined some of the reasons already. He mentioned the lowering of the “mental” bar in recruitment. This alone has to account for some of the increase. Common sense.
Then, we have the extended tours of duty which have been introduced. I’m not sure about why fatigue would push someone to shoot himself, but there has to be a context in which such extension may impact suicide rates. I’m not in the military so I can’t really say.
But the piece de resistance is be the increase in attacks by the insurgency.
Look at increase in the graphs of the Baghdad mortuary toll, and the one of the insurgency attack. This increase evidently translates into stress, which is a risk factor of suicide if I’m not mistaken.
Did I prove anything? Not in the least bit. I just gave two-minutes of attention to the topic and already came up with some reasons which may be the cause of the increase in suicides. I’m sure someone who knows the US army better than me and with more willingness to crunch the numbers might reach a more conclusive stance.[/quote]
OK - I think we already covered the recruiting angle. That’s stretching the meaning of “caused” - it meets the threshold of “but for” causation, as in, but for the manpower needs from the surge in Iraq, these people wouldn’t be in the army. But it hardly shows that the fighting in Iraq is causing the suicides - a different conclusion that is necessary for your position.
Secondly, recall, again, that almost 3/4 of the suicides were people who were not deployed. In other words: They weren’t in danger of being attacked by insurgents at the time. The army noted that many, if not most, of the suicides were effected in the face of a majorly stressful life event - financial trouble, relationship collapse, etc.
Thirdly, look at your graph - it’s a bit incomplete - perhaps it should go back to look at the casualties during 2003 and 2004, if it’s going to address the point and the data.
Your “trend” is a single data point. 2006 is higher than 2005. 2005 is statistically the same as 2003. 2004 was lower than 2003. All of these data points were during Iraq and Afghanistan - and at various levels of insurgent attacks and U.S. casualties.