Slashdot Mirror

An economy which has the wealth concentrated in the few is going to suffer because it has a poorer middle class.

Most of your rant is about equality being a good thing — and I absolutely agree with it. What I disapprove, however, is the government's pursuit of artificial equality. The difference is that of between healthy green grass, and not-so-healthy painted grass.

In other words, it is great, if citizens are equally rich naturally, but any attempts to make them equal by the government only make them equally poor. This is because you can not make people more productive, if they don't pursue that themselves. But you can confiscate from the productive — and this is your only instrument towards equality...

But you don't see the effective tax rate they are paying in the end. Turns out they get taxed much less than someone in the middle class like me.

It is patently obvious, that "the rich" pay a lot more in both absolute ($$) and relative (%%) terms in taxes. Both on income and on property. If your point is about something else, you don't articulate it...

If the public school system didn't exist, then some would get no education at all which would have an extremely negative impact on society.

We have a public school system, and some still don't get education "at all". As recently as in 2003 — decades after public school system was created — New York (of all places) was still blamed for school children "not receiving the constitutionally-mandated opportunity for a sound basic education". We are at the very top of spenders per pupil world-wide (and New York is at the top among the States), but there are still major gaps in educations with kids barely learning, how to put on a condom — forget adding fractions...

Government-provided health-care will be no different...

Record profits for people who tell you you can't have insurance because you are pregnant or you were raped.

That's right — you can not buy insurance for a car after the accident either. You can still get treatment (and repair your car) — you'll just have to pay for it yourself. And if you "can't afford it", then what you are asking for is charity. We, Americans, are very charitable on average, but we don't like it, when we are forced to help the poor at gunpoint (i.g. via the IRS).

As for their "record profits" — that's simply irrelevant. Oh, and it is also not true...

Capitalism and socialism are not inherently good or evil.

Socialism is inherently evil. First of all, by taking from work to console the idle it is patently unfair. And second — as Socialist countries world-wide demonstrate — it is also ineffective. At best, a Socialist country can survive economically. But it has no money to defend itself. Capitalism, on the other hand, not gives fair opportunities, but also provides enormous economic benefits even to the least successful of its participants. Forcing Socialism on a Capitalist society — using a temporary crisis, whenever convenient — is evil.

We don't want to cut off Phelps arm to make him slower. We want to make sure that if there is some minority kid out there that is faster than him, that he gets that same chance to compete.

Michael Phelps is a son of a policeman and a school principal. His parents divorced, when he was 9. He has an arrest record... And yet, he achieve

I'm not too sure about that.

I seem to remember a NatGeo show about prison in Australia. The majority of inmates were back in prison for another crime after being released. Rehab doesn't seem to be any more effective there.

As far as actual crime goes, Australia has a very low rate for gun crimes. Having said that, they apparently are near the top of the list (Top 5) for Assault, Burglary, Rape and overall percentage of citizens victimized.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/as-australia/cri-crime&all=1

This assumes the mentioned site is on the up-and-up. I'm not aware of any bias from that site, but I'm sure someone will happily point it out if there is.

There we go:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_tan_percap-military-tanks-per-capita

We've got 54 tanks per million people, China has 8. Our pop / China's pop = 0.23
0.23 * 54 = 12.

So we have 50% more tanks than China. I bet our tanks are better.

The university attendance rate over there must be exceptionally low?

In 2007, 27% of Americans had a bachelor degree or higher, and 54% had "some college or more" which includes associate degrees and those who attempted college but failed. 10% of Americans have a degree beyond the bachelors.

84% of Americans have graduated from high school.

In an international comparison in 2000, 37% of Americans have reached a "tertiary" level of education, compared with 29% in Australia.

Currently 68.6% of recent high school graduates were attending college in October 2008.

So it appears that college cost may be less of a problem than it may appear...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/gov_cor-government-corruption

Finland, nr2 least corrupt country in the world? :D

OK, 2005 statistics, and clearly incomplete (hardly any African countries represented) but: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mor_lac_of_foo-mortality-lack-of-food Shows a total of 298 starvation deaths for 2005. Boy, I'm really upset about that. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070327044448AAMio1U Suggests there are 1-2K deaths from plague each year. Now, in the US, there are approximately 10,000 deaths each year attributed to falls. Don't see you getting all worked up over ladders and stairs, there, bunky.

