the ‘men are more likely to commit suicide’ in defense for MRAs is fucking stupid because they fail to count suicide attempts. Which is more prominent in women. Men just happen to pick the most lethal methods of suicide.
It’s not a “defense of MRAs” It’s a legit issue. Men are killing themselves of at close to 4 times the rate women are. Plus the whole “women attempt more” is smoke and mirrors to try and minimize and make the issue of men killing themselves seem less important. Something you seem all to happy to help with.
What do I mean it’s smoke and mirrors? Because the source intentionally interprets the data to make the talking point. The source of the claim attempt 3 times as often is this page. Which has a funny little clause at the bottom:
“494,169 people visited a hospital for injuries due to self-harm. This
number suggests that approximately 12 people harm themselves for every
reported death by suicide. However, because of the way these data are
collected, we are not able to distinguish intentional suicide attempts
from non-intentional self-harm behaviors.“
So what does that mean? It means they are guessing at best, and willfully misleading(lying) at worst. They say it right there, because of the way the data is collected there the woman who came in with a broken toe after she stubbed(non-intentional self harm) it is counted as a suicide attempt. It is given equal weight to real attempts like downing a bottle of sleeping pills. It also doesn’t account for women who survive making multiple attempts.
Please let me know the exact number of men who have to kill themselves in comparison to women before it’s okay to try and help them? it’s already at least 4 to 1. Does it need to be 10 times higher than women? Let me know exactly how many men add up to the value of a single woman in your eyes so we know when it’s okay with you personally to help suicidal men.
That last line fucked me up
“
they fail to count suicide attempts. Which is more prominent in women. Men just happen to pick the most lethal methods of suicide.”
yes, dude, that’s the problem.
the men are succeeding at killing themselves more often.
that’s why it’s more alarming, dude.
BECAUSE WE CAN’T HELP DEAD PEOPLE.
I remember seeing one variation of this post where someone said something along the lines of…
“The reason women have more attempts is because they fail to kill themselves. Men have less because they succeed. How many more times can a corpse try to kill itself?”
Essentially saying that the only reason women have more attempts is because they didn’t succeed the first time so its really not proof that they are more at risk, just that they are either really bad at it or maybe not really trying, men succeed more so they don’t need to attempt more.
Good point, at the end of the day most of the time if someone wants to kill themselves they WILL manage, as sad as it is.
I don’t want to accuse people of faking anything but, back in high school self harm literally became a trend amongst most of the girls, and I knew quite a few who admitted to only doing it because of the trend.
“Women try more” is based on a faulty study that intentionally counted ANY self-inflicted injuries as a suicide attempt, including motherfucking BUMPING YOUR TOE ON THE TABLE.
Reminds me of the faulty “1 in 4 college women are raped” studies that counted women who later went back and slept with their supposed “rapists” several times, and didn’t even know they counted.
Especially because a bunch of opportunistic shit heads try to make a political point on a national tragedy, by reducing it to a set of variables you can spew at our idiot friends. For example… Date rape and marital rape are usually done by someone known to the victim. Including a significant other.
Or for example: More gun deaths can be attributed to veterans then adorable children who misfire their dad’s guns… who had access to their own weapon. And countries who had stricter gun control had less male suicide.
No one wants to think about these things. THey want to own people on twitter and not realize that you have to give things up to change things, so shut up if you don’t want things to actually change and prefer unlimited corporate growth, and whatever. Its irritating. Left and right is the same.
>
More gun deaths can be attributed to veterans then adorable children who misfire their dad’s guns… who had access to their own weapon.
Specifically, most firearms deaths are from suicide. For basically everyone, including kids. Since that’s not intuitive, a lot of anti-gun people like to use ‘gun deaths’ instead of ‘gun murders’ stats to pad the numbers.
>And countries who had stricter gun control had less male suicide.
Wikipedia says Russia, Lithuania, and Guyana are the top three. And all three of those are strict gun control countries.
Emotions, “Feelings” are real but that doesn’t mean they’re realistic. The best example here would be a dog. Now, it could be the friendliest, gentlest dog on earth and someone can *Still* be afraid of it – especially if they’re just the type to normally be afraid of dogs. Their fear is real but it doesn’t correlate to anything in the real world: The dog is not a threat.
Gun nutters are inwardly focused. They operate on the basis of feelings, which are purely internal, and don’t prepare for things that are actually happening in the real world. This is why they need bigger & bigger guns with more & more ammunition; because they’re not focused on the world, what they may or may not encounter, but their feelings.
The choices that gun nutters make, their decisions, map inward to their emotions instead of outward to any realistic threat that they might face.
Ironic, isn’t it, that the gun nuts, who are usually conservative, operate mentally in the exact same way as any SJW/Antifa bed wetter…
“Deer guberment.
