Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Solution to socio-political-economic strife
"Um...
If your thread is about fixing something, it is always a change in the status quo. That's the very definition of change."
Funny. I always thought of the squo as people whose ideas were always changing, and their actions, and ways of getting things 'fixed' as dynamic.
There's no need to replace the people of the status quo with other people.
Was trying to get this link to work. Your going to have to do an Indicator comparison to make it format correctly.
http://www.unicef.org/view_chart.php?sid=6af0b9e54cb0c8ed6fe09678ceb54bc6&create_chart=Create+Table+%3E%3E&submit_to_chart=1&layout=1&language=eng
But according to the list 25% of the developing world lives below the poverty line. Yes that's several billion people, but that really doesn't amount to much in the grand scheme of things. It doesn't indicate that anything is out of the ordinary for the normal development of these countries. A billion people could die Xeno but in the long run everything will work out the way it's supposed to and the species will be all the better for it.
"Who said anything about changing the squo?"
fix
  /fɪks/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fiks] Show IPA verb, fixed or fixt, fix⋅ing, noun
Use fix in a Sentence
"Lizon's R: That's enough for them."
And I provided evidence to back it up.
"Xeno's R: No, it isn't."
You provided none.
But I did. You refuse to see it, though. It was in a post a while back. You know, the PDF paper a while back by some professor somewhere.
http://www.prb.org/pdf09/64.2urbanization.pdf
"About the Author
Mark R. Montgomery is a professor in the economics department at
Stony Brook University and a senior associate with the Population
Council
> Lizon wrote:
> The sad thing is, the really sad thing. I know how to beat my own argument to force it into a constructive dialogue. It's so simple to do really. But I have no reason to open up a conversation if people can't figure out what the right questions to ask are. Think of it as a test, to see if they are able to understand the problem correctly before beginning to work on the answer.
OMG! You do that too? I love making posts meant primarily to test the other person! 
"But I did. You refuse to see it, though. It was in a post a while back. You know, the PDF paper a while back by some professor somewhere."
There is nothing in that paper that shows that what I said is false. It's mostly a general breakdown of stats that you can read off of UNICEF. Nothing really new there and nothing that indicates that things aren't going as expected. What I asked for is specific data, done in the exact same way I did it or very similar showing that I am incorrect in my analysis. You tried, once, when I make a mistake. I corrected the error, expanded on the conclusion and you have yet to drop a single ounce of evidence that counters it.
You know the real irony in that document. On page 4 on the left hand side is says that 80% of the poor in India live in NONslum neighborhoods. ^.^
"OMG! You do that too? I love making posts meant primarily to test the other person!"
lmao. Yes, I find it rather amusing actually. And it's even more fun to simply to play around with them cause they can't grasp the concepts of the argument. Plus I use it as a means to counter-debate myself. It allows me to think 2-3 steps ahead of my opponent so that I have an answer in my head before the opposition has a chance to respond.
Course you can probably tell with how I'm playing around with Xeno here where he falls into the equation. ^.^
What we really need is a solution to this argument....
I hear closing the thread works ^.^
"And it's even more fun to simply to play around with them"
Yup, obviously.
You want to boost your ego by finding evidence that supports your point of view only, and not actually analyze the arguments and facts.
You have found stats that show that only 25% of people in India are living below the poverty line, but ignore the fact that the way in which this poverty line is determined is currently under contention.
You simply insist (without evidence) that the ways by which governments determine poverty lines are sound in accurately determining the situation of poverty, even in light of evidence to the contrary.
When I refer to the study http://www.prb.org/pdf09/64.2urbanization.pdf whose whole point is to bring into question, point out problems with and re-evaluate the ways in which governments determine poverty lines, you don't even read it, ignore points made by the author, read into it only what you want to see, and not what it actually says.
A great example is how you quote:
"You know the real irony in that document. On page 4 on the left hand side is says that 80% of the poor in India live in NONslum neighborhoods."
And automatically take it to mean something that supports your position (how it supports your position, I have no idea). First, you mis-read it and don't realise that it is talking about URBAN dwellers ONLY. Hell, you don't even get the page number right.
Clearly, the fact is that 80% of India's URBAN poor live in NON-SLUM dwellings.
"One study of urban India found that of all urban households
officially classified as poor in 2005, over 80 percent lived in nonslum
neighborhoods.9" (page 5)
Moreover, I've already discussed the significance of this fact in comparing data from our nice and simple powerpoint presentation (which you didn't seem to understand, btw):
"Slum outside of Mumbai, 2004; Approx 49% of Mumbai
"Yup, obviously.