Your assumption is, at least according to Nationmaster, upside-down: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/int_hos-internet-hosts The US still hosts the majority of websites in the world.

Please forgive me if I gave the I gave the impression that I believe there is only one problem in our school systems. This was one of the problems I encountered on a regular basis while attending our fine public schools. Even in the honors and AP classes and I was not the most brilliant student in the school.

What I do believe is the approach to education in the United States is structurally flawed and arguments such as smaller class size and more funding will fix the problem are a joke. If that is true, why do schools in other countries with a larger average class size that spend less per student consistently outperform US students?

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/class-size-around-the-world/

These are the latest figures I could find for per student spending around the world. They are old...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-student

There is also the problem that many Americans are inherently selfish. This results in "school funding being tied directly with property taxes" and "parents having to work three jobs to make ends meet, making them too tired when they get home to give a shit about if their kids did their homework."

low teacher salaries

The US leads the world in absolute levels of teacher salaries, and is about even with most other large economies if you measure by percent of GDP per capita in a country (though maximum teacher pay as measured as percent GDP per capita is a bit higher in Japan and Germany).

What's more, Japan averages 35.5 students per class, compared to 18.3 in the US, so their teachers are teaching twice the number of students.

allows the government to strip you of your freedom without the consent of your fellow citizens.

Erm. Why is the "consent" of your fellow citizens needed? Laws - in any democratic country - are crafted by people who have been democratically selected to represent the people. If someone breaks these laws he/she deserves a punishment. However, wether or not he indeed commited the crime he is acused of is not a matter of oppinion. Why should it be open for a vote? There either is or is not enough evidence to condemn the man, and people who have been given the proper training in lgeal issues (ie. judges and prosecutors) should be able to determine that.

By giving complete laymen control over wether or not the suspect is guilty, an additional factor is added to the process. Trials are not only about reviewing the evidence, they're about convincing people that your view is correct. It's a show where both sides have to try to appeal to the basic human insticts like empathy. Both sides are trying to manipulate the jury's feelings and because emotions affect one's judgement the decissions of the jury could be far from objective (of course a trial can never be 100% objective, but I still don't think that a jury based system is the best alternative).

I say it's not the best alternative because it isn't working that well. In fact I'd go as far as saying that it's a failure, since the USA has the highest murder rate of all the industrialized countries, the highest amount of prisoners in the world. Especially the latter statistic is in my oppinion partially explained by the fact that people seek revenge, they want the "bad guys" off the streets and hence a jury of laymen is more likely to find a man guilty than a system which doesn't use juries.

For example: Germany - and many other European countries - uses a system where the judge is assisted by two lay judges on the lowest level and two other judges on higher levels of the legal system. Germany has nearly six times lower murder rate than the USA and only 1/7 of the prisoner amount of the USA.

So could someone please explain why is this "consent of one's fellow citizens" a good thing for the criminal (who is more likely to get imprisoned) and most importantly for the society itself since it doesn't seem to be very effecting in reducing crimes?

Way too slow. And it does not account for those most prominent jaywalkers - children.

Instead - put sensors in the middle of the road - except in the areas designated for crossing.
Walk over a sensor - get a fine charged instantly to your mobile phone.

- It would also charge drivers? Not if they turn their phones off - they shouldn't be talking/texting and driving anyway.
- It wouldn't charge people with their phones off or with a protective layer around the phone? Well... If they are really willing to take that much preparation just to cross the street in a non-designated spot... they will probably pay enough attention so as not to be run over by an incoming truck. Which is what jaywalking fine is there to prevent anyway, right?
- It would only charge people with mobile phones? Sure... it might not work great in Myanmar but considering that there are about 3.5 billion users now, with predictions of about 4.5 billion by 2012...
- It would take years to implement? Exactly! By then EVERYONE will have a mobile phone. Or two. Or three.

 
What other minor infringements did you have in mind? Spit it out. Lets get a brainstorming session going.
This IS Slashdot after all. If anyone can cook-up a way to use technology in new and oppressive ways - it's us.