Am vury afrade of big gunz. Peas ban.
Love Elmer Fudd.”
I do gotta hand it to this guy, he is quite dedicated to being consistently wrong and lacking in any understanding of what and who he’s arguing against.
But for the most part I’m just kinda tired of the headaches his posts give me.
“
Gun nutters are inwardly focused. They operate on the basis of feelings, which are purely internal, and don’t prepare for things that are actually happening in the real world.
“
As opposed to…the people who are irrationally afraid of guns, which would be more akin to the dog analogy?
Goddamn, pornbots on this site have more self-awareness than these people
^ in which an anti-gun fudd describes the vast majority of anti-gun activists
It’s funny because we have empirical evidence that there’s plenty of threat out there to your average person, and that law abiding gun owners often do use their firearms to defend themselves. It’s objectively true that more defensive gun use happens per year than gun crimes. It’s also objectively true that the vast majority of gun owners aren’t shooting anyone, let alone committing mass shootings.
But, you know, catch me surprised that this dude is spouting this kind of soapbox nonsense in between boomer memes and photos of women’s assholes.
The best example here would be a gun. Now, it could be the friendliest, gentlest gun on earth and someone can *Still* be afraid of it – especially if they’re just the type to normally be afraid of guns. Their fear is real but it doesn’t correlate to anything in the real world: The gun is not a threat.
Yeah, that totally refutes what I said, as controversial as it was, you totally got me there…
Yeah, ‘cuz you’re TOTALY not mad that he’s right lmao
“
The best example here would be a gun. Now, it could be the friendliest, gentlest gun on earth and someone can *Still* be afraid of it – especially if they’re just the type to normally be afraid of guns. Their fear is real but it doesn’t correlate to anything in the real world: The gun is not a threat.
“
Not only is this exceptionally telling to point out the hypocrisy in OP’s statement, but I’ll add to it. A dog of any disposition has, by nature, a greater element of chaos and unpredictability to it than a firearm. You use the example of the best trained, gentlest dog in the world and then use that example as a reason it is unreasonable for someone to be afraid of the dog to which we can - I think - agree; this statement is a fairly cogent example of irrational fear.
However, this same dog, even if it is the best trained, even if it is the most gentle, is still more capable of doing harm to someone than a firearm. The reason is because the dog is capable of taking action alone, should it ever choose to. Should it ever become sufficiently afraid, should it ever reveal dormant violence, should it ever face the need to defend itself, the dog can attack at any moment.
A firearm cannot.
Thus, someone irrationally afraid of dogs, *still* has more rational cause to their fear than someone irrationally afraid of guns, because dogs are capable of violence and harm without any input from their owner. A firearm can only do harm through the direct action of a wielder.
If you want to have a discussion about dangerous individuals and what we can do to turn them into non-dangerous individuals, we can do that but this line of thinking of yours borders on hysteria.
I understand why people dislike leather and animal products. But leather is such a good resource? Like… My mom bought a sturdy leather coat in 1989. I’m in my 20’s and I now wear that coat. That’s a 30 year old coat? 30 years, two generations, one coat. Versus, like… A plastic one, that rips and gets thrown out, or releases bits into the ecosystem every time it’s washed, takes a billion years to decompose, lasts maybe a decade if you’re super duper careful, and uses oil products in it’s construction.
Like, yeah leather is expensive and comes from a living animal, and I’m not saying that you should go out and buy fifty fur and leather products for the he’ll of it, but like… Maybe the compromise is worth it?
One animal product, valued and respected and worn down for generations, versus like… Six plastic products that will never ever go away?
idk, I could be wrong.
this is why im so fucking pissed white colonial fucks and white vegans get so enraged at indigenous people for using hides/leather and animal bones as if that shit breaks or rips like cheap polyester does
Remember, kids:
It’s not “vegan wool”, it’s plastic.
It’s not “vegan leather”, it’s plastic.
It’s not “vegan fur”, it’s fucking plastic. It’s all plastic.
It’s
all fucking plastic, and every time you wash it, or damage it, or try
to dispose of it, that plastic winds up in the water, in the earth, in
the air.
Hell, the damage has already done when the
fucking thing’s been made. As the OP says, it’s all oil and oil
products; it creates pollution just to produce synthetic fabrics and
materials, even before you try to throw them away, which, I mean, good
luck with that.
A lot of vegan ideology is built up around a
very superficial set of ethics that are supposedly about protecting
animals, wildlife and the environment, but they fall apart when you look
even a little bit below the surface. Every time you eschew an
animal-based product in favour of something “synthetic” for the sake of
“saving an animal’s life”, you’re creating pollution and trash that
won’t go away for thousands of years, damaging the Earth and making life
so much worse for countless animals and people.
Think about this stuff more than not at all, please.
Eeeeeeverybody loves to get up my asshole because I wear fur. Yeah? Okay then.
