Quote:
Originally Posted by crystalworks
Literally my point exactly. And we don't outlaw cars because some people drive them through crowds.
I don't know which studies you believe the results of. From past "discussions," with myself and others none that might not support your beliefs. Disregarding a 50 year old study simply because it was old is about as short sighted a thing as I've heard lately. Imagine disregarding all the studies on green house gases or ocean temps from Al Gore's time. Or oceanic work of Jacque Cousteau. Ridiculous.
|
My opinion concerning the deaths due to unemployment has nothing to do with any other study. "Discussions" on any other study would need to be evaluated individually. No, I can't imagine ignoring studies on greenhouses gases though I would start reading the most recent study.
I would love to hear why communication, medication and financial opportunities of that time don't matter. This started when the study was used to contend 1% increase in unemployment resulted in 40,000 deaths. That's what I challenged. Since then I have been proven wrong that it was from a movie script and the death rate range was acknowledged in that study that it could be a low as 1,500. The process of that unemployment study might provide some basis for updating but it should not be accepted without questioning viability when it is 50 years old.