U.S. Suicide Rate Surges to a 30-Year High

[grandvizier1006]

To those who think guns are the problem here, I turn your attention to Japan which has a much higher suicide rate than the US despite having much more restrictive gun laws and no comparable gun worshiping culture like we have here. Japan comes in at 17th place with a rate of 18.5 per 100,000 and the US at 50th with a rate of 12.1 per 100,000.

The problem, again... is cultural attitudes that don't value life or place things above the value of life. In the case of Japan, defending honor for the family name can very often be much more important than an individual's life.

What are we placing above human life in the US?

Materialism, wealth, consumerism, extreme individualism (the "how dare you criticize me, I'm special and can't handle it when people aren't 100% positive about me" mindset), and I'd say convenience.

I would also like to add that I'm glad you care about human life being undervalued.

 

[grandvizier1006]

Addressing mental health now is a bandaid. FAct is that our culture has stopped valuing things that helped maintain mental health. Things that seem antiquated and are derided as silly, old fashioned, not modern; these things serve a purpose that is deeper than some people realize I think.

What would those things be?

 

[seashale76]

Blind post (after having scanned the first two pages): I don't think the increased suicide rate is due to a mass case of glorifying death here. American culture is a death denying culture, not a death glorifying culture. The focus is on not aging, trying to be perpetually young, and even when it comes to abortion it's most ardent advocates will deny that it is human life in order to assuage their conscience. Even funerals now try to reflect the denial of death. People don't want to see bodies, they don't want to mourn, they want to post happy photographs and cremate so they can deny it all a little longer and convince themselves their loved ones moved away instead of died- I guess.

I think the reason behind the increased suicide rate is due to a lack of connection. Social media cannot replace a real social structure. There is no real community for them, fewer healthy family structures, et cetera, so they begin to feel it is all pointless. As someone else pointed out, our mental health services are also severely lacking. Throwing constant drugs at people isn't always helpful either (as some drugs can make one suicidal). So, people take all of these drugs, they still have no social supports in place, they have dysfunctional families, and they turn up suicidal; and, all the while, everyone around them is all in denial that there is anything wrong until the very end.

 

[rambot]

Blind post (after having scanned the first two pages): I don't think the increased suicide rate is due to a mass case of glorifying death here. American culture is a death denying culture, not a death glorifying culture. The focus is on not aging, trying to be perpetually young, and even when it comes to abortion it's most ardent advocates will deny that it is human life in order to assuage their conscience. Even funerals now try to reflect the denial of death. People don't want to see bodies, they don't want to mourn, they want to post happy photographs and cremate so they can deny it all a little longer and convince themselves their loved ones moved away instead of died- I guess.
.

Excellent point.

What would those things be?

Something like... spending time in nature; disconnecting from the computer (and the impact of technology on society); valuing respectful, healthy communication;

 

[PreachersWife2004]

...However, ascribing the suicide rate to something when it is clearly not related is not an intelligent or acceptable approach.

Please show me your own evidence that it is clearly not related.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Blind post (after having scanned the first two pages): I don't think the increased suicide rate is due to a mass case of glorifying death here. American culture is a death denying culture, not a death glorifying culture. The focus is on not aging, trying to be perpetually young, and even when it comes to abortion it's most ardent advocates will deny that it is human life in order to assuage their conscience. Even funerals now try to reflect the denial of death. People don't want to see bodies, they don't want to mourn, they want to post happy photographs and cremate so they can deny it all a little longer and convince themselves their loved ones moved away instead of died- I guess.

That sorta still falls within my point, though. The people who kill themselves don't get to see their own death, do they? People who kill their unborn children ultimately don't see that death. We see people die horrible, gory, violent deaths in movies and then we see the actors who played them walk the red carpet. Death isn't a permanent state here.