You can simply look at the economic history of the last thirty years, and compare America to Canada, England, France, and Germany. America now has the highest unemployment

Actually American has the lowest unemployment of the countries you mentioned. See this for example.

the linked wiki article refers to a small arms survey. this survey is based on manufacture and importation. It routinely states that it makes no distinction between illicit guns and legally purchased ones. So this is total guns.

I think not. The article in question does not mention manufacture or importation, infact it expressly says "ownership", as in bought and paid for from a store. AU, US and UK track this information at least at the retail level. The article also does not cover guns that are already in the world, so manufacture and legal importation does not account for already existing firearms and again is not representative of the actual number of firearms in the nations in question, the article itself says so. Your article is not, by its own admission not "total guns" in a given country.

You said that corpses are much easier to count. Why is the united states with less than 5% of the global population and between 35-50% of the worlds small arms not just full of bodies in the streets.

If we compare firearm deaths between 1st world nations, such as Australia and the US there is a huge increase in the number of murders by firearm per 100,000 pop and the firearm death in total rate. The US has a higher body count then any western nation including Northern Ireland.

As I said previously, the problem with firearm deaths in the US is not so much gun ownership but gun culture, if the US implemented a proper firearm legal code and instituted licensing for firearm ownership this would reduce the death by accident rate a great deal and reduce the firearm crime rate as well. The figure for Australian death by firearm in the Wikipedia page was from 1994, this was before the assault rifle ban (1996), since then the number of firearm deaths have decreased.

It's too bad that you live in a country with such oppressive firearm laws that you have to purchase on the street from corrupt police officers.

I don't live in Thailand, I only visit there but Thailand its just a good example of how things go wrong. Secondly the firearm laws are not that harsh, they are in fact not enforced so no matter how harsh they are doesn't matter. I thought you'd get the part about buying off a corrupt officer would indicate that the laws are enforced selectively (also how stupid it would be to do so), Allow me to say this clearly, in Thailand like most third world nations, laws are enforced selectively mainly depending on how much money a police officer can extort from you. Think Mexico with nicer people.

Lots of guns do not make you safe and only ensure that when (that is when not if) the powder keg finally goes off it will hurt a lot of people. The US is accustomed to mass shootings where as the western world isn't, when a mass shooting occurs in Australia or Germany it's big news.

There's plenty of good data out there if you want to look for it.

this number is not a representation of the percentage of people who possess guns in each nation.

Shock horror, survey about legally obtained guns does not show illegally obtained guns. This was also in bold.

It doesn't occur to you that countries like Thailand or South Africa aren't able to competently track gun ownership. As a westerner in Thailand, I am able to purchase a handgun from as little as THB 1500 (about 30 USD) often sold by the police themselves. Of course this makes you a target for the same corrupt police officer to scam you (with threats of jail time for possessing an illegal weapon).

Also talk to a Saffa (Aussie term for a South African), if you aren't packing in joburg you're doing something wrong. How do you think these nations maintain a high rate of gun crime with so few guns. Thailand is number 1, South Africa number 2 and the third spot is taken by Columbia.. One of the statistics must be wrong and corpses are a lot easier to count.

The only oddity in this list is that South Africa has not been involved in a large scale conflict, many of the guns floating around SE Asia are Vietnam era (both US and Soviet), Columbia has been fighting a guerrilla war on and off for decades.

And before you tell me that US citizens with guns are unable to stop a military coup, It seems that a hand full of militants in Afghanistan and Iraq have given the US military a lot of work lately.

It's a lot different when firing on your own people. It's easy to overthrow an invader but when fighting a nations own army, the army will fight with even more desperation as they have nowhere to retreat to. With any just civil war, you will find the army (or at least large tracts of that army) will be fighting with the non-governmental side (OK this happens with unjust civil wars too). Just what did you think happened with the large Taliban and Iraqi armies after their regimes were toppled?

France, Germany and the UK all have very high obesity rates as well. I think Germany's is actually worse than the US.

UK has fairly high obesity rates, but 25% lower than the US. France and Germany are much lower. The US is on top.