You want to boost your ego by finding evidence that supports your point of view only, and not actually analyze the arguments and facts.
You have found stats that show that only 25% of people in India are living below the poverty line, but ignore that the way in which this poverty line is determined is currently under contention.
You simply insist (without evidence) that the ways by which governments determine poverty lines are accurate in determining the situation, even in light of evidence to the contrary. "
The system in India is measured by identifying the basic needs and then adjusting the costs of those needs on a region by region basis. They are the only developing country that does this. If you read up on some of the links I provided it even tells you how the information is gathered. Disprove their methods.
---
"http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=38&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.medicine.mcgill.ca%2Fglobalhealthcourse%2F2008%2Fpowerpoints%2FUrbanization%2520and%2520Health.ppt&ei=X11mSueLOIvcsgOFmpjuDg&rct=j&q=urbanization+AND+malnutrition&usg=AFQjCNGLmO1Xj25fr3mLyP2TPhDCCZ5sEQ
Slum outside of Mumbai, 2004; Approx 49% of Mumbai
"This transformation - from slums of despair to slums of hope
English 101:
There's a difference between primary and secondary sources.
Primary source: Those are the people that actually develop facts. For example, a psychologist who performed an experiment would be the primary source in explaining that particular experiment, and the results of said experiment. In this case, the primary sources would be those people who actually went to Mumbai and obtained facts regarding poverty levels.
Secondary source: These are sources who are citing other sources. In these cases, a distinction must be made in who contributed to the information provided. In most cases, the secondary source is simply referencing the works of other people. Thus, the person actually writing the article in question may not have any contribution to the material. In cases like this, the credentials of the secondary source have little to do with the validity of the information in question, since that person didn't actually generate the information.
Lizon is asking a very simple question. Is Rebekah Lewis a primary or secondary source? If she is a secondary source, where did the information originate? If she is a primary source, how did she develop the information?
"Right, the whole point to the essay is that it is possible to solve the problem, but only if they begin implementing the right policies. (The problem is, therefore, if you had a mind that could actually THINK, that this author's far-too-subtle-for-Lizon's-IQ-level observation is that they are NOT implementing such policies.)"
Incorrect as always Xeno. I just don't think you understand how cities grow and mature over time. The concept seems to be beyond your ability to understand.
First it's already been established by the references that I've pulled up that the quality of life is improving in urban centers and is regarded to be much higher than those found in rural areas. The charts from UNICEF prove that, it is indisputable at this point.
Secondly at no point did I ever say that things were perfect in urban centers, What I've been consistently saying is that if you leave these urban centers on their own to develop naturally as they did in other cities all throughout human history eventually policies and infrastructure would develop to allow these urban centers to mature to Stage 3 urban centers, mature cities that are able to maintain a high quality of life to all of it's citizens. I never cited specific items that would allow for this to happen, I only cited historical references proving this to be the case. While I don't have time ATM you will find that in many cases normal development includes the combination of sound government policy, private enterprise, and charitable organizations working together. I know Catholic Charities played a big role in bringing like to the conditions of the Irish Immigrants during the turn of the century. Furthermore these transitions take decades. You you won't really see much of a change until 20-30 years down the road.
But because you are so blind to doing actual research you obviously didn't know that.
This is a prime example of your failure to comprehend things on a large scale. Your looking at things form a day by day year by year perspective. I'm looking at it in terms of decades and centuries.
"She IS the source, you twit."
If she was a primary source she would have cited the methods in which the data was gathered. If she was a secondary source she should have cited where she got the data from. Unfortunately neither is cited or declared. Thus the presentation is no more valid than a black sheet of paper. Thus the presentation is tossed out of this argument for being an invalid reference and you are disallowed to cite it as a reference. Any further reference to it is null and void until sufficient source material is provided to validate it.
Every game has rules, and this is a game, and these are the rules. ^.^ Either follow the rules or forfeit.
---
And you still don't know what the real question is. Pitty.
"First it's already been established by the references that I've pulled up that the quality of life is improving in urban centers and is regarded to be much higher than those found in rural areas. The charts from UNICEF prove that, it is indisputable at this point."
No. This is a lie. Show me the charts UNICEF use to suggest "quality of life" is improving in urban - I home you mean 'areas' - not centers, as the quality of life in urban 'centers' is irrelevant to this discussion.
Zarf, Lizon.