I think the reason behind the increased suicide rate is due to a lack of connection. Social media cannot replace a real social structure. There is no real community for them, fewer healthy family structures, et cetera, so they begin to feel it is all pointless. As someone else pointed out, our mental health services are also severely lacking. Throwing constant drugs at people isn't always helpful either (as some drugs can make one suicidal). So, people take all of these drugs, they still have no social supports in place, they have dysfunctional families, and they turn up suicidal; and, all the while, everyone around them is all in denial that there is anything wrong until the very end.

It is interesting (not the right word, but the one word that comes to mind) that one of the biggest side effects to anti-depressants is suicidal tendencies...

 

[rambot]

That sorta still falls within my point, though.

So the exact opposite of your point is still falling within your point?

The people who kill themselves don't get to see their own death, do they? People who kill their unborn children ultimately don't see that death.

Quick heads up: Nobody "gets to see their own death". So I'm not sure how your point stands here. Unless you are arguing that people are also dying in pedestrian car accidents and dying of cancer because of abortions. But I'm certain you aren't arguing that.

We see people die horrible, gory, violent deaths in movies and then we see the actors who played them walk the red carpet. Death isn't a permanent state here.

I don't think the academy awards are going to be a situation where people become confused about their mortality.

It is interesting (not the right word, but the one word that comes to mind) that one of the biggest side effects to anti-depressants is suicidal tendencies...

Not quite true. One of the biggest side effects is on appetite (and therefore weight) as well as sexual side effects. Also, what's odd is that there are numerous anti-depressants and what may induce suicidal thoughts in one person, would not necessarily do so in another. And when one medicine has that affect on one person, a different anti-depressant would not. So putting them in one big group kind of simplifies the issue.

 

[SummerMadness]

Please show me your own evidence that it is clearly not related.

That's not how it works. The default position is that nothing is related, this goes for everything in the world. If you are going to say something is related, then you have to provide the evidence that the link exists.

This might work better with an example: show me the evidence that pirates do not cause climate change. You can't really do that. Failure to show that pirates do not cause climate change does not mean that pirates cause climate change, your measurements could be under-powered (i.e., you don't have enough information). The difference between the above and asking someone to prove pirates cause climate change is that your basic assumption is far simpler, pirates do not affect climate change. At its basic level, climate change is only shown to be linked to things you can demonstrate affect it (i.e., providing data with analysis).

Going back to your argument, show me the evidence that religion is not the cause of abortion. The country is less religious than it was in the past, abortion rates were higher in the past, so demonstrate that is not true. This line of argument sounds ridiculous because it is. The default is religion does not cause abortions, if someone wants to claim a link, they need to demonstrate that link.

The default is always things are not related or they do not exist without evidence, else why don't you show me that unicorns do not exist.

I would encourage you to do some reading or watch a video on hypothesis testing.

 

[rambot]

That's not how it works. The default position is that nothing is related, this goes for everything in the world. If you are going to say something is related, then you have to provide the evidence that the link exists.

This might work better with an example: show me the evidence that pirates do not cause climate change. You can't really do that. Failure to show that pirates do not cause climate change does not mean that pirates cause climate change, your measurements could be under-powered (i.e., you don't have enough information). The difference between the above and asking someone to prove pirates cause climate change is that your basic assumption is far simpler, pirates do not affect climate change. At its basic level, climate change is only shown to be linked to things you can demonstrate affect it (i.e., providing data with analysis).

Going back to your argument, show me the evidence that religion is not the cause of abortion. The country is less religious than it was in the past, abortion rates were higher in the past, so demonstrate that is not true. This line of argument sounds ridiculous because it is. The default is religion does not cause abortions, if someone wants to claim a link, they need to demonstrate that link.

The default is always things are not related or they do not exist without evidence, else why don't you show me that unicorns do not exist. It's like, any idea that pops into their head is good enough to get behind.....and if you can find one argument that makes sense to you, you're laughing.

I would encourage you to do some reading or watch a video on hypothesis testing.