Yes doubt. Doubt yourself.

US prison statistics show a systematic problem in the US. On average they have about 5x as much prisoners per capita than most other 'normal' places.

E.g. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita (I didn't verify their source).

The US has more immigration, for one thing

No, it doesn't: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_net_mig_rat-immigration-net-migration-rate http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_for_pop-immigration-foreign-population

Yes, it does. Those statistics don't count illegal immigration, and despite that the U.S. immigrant population percentage is still higher than every European country other than Luxembourg and Switzerland (second list), and the immigrants in those two countries are typically wealthy to begin with. Since the comparison here was between the U.S. and Europe, the greater immigration rate does make a difference. I'm not making a point one way or another about the merits of immigration policy, but these are facts that need to be taken into account when evaluating health care outcomes. Has someone found any sort of comparison in health outcomes between insured, median-income, non-obese, non-smoking, non-alcoholic citizens of various countries? Until we have seen this data, how can we separate the gross statistics currently reported into the effects of: a) Access to health care. b) Quality of health care for those with access. c) Lifestyle choices.

The US has more immigration, for one thing

No, it doesn't: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_net_mig_rat-immigration-net-migration-rate http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_for_pop-immigration-foreign-population

Yes, it does. Those statistics don't count illegal immigration, and despite that the U.S. immigrant population percentage is still higher than every European country other than Luxembourg and Switzerland (second list), and the immigrants in those two countries are typically wealthy to begin with. Since the comparison here was between the U.S. and Europe, the greater immigration rate does make a difference. I'm not making a point one way or another about the merits of immigration policy, but these are facts that need to be taken into account when evaluating health care outcomes. Has someone found any sort of comparison in health outcomes between insured, median-income, non-obese, non-smoking, non-alcoholic citizens of various countries? Until we have seen this data, how can we separate the gross statistics currently reported into the effects of: a) Access to health care. b) Quality of health care for those with access. c) Lifestyle choices.

Hi. Canadian here. Not sure where you're getting your numbers. The idea that Canadians have more firearms per-capita than Americans is something that needs a really really good citation. This article from Reuters says the US has 90 guns per 100 Americans and Canada has 30 guns per hundred Canadians. I did find a reference to your murder rate numbers.

"the US has more people who have no coverage than the entire population of Canada" - Um, I think California has more people than the entire population of Canada - yep, Wikipedia says California has 36.7 million and Canada has 31.6 million. So this is a pointless statement.

Now, there has been a lot of misinformation in the US news about Canada, and particularly the Canadian health care system. First of all, the system being proposed in the US is *not* a universal health care system like Canada has. In my opinion, as a person who has used both a US "HMO" and the Canadian system, the Canadian system only works because (a) you can't "get ahead" by scamming the health care system. Remember the Canadian system doesn't include medications, so there's no scamming pain meds or anything. You basically get doctor's visits and hospital visits paid for. Not sure about you, but I want to spend as little time in those places as possible, so there's little incentive for people to "scam more health care" from the system, and (b) EVERYONE has to use the system. This includes the hospital administrators, the politicians, their families, etc. There's a built in incentive for everyone to make the system work well, because everyone has to use it at some point in their life.

I'm a fiscal conservative, so public health care is something I look on skeptically, but I have to tell you that the Canadian system is brilliant. It needs constant supervision and tweaking, but it really is great. I've started to realize that while I'm generally pro-market, the one place I really think it makes sense to socialize is any type of insurance. Look at insurance this way: everyone is supposed to agree to share the cost of some high risk, low occurrence event, like theft, fire, accident, or health related expense. In an ideal world, the amount paid to cover expenses is equal to the amount that people have to put into the pot, perhaps adjusted by their risk level (so choosing to live in an earthquake zone or choosing to smoke might cost you more). Obviously it takes effort to administer such a program (you have to prevent fraud, keep track of the money, etc.) but this shouldn't be much more than the overhead expense of a well run charity, some of which frequently have administrative expense ratios below 5%. But then you throw insurance companies into the mix and they realize that their entire reason for existing (profit) is to maximize the amount going into the pot and minimize the amount going out. Therefore, they hire armies of lawyers, draft convoluted insurance policies, spend exorbitant sums on marketing, and ultimately none of that money and effort is being spent on bettering the world, like it would be if we spent it building infrastructure or investing in new technologies, like "good" companies do. The number I've seen is that insurance companies have administrative ratios of 30% to 50%.

