this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
637 points (96.1% liked)
Greentext
6955 readers
673 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Everyone always laughs at hitting someone in the head with a punch/can of beans/baseball bat/2x4/karate chop/whatever and knock them out. The joke being that the person will wake in ten minutes or an hour like in the movies and they'll go about living again.
In real life if you knock someone out cold with some kind of hit to their head ... you've more than likely killed them or put them in a place where they will die within the next hour or two.
That is... Incorrect, there is about a 30% death rate within one year of brain trauma but there is absolutely no data showing that someone is going to die within an hour of being knocked unconscious more often than not, especially if they are young
I'm not saying that you're wrong. You sound like you might know what you're talking about. I just like publications and medical evidence. I trust that you won't take it the wrong way.
Source?
Do you have a metastudy or something for that?
That last sentence, do you have a source for the difference in outcome depending on the patient's age?
Bricolo, A., Turazzi, S., & Feriotti, G. (1980). Prolonged posttraumatic unconsciousness: therapeutic assets and liabilities.. Journal of neurosurgery, 52 5, 625-34 . https://doi.org/10.3171/JNS.1980.52.5.0625.
And it's not on me to find the burden of truth for you. That's a logical fallacy and a bad arguing tactic
Is it not the one who claims something that has the burden of proof? I'm confused.
I’d say it’s more a burden for the person making the claim that goes against reality. Imminent death is not in the least a common progression of getting knocked out.
Yes. The OP of this thread needs to back up their claim that getting knocked out will kill you
FFS I wasn't trying to argue with you. Since you quoted some very specific numbers, I thought that you had done some recent research on the matter, and thus had an up to date knowledge of the current studies. In that case copy pasting said references from endnote should have taken 30 seconds and provided the community with a lot of valuable info.
I wasn't trying to get you to search for studies that would back up your claims, I thought you had them already.
Why does asking for citations equal arguing? Where did I even hint that I thought you were wrong? I very much tried to make my intentions clear, yet everyone still think that I'm some smuck smart-ass trying to win an argument ... an argument I wasn't even part of to begin with.
Crow made a claim. And then Yoko made a claim refuting their claim. The burden of proof is on both of them. Not the third party guy Danish asking for sources.
This thread is like getting hit in the head with a can of beans.
The Lemmy experience.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/15038-concussion This work (not for the 30% thing but just in general)?
at least show the studies you're referencing instead of just saying you have them and asking for others to show theirs
Are you talking to me? I mean you replied to my comment, but saying that I'm referencing studies doesn't make any sense. Well at least not to me, because I don't believe that I claimed to have any studies for anything.
If you meant to reply to me, please go read my first paragraph, and the maybe try it a second time. I actively tried to avoid getting labeled as dismissing the claims.
so by that you mean you just like them but dont use or reference them? and yet you still ask others to show theirs? what kind of logic is this?!?!?
I justified asking for studies. At no point did I claim to have spent hours searching pubmed. How hard is that to comprehend?
Have you ever tried searching pubmed and vetting studies by reading abstracts? It's not like using google and clicking on the first result.
First off, searching for studies backing up some claims will always introduce confirmation bias. Secondly finding relevant studies, vetting the search results, by reading the abstracts, validating the scope of the study, deciphering the methods used, etc, will easily take the same number of hours as OP would spend in minutes to copy paste from their bibliography system.
if you don't expect yourself to give any sources to your claims, why the hell are you expecting others to give sources to their claims?
I think you are confusing people. DanishGuy is not the OP. They are a third person asking for the person debating the OP to back up their claims. It confused me too.
yes i got confused between danishguy and someone else because he seemed to have the same points as the other guy. thanks for telling me, as i don't think i wouldve noticed alone.
Which claims have I made?
oh sorry i thought you were someone else, but still, you seem to be siding with someone who didn't show any proof of their points.
It’s because he doesn’t have them.
Maybe, but they could’ve also posted the same request for citations on the first poster but did not.
I think that really does reflect how someone can just say whatever and when challenged we are biased to only assume the second opinion as doubtful.
