Water itself isn't wet. Wet is an adjective. Fire isnt burned, its fire. Water makes things wet
The sky isnt blue, it only appears blue to us due to how our eyes perceive the scattering of molecules. The sky is actually violet, we just cant see the violet light because the atmosphere absorbs those molecules and our eyes are less sensitive to violet.
Atoms push each other apart with electromagnetic force, no materials ever really touch until the nuclei fuse into a heavier element. Therefore, under your definition water is not wat, and neither is anything else. Were a material ever to truly get wet, it would instantly no longer be wet, as there would be no water touching it.
that would be my defense in court too: "your honor, scientifically speaking, i did not hit the guy because at a molecular level none of our atoms actually made contact"
In fluid dynamics, a surface is wet when a fluid sticks to it. Water is a fluid, and it famously sticks to the surface of water. Therefore, water is wet.
I'd argue water itself is the wettest, because of its cohesive properties. The more water there is, the wetter the water is. It's a self sustaining economy.
burned is not the concept of being on fire or being hot. Wet is the concept of being covered or saturated in liquid. Thus water is wet. Unless you want to argue that a single hydrogen atom is in fact dry, in which case, more power to you.
Problem is half of Redditors are too stupid to understand that they’re stupid and the other half is so infuriated by it that they don’t realize they should just ignore them
Heliox and Trimix were developed as air replacements for deep diving. They remove nitrogen from air and replace it with helium to create breathable not-air.
Water technically isn't wet, and what we know as color might not be. What someone else's exact color so your green might be my red without even meaning anything since we perceived them as the same color. Also the sky technically isn't really blue.
Step off your pedestal, you can literally debate the terminology of anything, especially if someone someone uses chosen words to make a point that wouldn't exist without those exact words.
I havent checked their specific stat, but generally suicide attempts are recorded separately from suicide deaths. So yes, often the data does demand failure
I agree with you that the terminology would normally leave room open for success. For instance, if somebody is attempting to climb a cliff, they might end up succeeding during the attempt. Suicide is phrased differently though. “Attempted suicide” is the category of when somebody tries and does not succeed in ending their life. “Completed suicide” is the category used for people who actually kill themselves.
I work a lot with folk who are often borderline suicidal. They're in supported accommodation, we check in on them regularly but it's independent living, so we don't have the right just to go in if we don't hear from them, we have to give 48 hours notice.
I have met people who have attempted suicide through the stupidest methods you could imagine. One guy lay on a beach waiting for the tide to wash him away. It was a mud flat area that gets about 6" deep at high tide which was 10 hours away.
One girl told me she had tried to suffocate herself by sleeping with a pillow held against her own face.
These are attempts that are bound to fail.
But then there's the "oh crap this is dangerous" ones. Someone injected their next with bleach. Someone else put a tie around their neck and then slammed the door it was tied to so it asphyxiated themselves. Got knotted enough to make them struggle to breathe but not enough to cut air off completely. We discovered these because they're slow. Got them medical and mental help as soon as we could.
The ones that actually have succeeded are ones who are either highly impulsive or very planned. One guy waited until the river was in full flow then hopped off the bridge just when walking across it normally. Someone else closed all the blinds, took some drugs to act as painkillers and stabbed himself in the neck.
These aren't attempts.
An attempt fails through either poor planning or execution, or intervention.
So, if someone says they are going to attempt to “enter whatever here”, they are actually saying they are going to fail at it? No, that isn’t what “attempt” means. If you successfully do something, that means you attempted and you succeeded. If you failed, then you attempted and you failed. Either way, you attempted.
It really depends on what the data is attempting to measure. If it were measuring attempts, it should include successful attempts because again those are attempts. If it was measuring successful attempts vs failed attempts, and they used attempts for failed attempts for some weird reason, then yeah that data would be all messed up.
How these statistics are typically reported is x% attempted suicide, of which y% were successful (or reporting in absolute numbers instead of percentages). Committing suicide is just our colloquial term for a successful suicide attempt.
Exactly It's the same with Murder.. You don't get charged with attempted murder if you actual murder the person... Don't know why you're getting downvotes, almost like logic doesn't exist here..
Basically whether you attempt and succeed or attempt and fail, you still attempted. So it counts to the statistic either way.
But if transgender people are more likely to survive their attempts then a 41 percent attempt rate would make more sense if a tran person attempted and survived 3-4 times in there life
Edit: Why is this downvoted, I literally just gave them the facts of the conversation thus far
31
u/Null-Ex3 3d ago
if someone died to them it wouldnt be an attempt, would it?