It makes me giggle when someone puts a claim on CF and then, when you dispute it,they to tell you to prove them wrong.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

It makes me giggle when someone puts a claim on CF and then, when you dispute it,they to tell you to prove them wrong.

I think it's funny when someone tries to call me stupid but then does the same thing he just tried to call me stupid for, which is exactly what SM did. I made a claim based on my own opinion. He is making a claim based on...what, exactly? He said they are CLEARLY not related. If they are clearly not related then there has to be evidence out there that shows that.

So, if he gets to have an opinion without facts, so do I.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

It makes me giggle when someone puts a claim on CF and then, when you dispute it,they to tell you to prove them wrong.

Especially when neither side can verify if what they are posting is accurate or not...

 

[SummerMadness]

I think it's funny when someone tries to call me stupid but then does the same thing he just tried to call me stupid for, which is exactly what SM did. I made a claim based on my own opinion. He is making a claim based on...what, exactly? He said they are CLEARLY not related. If they are clearly not related then there has to be evidence out there that shows that.

So, if he gets to have an opinion without facts, so do I.

I'm not calling you stupid, I am simply explaining how science, law and mathematics has worked for centuries. You are arguing a logical fallacy, the evidence of absence.

Do abortion rates and suicide rates correlate well with each other? The answer is no, hence claiming they are linked as a statement of fact is foolish. No one is calling you stupid if they point out logical fallacies in your argument, they are simply pointing out the logical fallacy.

 

[SummerMadness]

Especially when neither side can verify if what they are posting is accurate or not...

Both "sides" are not equivalent. "A causes B" and "A does not cause B" are not swappable null hypotheses.

 

[revanneosl]

I really wish that somebody could provide me a link to the actual study itself, with the data tables included. I clicked through to the CDC website, but it only provided front-page conclusions.

I want to see the table. Most especially, I want to see more information on what sorts of deaths are classified as suicide by suffocation, and I want to see the data crosstabs broken down by race.

 

[Murby]

This sounds like a bit of a caricature. I have been through TERRIBLE times and I, as a Christian have never, ever heard those words.

Well this didn't take long:
Link Deleted: There was a thread on this website that just popped up "Why does god hate me".

Honestly, I'm having a hard time believing that you've never heard phrases such as this before..

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I'm not calling you stupid, I am simply explaining how science, law and mathematics has worked for centuries. You are arguing a logical fallacy, the evidence of absence.

Do abortion rates and suicide rates correlate well with each other? The answer is no, hence claiming they are linked as a statement of fact is foolish. No one is calling you stupid if they point out logical fallacies in your argument, they are simply pointing out the logical fallacy.

What is your evidence of this? Is it YOUR opinion? Or do you have evidence?

Why is it okay for YOU to make a statement without evidence but not me? Why do I have to be "intellectually dishonest" because of it?

Also, I never ever stated that it was a FACT. I said early on it was my opinion. YOU are the one presenting it as fact, along with your "opinion" that they're not correlated at all.

If you're going to accuse me of that, don't then do the same thing yourself.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Both "sides" are not equivalent. "A causes B" and "A does not cause B" are not swappable null hypotheses.

Me: "I believe the rise in suicide can be linked to the cultural norms for abortions and euthanasia."

You: "Suicide is not linked to the cultural norms for abortions and euthanasia."

Don't try to twist your own words around.

 

[revanneosl]

Wow that is some seriously bad theology there, and it's totally messing with this poor guy's worldview.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Well this didn't take long:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-does-god-hate-me.7943601/

Honestly, I'm having a hard time believing that you've never heard phrases such as this before..

Can you please not link to people in the recovery forum?

 

[revanneosl]

Me: "I believe the rise in suicide can be linked to the cultural norms for abortions and euthanasia."

You: "Suicide is not linked to the cultural norms for abortions and euthanasia."

Don't try to twist your own words around.

You asserted that there was a correlation. Someone challenged you to demonstrate it using data. You refused to do so. Don't try to twist this conversation around.