Slashdot Mirror
CDC: 1 In 10 Adult Deaths In US Caused By Excessive Drinking
An anonymous reader writes: According to new research from the CDC, 9.8% of deaths in working-age adults (22-64 years old) in the U.S. from 2006 to 2010 were "attributable to excessive drinking." This makes excessive drinking the fourth leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. The study included deaths from medical conditions, such as liver disease and alcohol-induced strokes, as well as deaths from alcohol-related events, like car accidents, homicides, and fall injuries. However, it did not account for cases where excessive alcohol consumption was a factor in contracting conditions like AIDS, pneumonia, and tuberculosis, so the count may actually be higher. Many western states with low population spread out over a large area showed the highest alcohol-related death rates, while states from the east coast and the midwest tended to be on the lower end of the spectrum. The study also tracked years of life lost, which is higher for alcohol-related deaths than for most other types of death. Researcher Robert Brewer said, "One of the issues with alcohol that is particularly tragic is the extent to which it gets people in the prime of their lives."
Okay.
Point the first, you're an idiot.
I acknowledged full well that suicide is multivariate. Japan has a bit more of those other variables. Suddenly switching to simplistic 1 dimensional analysis in order to cherry pick a one nation datapoint that suits your case isn't clever argumentation. It's intentional duplicitousness. Don't be that guy. Being that guy makes you an idiot.
Point the second, one can minimize the effect of these other variables by analyzing within populations to control for other known variables. This is called science.
Here is one such study. There are more if you can invent any variables you think need to be more adequately controlled for.
Point the third, no matter what the data say about the relationships, none of that calls for a specific course of action, and contesting relatively reasonable facts doesn't actually help the case you want to make, which is almost certainly about what kind of gun control is acceptable. It just helps you look ill-informed.
Okay.
Point the first, you're an idiot.
... and you just destroyed any point you might have been about to make by opening up with an ad hominem.
I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
"You called me stupid when I was being stupid, and I mistook identifying that fact as an ad-hominemm argument, and then I could continue to wallow in the ignorance that causes me to be stupid in the first place".
Congratulations, Mr. Sensitive pants.
You also don't know what an ad-hominem argument is. Look it up, sometime.