If you go into my doctor's office in Canada, there is one woman behind the counter doing all the paperwork for the entire practice. Walk into a US doctor's office and there's at least 3. That's because if you're a doctor in Canada, you have one insurance company to deal with, and if you're a doctor in the US you have hundreds, and you have to narrow it down to maybe 30 or 40 that you're going to deal with. You have to be familiar with all those different forms, etc. That a huge overhead expense, and it doesn't contribute to providing the patient with better healthcare (indeed, it makes it harder to get effective

The US has more immigration, for one thing

No, it doesn't:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_net_mig_rat-immigration-net-migration-rate
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_for_pop-immigration-foreign-population

The US has more immigration, for one thing

No, it doesn't:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_net_mig_rat-immigration-net-migration-rate
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_for_pop-immigration-foreign-population

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita%5D

There you go - I've done half of your homework for you. Read, draw conclusions, then come back and start making claims.

Meanwhile - I'll tell you a little story.

Walked into a McDonald's late one night, in New York City. NY, of course, has just about the most restrictive firearms laws in the nation. A young man fumbled in his jacket pocket for some change, and dropped a little bitty pistol on the floor across the room from me. The guy scared me - looked like some kind of a dopehead freak, real nervous, obviuosly not smart because he carried the pistol loose in a pocket, AND he dropped the damned thing. Yes, I was scared.

Walked into a cafe in the panhandle of Texas for breakfast some months later. Every redneck in the joint had a firearm. Maybe 8 guys had pistols strapped to their hips, and every single truck in the parking lot had a rifle or two in racks. I felt perfectly safe among these people. No fear, no unease, no tightening of the sphincter. Before anyone asks, NONE of these men had badges - they were all cattlemen and ranch hands.

I don't get where you get this stat...the US Federal govt spends money on medicare, medicade (only for the very poor, and one for the elderly), and the VA (Veterans Admin).

Amazing, isn't it? I justy found this table:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_pub_per_cap-care-funding-public-per-capita
US public health spending ranks third after Iceland and Germany, ahead of such well-known "socialists" France and Norway.
Wikipedia has "federal government 34%, state and local governments 11%," so 44% of ~$4600 is $2000 per capita gov't spending. This is similar to Australia's total spend, public, insurance, and private out-of-pocket all added up.

I can't provide you a link to this as I'm not sure what the parent alludes to, but there are many statistics that show that homicides in the USA are easily 10x those in countries with stricter gun control laws.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita
United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people

As you can see there are twice as many murders by firearms in the USA as there are murders in the UK, and the amount of people getting killed by firearms in the UK is less then 4% of what it is in the USA.

It might not be the only factor, but I do think that the widespread availability of firearms in the USA is a large part in it's very high murder numbers.

I can't provide you a link to this as I'm not sure what the parent alludes to, but there are many statistics that show that homicides in the USA are easily 10x those in countries with stricter gun control laws.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita
United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people

As you can see there are twice as many murders by firearms in the USA as there are murders in the UK, and the amount of people getting killed by firearms in the UK is less then 4% of what it is in the USA.

It might not be the only factor, but I do think that the widespread availability of firearms in the USA is a large part in it's very high murder numbers.

Does the US have the same oil and natural gas resources as Norway? No.

What?!

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_pro-energy-oil-production

The United States is the third-largest oil producing country in the world, far higher than Norway. The US is also sixth in the world in natural gas reserves; Norway is 16th.

And yet, miraculously, their homicide rate per capita would still be THREE TIMES less than the USA...

High unemployment (average of double digit unemployment over the past 20 years or so). High taxes, including a 20% VAT, 40% income tax, 12% social tax, just to name a few. Higher crime rates (with a source). I could go on.