When you live somewhere with -40C winter temperatures, you realize that pragmatism and warmth trump all other considerations.
I’m in and out of cars and buildings all day, every day. I have to dress for the weather and fur is hands down one of the warmest things you can wear — ask the fucking Inuit.
So you know what I do?
I check consignment stores. I check estate auctions. I get family heirloom furs.
I buy furs that are literally older than I am, in styles that would consign them to the dumpster, and then get them tailored to fit. My fur earmuffs? Salvaged fur from a coat that was ripped and functionally useless. My fur short coat? A fur that got raggedy and moth-eaten at the bottom and so was hemmed to hip height. My long fur coat is almost fifteen years older than I am, and I’m thirty one years old. Do that math.
So yes. I wear fur, because it fits my needs, my budget, and my ethics. The vegans wearing pleather can kick a brick. Only one of our coats is going to destroy the planet, and it isn’t my grandmother’s mink stole.
Not to mention the fact that buying these natural leather products from indigenous peoples both subverts capitalism (that wants you to buy cheap shit that breaks), and also supports indigenous communities and artisans.
I’m reading the notes and it’s really cute when people go “but use hemp! Use cotton! Try linen!”
Yeah?
Imma wear linen when the weather looks like this:
I am NOT going to wear hemp, linen or cotton when the weather looks like this:
(Also, as you say: it is possible to responsibly source ethical furs. I prefer furriers like Victoria Kakuktinniq, who is an Indigenous Inuit fashion designer who interprets traditional fur designs for a modern sensibility. The funds from her clothing — and from other northern Indigenous communities — allows those northern communities to maintain their cultural traditions, while also introducing a much-needed revenue stream. If you have to buy fresh fur, Indigenous furriers are a good bet!)
-reuse of fabrics and furs that are generally anywhere from 10-50 years old?
-recycling and repurposing of old or otherwise unusable materials like leather and fur to make smaller items like jackets, vests, gloves, hats and balaclavas?
-support for Indigenous traditions, handicrafts and artisans?
-recognition of the fact that there are very few plant-based products that will stand up to winters where the average temperature is anywhere from -20 to -50
I know, I know. Your ethics are itchy and it’s very simple to talk that good shit.
But let me introduce you to a Canadian phenomena: frostbite.
Frostbite occurs when your cells freeze. Your cells.
Ice crystals begin to form in cells in temperatures lower than -4C, which is what Canadians call “spring, fucking finally”.
In the teeth of winter, you get maybe ten hours of sunlight a day and your highest temperature is still double digits below 0C and the weather channel is saying “WEATHER WARNING: skin freezing in 30SECONDS”, and the government has put out a WEATHER EMERGENCY: EXTREME COLD WARNING.
When the weather is that severe, we don’t actually get the luxury of waxed cotton, woollen peacoats and a few layers of linen.
Sanctimony and sighs and good intentions don’t keep us warm.
Seriously, it hit -50F here last winter, linen and cotton don’t do fuckall in those temps.
Well, that’s not true. They DO, actually. They get wet from sweat and then get clammy and suck the heat out of you, leading to frostbite. Polyester is plastic, and I avoid that, because it’s bad for the environment.
You know what actually keeps you warm when it hits -50F? Wool, fur, and down. All animal products, all renewable and biodegradable, and all of which will last years with proper care.
I have two fur coats, both of which I paid $20 or less for at thrift stores, and both of which are vintage. Wool doesn’t harm the sheep it’s sheared from…they need to be sheared to stay healthy, actually…and down is harvested from animals that will be eaten, meaning none of the animal goes to waste.
Ah, yes. Truely, sheep live terribly. (Note; sheep wool is useless unles they have good pasture they’re raised on)
Ah, yes, the sheep are so mistreated when they’re sheared. A whole four minutes and they’re done. It’s like giving a fussy toddler a haircut.
And if they’re NOT shorn, you get flystrike, which I’m not going to post a pic of here because it is very unpleasant. Basically, flies lay eggs on the thick wool and the larvae eat the sheep’s skin off. It can be fatal.
But please, tell me, the granddaughter of farmers who lives in farm country and who has neighbors who keep sheep, how sheep work.
Don’t you love it when people city-splain how farming works to actual farmers?
That’s the best and only acceptable use of a word ending in -splain.
Amazing how folks managed to blame the problem on white people and white people alone.
And, of course, capitalism.
Despite it being a practice that predates capitalism, the notion of “white people”, and even recorded history….
And getting away from fur coats. Older style shoes/boots can also be more environmentally friendly because you can resole the same shoe for many years provided it is well cared for, potentially decades if you’re willing to get things repaired. Even if you use a rubber sole, it is still the only thing discarded.
The increased cost is mainly due to labour, not increased use of resources.
