Once again, French surrender monkeys saved by brave USians

[Pekka]

I got all fired up about this story... I'll be on a train tomorrow. Maybe I can rescue everyoen as well? I know there will be few suspects... but seriously, heroism real heroes are often unsung but I am happy to see these got recognised.

Also, once I was in a subway in Paris and saw the guards with some young punks and I believe they were quite rough with them for a reason I am not so sure. It seemed like a beating to me.

[Sava]

"Google" has billions of pages (maybe trillions by this point) and so there is no "simple search" that cannot be done without a subject to search for. So far, there isn't one - you won't even say what your "evidence" supposedly is, and a simple search of "kentonio is pulling facts out of his ass" gives me 6,060,000 hits, so your shorts remain trapped around your ankles.

"grumbler rapes children" gets me 80,200,000

i suppose it is more true?

[Sava]

you know

the only reason to care about this story is if you have some sort of hero complex

or

you hate muslims

[Pekka]

but are you not a hero when you subdue muslims? If you subdue christian terrorists, you are just a ... well a hero but muslim terrorist and you're a hero++

[Sava]

but are you not a hero when you subdue muslims?

to some...


folks like Oerdin and Slowwhand would love to see them genocided

[grumbler]

http://vdfp.virginia.gov/government_...d-Svensson.pdf

:shrug:

That paper has some interesting data in it; the US has the highest rate of the selected countries, but we have no idea whether these are the meaningful countries to compare; in fire deaths in general (i.e. firefighters and non-firefighters) the US has a lower death rate than Ireland, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Japan, Greece, Finland... just among western countries. https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/...tics/v12i8.pdf This doesn't even consider countries like Mexico, or Russia, or India, or China.

The good doctor also completely missed the boat on his Table 1: he selects data for three years in the US and 60 in Sweden and then claims that this data is for "1997-2006." The table thus mixes selective data in unknown proportions from many years' worth of data; we have no idea what meaning, if any, to attach to these numbers.

In particular, we don't know how to explain things like the fact that the Kiwis had 14 times the firefighter death rate of the Brits; if it is significant that the US death rate presented is 8 times that of the Swedes, then surely it is even MORE important that the New Zealand death rate is 14 times that of the UK! Do the Kiwis have that much more of a hero complex than the Brits, or is the "hero complex" thesis just something that someone made up in contempt of the facts?

The rest of the paper is pretty meaningless, because it involves only a single firefighting incident. Every firefighting nation has firefighter idiots.

One fact I thought interesting was that 78% of US firefighter deaths were not fire-related (heart attack, struck by vehicle; died in fire truck crash). http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports...-united-states That doesn't leave a lot of room for death by over-heroism.

Another interesting fact is that firefighting deaths in the US have declined by more than 50% since the late 1970s. http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports...-united-states. In 2014, the figure was 64 (see the link in the above para). The "hero complex" explanation for firefighter deaths doesn't account for this.

Thanks for providing some data, though. Its more than Kentorio was able to do.

[grumbler]

That's funny, considering Dauphin apparently had no problems finding it, and in fact already linked to it above.

That's one paper, by one guy, and with many flaws. Surely even you can't believe that that paper is authoritative!

Can you provide anything authoritative, or are you just going to go with the one Swedish dude talking about one US firefighter in one fire? And if you are, how are you explaining the even worse NZ-UK stats?

[Bereta_Eder]

Skarlatos grandad was a greek prisoner of war in germany. Then he married a german girl. Then his son came to the US (when he was 4 with his family). And then alek skarlatos was born. And then he saved a train. Pretty cool.

[Egbert]

Come now, let's not let facts get in the way of a good narrative..

"Facts" are dangerous things. Very dangerous indeed. Facts can be used to prove things.

If one starts bandying facts about one can never be sure where they might lead. The consequences can be unknown and terrible.

For example, centuries ago chaps were tossing facts about which proved the world goes around the sun. People had to be burnt at the stake for that. That is what happened when facts were used.

Beware of facts.

[kentonio]

That paper has some interesting data in it; the US has the highest rate of the selected countries, but we have no idea whether these are the meaningful countries to compare; in fire deaths in general (i.e. firefighters and non-firefighters) the US has a lower death rate than Ireland, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Japan, Greece, Finland... just among western countries. https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/...tics/v12i8.pdf This doesn't even consider countries like Mexico, or Russia, or India, or China.