"If she was a primary source she would have cited the methods in which the data was gathered. If she was a secondary source she should have cited where she got the data from. Unfortunately neither is cited or declared. Thus the presentation is no more valid than a black sheet of paper. Thus the presentation is tossed out of this argument for being an invalid reference and you are disallowed to cite it as a reference. Any further reference to it is null and void until sufficient source material is provided to validate it."
"Lizon is asking a very simple question. Is Rebekah Lewis a primary or secondary source? If she is a secondary source, where did the information originate? If she is a primary source, how did she develop the information?"
She is a leading authority on health issues and poverty in the developing world. She's put her name to the document, and so it is good enough for me.
On the otherhand, if the government puts its name to some study, it ISN'T good enough for me. And for the reason that governments tend to fudge the data. They are typically NOT trustworthy authorities on the issue of health and poverty in their countries.
Why do you believe governmental sources them without understanding their sources, where and how they got their data?
I'll tell you why. Because you're a government twit yourself and don't understand that it is academics are the REAL authorities on such issues.
Let's understand that their is a difference between 'authorities' as in government officials, and authorities on certain academic issues.
Authorities in the former case tend to overstep their bounds and forget they themselves and their studies are not 'authoritative' on anything. They are authorities in all things administrative, and that is basically ALL.
On issues like poverty and health, academics of those relevant fields are the ultimate authorities on such issues.
Now that we have clarified what we mean by governmental authority, and academic authority, it should be quite clear even without having to refer again to the following study that governmental sources are given less analytical weight than independent academic authority. But nevertheless, here is the study (yet again I have to refer to sources I have already presented. Is the reason you're not in politics anymore, Lizon, that you got fired for never read anything, right?):
Abstract:
ABSTRACT
What happened to poverty in India in the 1990s has been fiercely debated, politically and
statistically. The Indian debate has run parallel to, and is itself a large part of, the wider debate
about globalization and poverty in the 1990s. The economic reforms of the early 1990s were
followed by rates of economic growth that were high by Indian historical standards. The effects
on poverty remain controversial, and the official numbers published by the Government of India,
showing a reduction of poverty from 36 percent of the population in 1993
"No. This is a lie. Show me the charts UNICEF use to suggest "quality of life" is improving in urban - I home you mean 'areas' - not centers, as the quality of life in urban 'centers' is irrelevant to this discussion."
Simply run a parallel of this search using data from 1990 as a starting point. It's as simple as that.
http://www.unicef.org/view_chart.php?sid=6af0b9e54cb0c8ed6fe09678ceb54bc6&create_chart=Create+Table+%3E%3E&submit_to_chart=1&layout=1&language=eng
Proof is now submitted and valid.
----
"She is a leading authority on health issues and poverty in the developing world. She's put her name to the document, and so it is good enough for me.
On the otherhand, if the government puts its name to some study, it ISN'T good enough for me. And for the reason that governments tend to fudge the data. They are typically NOT trustworthy authorities on the issue of health and poverty in their countries.
Why do you believe governmental sources them without understanding their sources, where and how they got their data?"
The source of the data doesn't mean as much as how it was gathered. Any reputable data source will clearly state how the data was gathered and present a margin of error as well. A person's credentials don't account for much without the proof to back it up. Always question data that doesn't state how it was gathered, regardless of whose name is on top. At least the data from India that I presented went through great length explaining how the data was gathered. Which adds to it's validity.
So again, the data source you presented is invalid until proven otherwise.
---
"Let's understand that their is a difference between 'authorities' as in government officials, and authorities on certain academic issues.
Authorities in the former case tend to overstep their bounds and forget they themselves and their studies are not 'authoritative' on anything. They are authorities in all things administrative, and that is basically ALL.
On issues like poverty and health, academics of those relevant fields are the ultimate authorities on such issues.
Now that we have clarified what we mean by governmental authority, and academic authority, it should be quite clear even without having to refer again to the following study that governmental sources are given less analytical weight than independent academic authority. But nevertheless, here is the study (yet again I have to refer to sources I have already presented. Is the reason you're not in politics anymore, Lizon, that you got fired for never read anything, right?):"
You and your conspiracy theories again. I have little care for your trivial theories on why the data out there doesn't support you. And making up this story in your mind doesn't help your cause. It only makes you look more foolish and desperate. I'm trying to save you from utter embarrassment but you seem to be hell bent on making a fool of yourself with these conspiracies.
---
"http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPA/Resources/deaton_kozel_2004.pdf"
I already read that and I found 2 additional sources and posted them previously that supported the current numbers (26-29% poverty levels). Where are the "disputed" numbers?
