3 ms·

you also need to compare people injured so badly that they are significantly worse off for life after the war is over, as most of those people would probably ha

you also need to compare people injured so badly that they are significantly worse off for life after the war is over, as most of those people would probably have been killed in previous wars but thanks to modern medicine can be kept alive to suffer for years afterwards. not a knock on modern medicine, and probably the people who survive are happy that they did for the most part, however if you compare the results in the way you did, you should compare those as well.

ineedasername 8mo ago
No, incorrect. You're conflating "People injured died much more often" with other outcomes. Survivors in past times were often more commonly crippled in more severed ways, even when the initiating injury was minor. At those times the only redress for any injury was amputation. These days a very large numbers of injuries can be addressed with less life changing impact. >"should compare" I'm not going to include "better dead than crippled" in my considerations here. It seems both absurd and also not something that was encompassed in the orignal point I was adressing.
- bryanrasmussen 8mo ago
  OK I thought the comparison was the cost to human beings of war. But call it what rhetorically suits you best.
  - Dylan16807 8mo ago
    They're not ignoring anything, they're disagreeing with [what they perceive as] your implications. Because while some injuries that would have caused deaths cause lifetime damage now, injuries that would have caused lifetime damage cause a lot less of it now.
    - bryanrasmussen 8mo ago
      this might be the case, obviously advanced arthroscopic procedures can improve results that in the recent past would have been lifelong problems, but not sure if the benefits of modern medicine across all sorts of battlefield problems are so evenly distributed, I think not given generally the articles I read seem to be echoing my point and not saying that but it all evens out because of this additional benefit, but maybe. Given that I believe my point is pretty commonly argued and his rebuttal does not seem to me to be as commonly given I would have liked a link to "army study showing the percentage decrease of what were serious injuries match pretty evenly the percentage decrease of what fatalities, showing an even distribution of medical improvements across the range of possible trauma", something like that. Obviously depending on what was meant by "survivors in past times" applies here, because that is a pretty long range of time. on edit: my googling shows lots of discussions of improving should injuries that used mean disability are now trivial and so forth, but not overall stats showing the decrease in overall battlefield injury significance matches the decrease in overall battlefield fatality to a reasonable degree.

ineedasername 8mo ago

No, incorrect. You're conflating "People injured died much more often" with other outcomes. Survivors in past times were often more commonly crippled in more severed ways, even when the initiating injury was minor. At those times the only redress for any injury was amputation. These days a very large numbers of injuries can be addressed with less life changing impact. >"should compare" I'm not going to include "better dead than crippled" in my considerations here. It seems both absurd and also not something that was encompassed in the orignal point I was adressing.

bryanrasmussen 8mo ago
OK I thought the comparison was the cost to human beings of war. But call it what rhetorically suits you best.
- Dylan16807 8mo ago
  They're not ignoring anything, they're disagreeing with [what they perceive as] your implications. Because while some injuries that would have caused deaths cause lifetime damage now, injuries that would have caused lifetime damage cause a lot less of it now.
  - bryanrasmussen 8mo ago
    this might be the case, obviously advanced arthroscopic procedures can improve results that in the recent past would have been lifelong problems, but not sure if the benefits of modern medicine across all sorts of battlefield problems are so evenly distributed, I think not given generally the articles I read seem to be echoing my point and not saying that but it all evens out because of this additional benefit, but maybe. Given that I believe my point is pretty commonly argued and his rebuttal does not seem to me to be as commonly given I would have liked a link to "army study showing the percentage decrease of what were serious injuries match pretty evenly the percentage decrease of what fatalities, showing an even distribution of medical improvements across the range of possible trauma", something like that. Obviously depending on what was meant by "survivors in past times" applies here, because that is a pretty long range of time. on edit: my googling shows lots of discussions of improving should injuries that used mean disability are now trivial and so forth, but not overall stats showing the decrease in overall battlefield injury significance matches the decrease in overall battlefield fatality to a reasonable degree.