Setting aside for a moment the hilarity of calling Japan a 'western country' all you've done there is cherry picked a few random countries with worse fire death rates than the US. Was there a point to that? "OMG, how can America have a problem when the Czech Republic has more people in general who fire in fires!?". Seriously, it's just lazy. Various of those countries also have other issues like ****ty building safety codes (eastern Europe) or a propensity for building with wood and paper (Japan).

The good doctor also completely missed the boat on his Table 1: he selects data for three years in the US and 60 in Sweden and then claims that this data is for "1997-2006." The table thus mixes selective data in unknown proportions from many years' worth of data; we have no idea what meaning, if any, to attach to these numbers.

Please learn to read. The mixed data (which he openly refers to) is in Figure 1 (the chart on types of death) not Table 1 (number of deaths).

In particular, we don't know how to explain things like the fact that the Kiwis had 14 times the firefighter death rate of the Brits; if it is significant that the US death rate presented is 8 times that of the Swedes, then surely it is even MORE important that the New Zealand death rate is 14 times that of the UK! Do the Kiwis have that much more of a hero complex than the Brits, or is the "hero complex" thesis just something that someone made up in contempt of the facts?

What kind of moronic pseudo logic is that? That chart puts the US figures as 45 TIMES higher than the UK, yet you want to deflect by talking about New Zealand?

Another interesting fact is that firefighting deaths in the US have declined by more than 50% since the late 1970s. http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports...-united-states. In 2014, the figure was 64 (see the link in the above para). The "hero complex" explanation for firefighter deaths doesn't account for this.

Interesting that you criticize the study for using mixed date ranges, and then pick a range yourself which shows an inaccurate picture.

This is from another study done into firefighter deaths..

Firefighter deaths dropped in the 1970s and 1980s, largely due to improvements in protective clothing, breathing equipment and radio communication, explained DeJoy. In the last decades, fatality numbers actually edged upward while the number of fires has gone down, he said.

Oh and also worth mentioning that when the Swedish guy wrote that report (and delivered it to a conference of firefighter in Atlanta in 2007) Sweden has only had 1 firefighter death in 7 years.

You have to pay for the other report, but the abstract is here..

http://www.commandsafety.com/2011/04...er-fatalities/

Another interesting snippet..

The study analyzed the investigations in terms of the core culture of the firefighting profession. Firefighting culture should not be construed as one of negligence, said DeJoy, but one based on a long-standing tradition of acceptance of risk. A job that relies on extreme individual efforts and has too few resources leads to the chronic condition of doing too much with too little, he said.

“If you get used to taking risks, it’s easy to take a little more risk,” DeJoy said.
“Most of the time when we take risks, like walking across the street or driving a car, nothing bad happens.
This level of risk gets ratcheted up and becomes part of normal activity.” Acceptance of risk becomes extremely perilous in a situation in which adverse events can happen at any time and margins of safety are very thin, he added.

Which leads to the question, why is that risk apparently higher in the US than in most other countries?

Thanks for providing some data, though. Its more than Kentorio was able to do.

No, it's more I could be bothered to do, because I find you boring. Small distinction but an important one.

[kentonio]

There's an interesting piece here btw, by an American firefighter instructor who considers what Dr Svennson said (and disagrees with some of it) but who also went to Sweden and undertook their firefighter instruction course and spent time with their firefighters. It's a long article but an interesting one. One of the main takeaways from it actually mirrors something FEMA say in several reports, that the level of fitness and training of US firefighters should be a lot better.

This section also stood out..

This American cultural approach to firefighting is incomprehensible to the Swedish Fire Service. The Swedes categorically reject the concept of legitimizing the death of a firefighter in the name of mission accomplishment. This does not mean that Swedish firefighters are not brave and will not place themselves in harm's way when conducting their mission. It just means that culturally the Swedes are prepared to spend the time necessary to train their firefighters and provide them with an operational and administrative framework that does not condone unsafe practice or needless risk-taking.

www.fireengineering.com/articles/2008/01/fire-commentary-picking-up-the-gauntlet.html

Oh and its a bit of a side issue, but that bit you mentioned about heart attacks being a major cause of death..

The Swedes also integrate physical fitness into their daily operations in a manner that would be foreign to most American fire departments. By law, each Swedish firefighter must perform 90 minutes of physical training a day while on duty. This can be done through running, lifting weights, swimming, or playing organized sports. Once a year, each firefighter must take and pass a demanding physical fitness test and pass a comprehensive medical examination. For American firefighters accustomed to taking the CPAT early in their career and then having to do nothing thereafter, the Swedish system would seem quite foreign, but the end result is a firefighter who is extremely fit for duty, much more efficient on the fire scene, and less susceptible to heart attack and injury.