And what if I want to work more than 35 hours a week (I do)? Who are you to tell me I should legally not be allowed to?
What if I want to work more than 47 weeks a year (I do)? Who are you to tell me I should legally not be allowed to?
Your definition of free is sorely mistaken (see taxes above, large copayments (10-40%), and >90% with private insurance).

Amusing although more than half (66%) of the world's population actually does drive on the left but that is besides the point.

Population of people, or of cars?

No fair counting India where the number of people greatly exceeds the number of cars -- vehicles per capita is 12 out of 1000 versus the US where it is 765 per 1000.

The food quality nor life style is particular different in Canada.

In case anyone's curious, some stats showing food/lifestyle/crime differences between the US and Canada which have an impact on life expectancy:

* % Obesity: 30.6% in US, 14.3% in Canada
* traffic deaths per capita: 17.5 deaths per million in US, 6.4 deaths per million in Canada
* Murders per capita: 0.043 per 1000 people in US, 0.015 per 1000 people in Canada

The food quality nor life style is particular different in Canada.

In case anyone's curious, some stats showing food/lifestyle/crime differences between the US and Canada which have an impact on life expectancy:

* % Obesity: 30.6% in US, 14.3% in Canada
* traffic deaths per capita: 17.5 deaths per million in US, 6.4 deaths per million in Canada
* Murders per capita: 0.043 per 1000 people in US, 0.015 per 1000 people in Canada

The food quality nor life style is particular different in Canada.

In case anyone's curious, some stats showing food/lifestyle/crime differences between the US and Canada which have an impact on life expectancy:

* % Obesity: 30.6% in US, 14.3% in Canada
* traffic deaths per capita: 17.5 deaths per million in US, 6.4 deaths per million in Canada
* Murders per capita: 0.043 per 1000 people in US, 0.015 per 1000 people in Canada

Well, CO2 emissions perhaps , but take a look at coal production :

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie/ene_coa_pro-energy-coal-production

China 44.5%
United States 10.7%

By what objective metric can you say that the American culture is clearly more violent than Japanese culture?

Violent crime statistics?

Take a look at the Assault, Rape, and Murder statistics.

But, no, let's go with what passes for entertainment in those countries. Because that is much more representative of culture than, you know, how people actually act.

Of course, everyone fails to mention that Japan has the lowest rape rate per capita in the world.

"Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence."

In other words, Japan has one of the lowest rates of reporting rape to the authorities, and/or one of the lowest rates of rape investigation by the authorities. This is not the same as having the lowest rape rate per capita.

So that fact that Japan has the lowest rate of rape in the world is just a coincidence?

Yeah, the nation that first embraced liberalism, both in sex and society, sticking to its roots, and avoiding the "evil" label stamped on all sex, especially that not used for reproduction, by post-Victorian prudes. Imagine that.

Of course, everyone fails to mention that Japan has the lowest rape rate per capita in the world. Perhaps it has something to do with the availability of such materials to quench the urge of would be rapists?

Link from the first result searching google with "rape statistics by country", sans quotes.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_vic-crime-rape-victims

Now, while I can't say that it definitely lowers the amount of rape that occurs, I think it's fairly safe to say that in Japan's case, it doesn't increase the number of rapes either.

Maybe it's because Japan has one of the lowest rape per capita countries.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

Hence the need to relief these urges virtually. That would be a good thing, no??

I disagree. What is considered "rape" can vary greatly by culture and legal definition. A report that came out not too long ago concluded that Sweden was the rape capital of Europe and had 4 times as many rapes as neighboring Denmark and Finland. As the article I linked pointed out, "In Swedish rape law, the word [rape] can be used for acts called assault or bodily harm in other countries." For example, the German word Vergewaltigung basically only means physical force being used to achieve intercourse, much different from the American definition which can include alcohol, etc. Therefore I think it is advised that you take these numbers with a large grain of salt, especially given that the Japanese definitely have their own problems with unwanted sexual advances, like having women-only railcars to cut down on groping. The statistics on Nation Master also show that Canada has more than twice as many rapes per capital than the US, which causes me to be suspicious of the whole thing in the first place.