---
"I'll bite, (although I really could give 2 @#%s) whats the question?"
You are unqualified to know.
---
One last note: Xeno not a single person has come to your aid in this argument, or any of your previous arguments. This is perhaps hard for you to accept but you have to understand that you simply are misguided. You don't understand these concepts, you have limited knowledge and a skewed analysis of things that you simply cannot understand. And things that you cannot understand you get angry at because if they don't go with what you believe they must be wrong. Face it, on this forum at least, your not going to find any receptive audience for your ideas, in fact your just going to get laughed at for sheer incompetence. I stated it previously in your resource economy thread that if you want to find like minded individuals to provide constructive criticism of your ideas your best bet is to either find a different forum to post in or make your own. You won't get anything accomplished here.
> xeno syndicated wrote:
> She is a leading authority on health issues and poverty in the developing world. She's put her name to the document, and so it is good enough for me.
On the otherhand, if the government puts its name to some study, it ISN'T good enough for me. And for the reason that governments tend to fudge the data. They are typically NOT trustworthy authorities on the issue of health and poverty in their countries.
Philosophy 101: Logical fallacies
This is a blatant issue of appeal to authorities. "X said Y, therefore Y is true." You're not allowing any analysis of the facts themselves. Let's compare the debates:
Lizon has provided multiple sources all over the place, all of which have cited their primary sources. That means you can go back to the core bases upon which his arguments lie, and challenge those. Hell, Lizon has even personally started setting up an accounting sheet for people living in Mumbai. Those are raw numbers that you can review and correct for errors. Every single part of Lizon's argument can be scrutinized.
You, in contrast, provide an author who says "this is true." Your stance is that since that author said it's true, it's true. There's no oversight. No analysis. Nothing.
Let's analyze the logic further:
A: What happens when two competing professors with similar credentials disagree on an issue? If we're not allowed to analyze the substance behind their stances... we're at a standstill. :O
B: Do you know this person? I hate to break it to you, but private individuals can screw up studies too!
An example: There's a scientist whom I've read multiple articles from, who argues that global warming is good for the world. He argued that it helped improve crop production and vegetation growth by increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Sounds legitimate enough, right?
Oh, wait, did I mention his studies are funded by the oil lobby?
C: Does the following quote look familiar:
Even our academics are too #@%-ing lazy (or scared) to get off their fat asses and get out there to the small cities / settlements (even those settlements of 20,000 people are URBAN) and collect the data. They'll only bother going to the big cities of developing countries, and only if there are 5 star hotels to stay at, and probably delegate everything from their hotel rooms, never setting foot out of the lobby, most likely.
Page 4. Your words. And note the group of people you refer to. Academics. Hmm... sounds a good deal like that author you just quoted, doesn't it?
Unless you can verify the root source of the author's claims (by providing secondary or primary source citations), one of two things can be derived:
1: Either you still stand by the above statement, and your source can be thrown out as one of these people sitting on their fat asses in a five star hotel, which would mean we have to fall back on our own analyses of the issues at hand (Lizon's balance sheet), or:
2: You have some exception that allows your source to still be credible despite your general accusation... which is called a double standard.
Okay, I'm bored with this.
I have a solution for all of humanity's problems.
Make Zarf dictator of the world.
"Okay, I'm bored with this."
The only thing Xeno's going to say is that we've all been brainwashed by the government to believe everything they say and that we need to open our eyes to the truth....blah blah blah......
-.- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
"Make Zarf dictator of the world."
QQ Can I at least get Japan? I <3 Japan ^.^
> Justinian I wrote:
> I have a solution for all of humanity's problems.
Make Zarf dictator of the world.
Sigged!
Lizon,
Hehe. A Japanese fan too huh? I watch anime a lot lately. Almost done with Code Geass
Zarf,
You can add colors to the text you know, and remove the "<" and ">"
I watched the newest episodes of Tears to Tiara, Princess Lover, and Shangri-la today. I'm waiting for the subbed version of the K-ON! Live episode. I'm actually able to watch RAW's now and kinda get the stories a bit and understand a little of the language.
I would kill to live near Shibuya or Akihabara.
Plus lets face it, Japanese girls are hot. ^.^
But I'm boring and lazy and preoccupied with real life.
Look! The topic has been shot to hell! 
Well this is obviously more interesting than the dead horse we were beating before. 
You mean dead horse.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Solution to socio-political-economic strife
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.