[kentonio]

Another study on 'Risk Taking Behaviors and Attitudes in the U.S. Fire Service' here..

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/pdf/efop/efo46064.pdf

[grumbler]

Setting aside for a moment the hilarity of calling Japan a 'western country' all you've done there is cherry picked a few random countries with worse fire death rates than the US. Was there a point to that? "OMG, how can America have a problem when the Czech Republic has more people in general who fire in fires!?". Seriously, it's just lazy. Various of those countries also have other issues like ****ty building safety codes (eastern Europe) or a propensity for building with wood and paper (Japan).

It's called providing data, something you cannot do. Note the cite. Again, something you cannot do. Given that you haven't addressed my actual point (that the author chose a very small sample set). I take it that you have conceded it. Very well, let's move on.

Please learn to read. The mixed data (which he openly refers to) is in Figure 1 (the chart on types of death) not Table 1 (number of deaths).

Given that you chose not to adddress my point (which that the data presented isn't what the author claims it is, and so isn't comparing apples and apples), I take it that you have conceded my point. Very well, let's move on.

What kind of moronic pseudo logic is that? That chart puts the US figures as 45 TIMES higher than the UK, yet you want to deflect by talking about New Zealand?

Your argument is that the difference in firefighter deaths between the US and some other country is because the US has a "hero complex." If the difference between national firefighter death rates is, indeed, because of a "hero complex," then a "hero complex" must explain the differences between NZ and UK firefighter death rates, as well. That's basic logic. Given that you have not challenged that argument, I take it that you are conceding it. Very well, let's move on.

Interesting that you criticize the study for using mixed date ranges, and then pick a range yourself which shows an inaccurate picture.

I have no idea what this means, but, since it doesn't address my argument that, if firefighter death rates are a result of a "hero complex," then the "hero complex" must be declining because firefighter death rates are declining. Since you don't refute my argument, I take it that you are conceding it. Very well, let's move on.

This is from another study done into firefighter deaths.

I note that you don't even bother to make an argument here. Very well, let's move on.

Oh and also worth mentioning that when the Swedish guy wrote that report (and delivered it to a conference of firefighter in Atlanta in 2007) Sweden has only had 1 firefighter death in 7 years.

Sweden has an excellent reputation for firefighter safety, and Swedish firefighting experts often appear at US fire departments and conferences to pass on their wisdom. They don't agree with you, though, that US firefighter deaths are the result of a "hero complex." Here's another bit by Dr. Stefan Svensson,

Svensson believes three main things contribute to the lower firefighter fatality rate in Sweden.

Building construction. Buildings in Sweden are old, but building codes that provide good fire protection were developed a long time ago as well. Materials are mostly traditional—stone, concrete, brick and dimensional lumber. Most of the fire protection is passive—compartmentation, fire separation walls, separation distances. Nearly all apartments in Sweden provide 60 minutes of protection before fire will spread to another unit.
Physical fitness. Firefighters are required to have a physical every two years and a treadmill test every year; the health and safety agency is also considering other tests such as rowing, chin lifts, bench press and more. “I realize you have a lot of volunteers in the U.S. fire service,” Svensson says. “But if you could firefighters to get a medical exam—even if they don’t pass, they can still be firefighters, there’s just some tasks they can’t do.”
Training. Requirements for initial and ongoing firefighter training in Sweden are rigorous. Full-time firefighters complete two years of training, 80 weeks and the academy and 20 at a department. Tuition is free, but students pay for their accommodations. Part-time firefighters complete five weeks at the academy and two weeks at the department. Training emphasizes what Svensson calls the “sweet harmony” of theory and practice. Higher education is required at the battalion chief level or higher.
The key: Safety is not a separate component to the Swedish fire service, but is inherent to everything firefighters do. “We don’t have special safety training,” Svensson says. “We try to teach that before you end up in bad situation, you need to get out. If you’re in a bad situation, it’s because you did something wrong.”

http://www.firefighternation.com/art...pective-safety

Note that he says noothing about a "hero complex." I note that you don't even bother to make an argument here. Very well, let's move on.

Another interesting snippet..

... which, again, says nothing about a "hero complex." Again, I note that you don't even bother to make an argument here. Very well, let's move on.

Which leads to the question, why is that risk apparently higher in the US than in most other countries?

That is the question. However, none of the evidence supports your "hero complex" answer. In fact, you haven't even mustered a single argument to support a "hero complex" in US firefighters, let alone one in the culture in general.