In reference to people being horrified by rape more than murder/killing, as I pointed out last time there is NOTHING a women could do to justify someone raping her. Killing is generally sugar-coated in video games to include some kind of necessity for the killing. Even in Manhunt you're basically being forced to kill to win your freedom and you're already desensitized to killing in video games in the first place since you're used to war games, where you have to take out the enemy before they take you out, so the idea of killing someone in a game doesn't seem all too foreign. There's no such thing as "justifiable rape", thus it's important not to confuse societal hang-ups about sex (which are often silly and misguided) with disgust at rape (which is there for a good reason).

Reporting bias and Living out your fantasies does not add up to the difference either.

Living out your fantasies did not even begin to occur in Japan till recently. Have rape rates gone down?

Your deduction is not so clear as you perceive.

As far as reporting rates go, check out this: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

Look at the countries near Japan. India? Turkey? Qatar? etc. Reporting bias is either pretty damn substantial or these countries are safe havens for women.

If anything, it is cultural and biological factors play bigger parts in these figures. Not the freedom to play video games or watch porn.

In extreme cases, it may even be a way for sexual misfits to satisfy their urges without harming actual, living people, letting them be functional members of society.

I'm gonna second that, and the statistics seem to back this.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html

This page http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita reports similar numbers. There might be some issues with how the data is collected and there might be a trend for rape to get less reported in Japan, but still the numbers are striking.

OK, I'll bite.

You need to check out the spending per capita on healthcare. Look for the US. Now look for the UK and Canada... keep looking... yup, there they are, right there near the bottom of the Western Nations. It's not about magic, it's about having a healthcare system that's primarily focused on the patient rather than on the profit.

No system is perfect, but the UK system does work, it's not just Michael Moore propaganda. And, don't forget, many individuals in the UK have private health insurance either individually or via their employer, which is good for them and good for the country because it's one less patient for the NHS.

The 2006 numbers that I found were from http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/cri-crime

After. The same guy also told me that Iran executes a lot of people. Occasionally they are proved innocent. The mullah's response to this is to wheel some old dude out who explains that according to Islam, innocent people who are executed go to heaven, as if that makes it all ok.

I've met other Iranians who left shortly after the revolution. They told me that back when the Shah was in power if you opposed him politically you would die, but if you stayed away from politics the regime stayed away from you. Post revolution gangs of thugs would beat up women for not wearing the veil, despite the fact that pre revolution Iran was a very westernised place. The same people wrecked the economy.

You can get some idea of what happened economically. Here's GDP per capita in 1979

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-per-capita&date=1979

45 Portugal: $2,635.28 per capita 1979
46 Malta: $2,520.73 per capita 1979
47 Argentina: $2,502.24 per capita 1979
48 Uruguay: $2,474.56 per capita 1979
49 Suriname: $2,469.56 per capita 1979
*** 50 Iran: $2,280.16 per capita 1979
51 South Africa: $2,076.28 per capita 1979
52 Mexico: $2,041.03 per capita 1979
53 Turkey: $2,025.00 per capita 1979
54 Seychelles: $2,001.91 per capita 1979

and here it is now

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-per-capita

100 Serbia and Montenegro: $3,453.28 per capita 2006
101 Algeria: $3,440.30 per capita 2006
102 Fiji: $3,305.98 per capita 2006
103 Peru: $3,287.74 per capita 2006
*** 104 Iran: $3,223.16 per capita 2006
105 Thailand: $3,186.54 per capita 2006
106 Dominican Republic: $3,180.89 per capita 2006
107 Namibia: $3,106.82 per capita 2006
108 Macedonia, Republic of: $3,050.85 per capita 2006
109 Ecuador: $3,041.85 per capita 2006
110 Tunisia: $2,990.30 per capita 2006
111 Colombia: $2,981.74 per capita 2006
112 Albania: $2,911.90 per capita 2006

Iran has slipped from 50 to 104. Before it was within spitting distance of Portugal, now it's heading towards Albania. Of course the people that took part in the revolution expected political liberalisation, not a descent into worse tyranny. It's quite possible that if the Islamists hadn't hijacked it, Iran would actually have ended up quite a decent place.