OP's claims of "oh mer gerhd you dead soon" were so broad and so wild that they didn't seem rooted in research. Asking for citations would be like asking your antivax aunt for her DIY "research". But at least the claims should motivate people to seek healthcare, if they get knocked unconscious. Something that will save lives. So I left it at that.
I asked for citations where I did, because it seemed like that commenter worked in the medical field, and actually could have the studies handy.
If you read my request as casting doubt, then I invite you to read the first paragraph again. I specifically pointed out I just like scientific research, data, and evidence. I actually tried to avoid being seen as arguing against the claims.
I can't help that you (and a lot of other people, apparently) see asking for citations, as casting doubt. Expressing doubt wasn't my intention, I was genuinely curious about the sources.
And if being curious about science is wrong, then I'm going crawl up under a warm blanket, with a cup of chai and a nice peer reviewed metastudy, while staying wrong.
Edits: grammar hard
I honestly think that it’s totally fine to ask for citations and I also would have loved to see them. Furthermore I also really think that it was much more reasonable to ask the second person for the citation than the first one so I am in total agreement with you.
And I do really want to clarify that I was honestly just commenting on the doomy comment of: „a reflection of our times“ Because this really just felt more like an anchor effect hypothesis moment to me of being biased by the first data input however outrageous it may seem.
Even if you had casted doubt (which I again don’t think you did) that would’ve been fine and healthy I would argue. I love it when people ask for citations and then even read through them and discuss the limitations of it, I think that’s fucking awesomesauce and I’m glad people like you can read it and share their insights on it.
Long story short I was sharing another - to me more plausible - explanation of the vote distribution. Hope you have a lovely day and this kerfuffle did not discourage you from exploring and sharing the interest details of the world.
(god I should really learn to write more concise)
Thanks for clarifying. And if writing concise was an Olympic discipline, you'd be in the elite compared to me :)
Source? Show me the evidence and metastudy
Being knocked out is certainly not good, but it's not automatic death like you're suggesting.
~~Skill~~ Skull issue
False LMFAO.
Source: semi pro snowboarder who’s been knocked out many times
You're actually dead and died in that second knock out .... this is purgatory and you'll be commenting like this for a few thousand years.
I'm no scientist, doctor or medical professional ... I just know that its dangerous to try to knock someone's noggin really hard to try to make them pass out. Dangerous to the point that there is a good chance that it can kill someone.
Fuck! Nobody told me!!!!
And even if you haven't killed them outright, they can have permanent disabilities.
If you, or someone you know, gets knocked out, or experiences other symptoms of a central nervous system trauma after a hit to the head, please seek medical care immediately. It's not one those "take two aspirin and let's see how it goes in the morning" kinda things.
I'm just one person, but during my life I've seen this multiple times. I will refrain from boring you, and doxxing myself, by telling my anecdotes. Suffice it to say that I have known people who would have been dead if they hadn't gone to work with a "bad hangover", or ended up with narcolepsy or chronic encephalopathy. And that was separate people BTW.
You're going too far in the opposite direction
Relax, it's just another made up story.
Monster deserves it tho
She just stole a loaf of bread. Her sister's child was close to death, she was starving.
true
SLEEPER AGENT ACTIVATION BY MEME CONFIRMED
Every time I get reminded of Le Mis I hear this youtube poop in my head and start giggling.
To market, to market went my Uncle Jim
When somebody threw a tomato at him.
Tomatoes are soft and they won't bruise the skin,
But this one killed Jim, it was wrapped in a tin.
So I once slipped on a puddle while jogging (in the wrong place) and hit the back of my head on sedimentary tiles.
Since I had stiffened my neck, trying to stretch it backward (yes I was doing that while jogging on wet tiles), my head hit the ground hard.
After about 2 minutes, I fainted for ~10 seconds. Was fine later.
That's the problem with anecdotal evidence. You can always find that one person who fulfills the criteria but who's outcome doesn't match.
Of course you can be fine afterwards. But there's a considerable risk that you're not, and experiencing symptoms of a traumatic head injury does warrant a visit to the hospital.
Of course I visited the hospital for a CT scan.
Of course I'm not telling you to hit your head for fun.
This is just a fun story, not evidence for anything.
People have survived failed parachutes. Doesn't mean we can all be Alex Mercer.