No, it's more I could be bothered to do, because I find you boring. Small distinction but an important one.

I think it because you cannot, and have to resort to ad hominim arguments, instead. When someone I argue against resorts to ad homs, I know I've won.

[giblets]

"Facts" are dangerous things. Very dangerous indeed. Facts can be used to prove things.

If one starts bandying facts about one can never be sure where they might lead. The consequences can be unknown and terrible.

For example, centuries ago chaps were tossing facts about which proved the world goes around the sun. People had to be burnt at the stake for that. That is what happened when facts were used.

Beware of facts.

I don't think Galileo was actually burned at the stake... oops, I think I just cited a fact

[kentonio]

It's called providing data, something you cannot do. Note the cite. Again, something you cannot do. Given that you haven't addressed my actual point (that the author chose a very small sample set). I take it that you have conceded it. Very well, let's move on.

This is why you are boring. You do the same stupid **** that Kenobi does. If I concede a point I'll ****ing tell you. The author didn't just choose a small set, he compared the US to the other generally accepted first world nations that data was available for. In other words exactly what you'd expect him to do if you had any interest in this as a study, not just something to attack to try and win crappy internet points.

Given that you chose not to adddress my point (which that the data presented isn't what the author claims it is, and so isn't comparing apples and apples), I take it that you have conceded my point. Very well, let's move on.

Your 'point' was based on you being unable to read. The only data based on that was to do with types of deaths, not frequency. Seriously, do you have a low IQ?

Your argument is that the difference in firefighter deaths between the US and some other country is because the US has a "hero complex." If the difference between national firefighter death rates is, indeed, because of a "hero complex," then a "hero complex" must explain the differences between NZ and UK firefighter death rates, as well. That's basic logic. Given that you have not challenged that argument, I take it that you are conceding it. Very well, let's move on.

There are many reasons for differences in death rates, technology, training, fitness rates etc etc, the hero complex thing is simply another aspect. One which has been discussed in great detail not just by Dr Svensson but by numerous US firefighters and government organizations. It's significant however because it doesn't just affect firefighters but cops too, something you can find many, MANY examples of.

One particular one you might remember involved a cop ignoring warnings from his colleagues to keep a distance from an armed suspect, and instead driving his car at the heavily drugged suspect at high speed knocking him down. It was a stupid, reckless thing to do, however he stopped the armed man and an investigation decided he had done nothing wrong. In almost any other first world country he'd have definitely be fired and could quite possibly have faced serious criminal charges too.

I have no idea what this means, but, since it doesn't address my argument that, if firefighter death rates are a result of a "hero complex," then the "hero complex" must be declining because firefighter death rates are declining. Since you don't refute my argument, I take it that you are conceding it. Very well, let's move on.

Ok, so not only do you have reading problems but you're also a dishonest ass too. Another reminder of why I don't usually bother with your crap. Death rates are not declining in terms of the number of fires, they'd been increasing despite the fire rate falling substantially. That's exactly what caused these discussions in the first place. The rate is only falling if you compare today with the 1970's before a huge amount of modern firefighting technology was developed.

Sweden has an excellent reputation for firefighter safety, and Swedish firefighting experts often appear at US fire departments and conferences to pass on their wisdom. They don't agree with you, though, that US firefighter deaths are the result of a "hero complex." Here's another bit by Dr. Stefan Svensson,

http://www.firefighternation.com/art...pective-safety

Note that he says noothing about a "hero complex." I note that you don't even bother to make an argument here. Very well, let's move on.

Yes Gribbler, the guy who wrote the frikking article in the first place clearly doesn't agree with his own ideas. You monumental ******.

I think it because you cannot, and have to resort to ad hominim arguments, instead. When someone I argue against resorts to ad homs, I know I've won.

I'm sure you do sit patting yourself on the back, thinking 'I'm such a winner because this guy called me a ****ing idiot'. You appear to be mistaking ad hominem with simple statement of fact.

The hero complex thing is a theory nothing more. It fits in quite well with how US culture especially film portrays police and firefighters especially when the lower levels of training for US firefighters are taken into account and things like less strict standards of conduct for police in comparison to other countries. It's something that has been discussed across US government and by groups of firefighters and cops in their own communities. You can certainly think its bull****, and a lot of the discrepancies can be put down to other factors, but its certainly not a completely unfeasible theory.

Perhaps if you hadn't started off talking about 'sweeping generalizations' and claiming that I was pulling stuff out my ass and making up data, we could have discussed it nicely and I wouldn't have needed to hand your ass to you this badly?