After. The same guy also told me that Iran executes a lot of people. Occasionally they are proved innocent. The mullah's response to this is to wheel some old dude out who explains that according to Islam, innocent people who are executed go to heaven, as if that makes it all ok.

I've met other Iranians who left shortly after the revolution. They told me that back when the Shah was in power if you opposed him politically you would die, but if you stayed away from politics the regime stayed away from you. Post revolution gangs of thugs would beat up women for not wearing the veil, despite the fact that pre revolution Iran was a very westernised place. The same people wrecked the economy.

You can get some idea of what happened economically. Here's GDP per capita in 1979

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-per-capita&date=1979

45 Portugal: $2,635.28 per capita 1979
46 Malta: $2,520.73 per capita 1979
47 Argentina: $2,502.24 per capita 1979
48 Uruguay: $2,474.56 per capita 1979
49 Suriname: $2,469.56 per capita 1979
*** 50 Iran: $2,280.16 per capita 1979
51 South Africa: $2,076.28 per capita 1979
52 Mexico: $2,041.03 per capita 1979
53 Turkey: $2,025.00 per capita 1979
54 Seychelles: $2,001.91 per capita 1979

and here it is now

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-per-capita

100 Serbia and Montenegro: $3,453.28 per capita 2006
101 Algeria: $3,440.30 per capita 2006
102 Fiji: $3,305.98 per capita 2006
103 Peru: $3,287.74 per capita 2006
*** 104 Iran: $3,223.16 per capita 2006
105 Thailand: $3,186.54 per capita 2006
106 Dominican Republic: $3,180.89 per capita 2006
107 Namibia: $3,106.82 per capita 2006
108 Macedonia, Republic of: $3,050.85 per capita 2006
109 Ecuador: $3,041.85 per capita 2006
110 Tunisia: $2,990.30 per capita 2006
111 Colombia: $2,981.74 per capita 2006
112 Albania: $2,911.90 per capita 2006

Iran has slipped from 50 to 104. Before it was within spitting distance of Portugal, now it's heading towards Albania. Of course the people that took part in the revolution expected political liberalisation, not a descent into worse tyranny. It's quite possible that if the Islamists hadn't hijacked it, Iran would actually have ended up quite a decent place.

You Canucks don't know fat from freedom fries. Obese? We're at 31%, and you polite national-health-plan hockey-playing doofuses aren't even half that. Yee haw, my ass.

(See http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity )

In more news...
US Sitting at 8th Place with murders by firearms right between Costa Rica and Uruguay.

I'm not sure why you think that their birth rates mean that their society is going to die. Typically nations that accumulate a good amount of prosperity end up with lower birth rates. America is also following along this trend. What this means is that elderly care will become an issue until the population starts rising again. You do know that just because it is lowering now, doesn't mean it will continue to, right?

Your little bit of hyperbole about roving barbarian gangs are amusing. A riot in Paris does not extrapolate to roving bands of barbarians across all of Europe. Or at least, if they do have such problems, then I'm certainly worried about living in America, which ranks pretty poorly compared to many European nations.

Your little xenophobic rant is also a little bit of right-wing hyperbole. Care to provide any evidence that this is actually a serious problem? Because every time I've been to Europe or talked to Europeans they don't seem to think this is a problem. Well, other than a minority of people trying to fan the flames of bigotry by taking things grossly out of context to win weak-minded fools over to their side.

And this is in addition to the fact that Europe has equal or better relative economic mobility (that means that a poor guy is more likely to upgrade his social status in Europe... so much for the American dream), better life expectancy, better overall education, and arguably better, more efficient, and cheaper health care. About the only part of your rant grounded in fact is the tax rate, which is a between 10%-20% more. But I know a lot of Europeans who are happy with that tax rate, given all of the benefits that they get from it above.

Your rant is thoroughly amusing since its so far detached from actual reality. Having lived in Europe, and working with people who live, and lived, in Europe, I can safely say you've cranked the hyperbole up to 11. Its actually a very nice and safe place to live. You really need to stop getting your info from whatever echo chamber you get it from and find some sources that are at least a bit closer to reality.

On the plus side, you've pretty much proven my point. You're close-minded. You reject anything that doesn't match your reality. This isn't doing your side any favors.