Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Solution to socio-political-economic strife
*covers up the typo evidence*
I Call Conspiracy!
Who what where? I don't see any conspiracy? All I see is uber leet spelling by Lizon. ^.^
I showed how governmental studies are not trustworthy.
"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."
There is nothing wrong with appealing to authority, as long as it isn't relied on exclusively, which I do not.
Lizon does it all the time, appealing to studies which use data collected by government researchers, researchers who have been proven to manipulate their conclusions to suit their political agendas.
"Lizon has provided multiple sources all over the place"
Yes, all of them citing the same data from governmental studies that are not only untrustworthy but used the same faulty set of indicators.
"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."
Those numbers aren't there anymore, couldn't verify anything. And even if they were there, it seems they would indicate yet another set of data which does not take into account the other indicators that should be included.
"You, in contrast, provide an author who says "this is true."
Again, there is nothing wrong with that. It's called appealing to authority. The courts do it all the time, calling on expert witness testimony. It's not a fallacy, just something not to be relied on exclusively, which, again, I don't.
"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. 
"
Yup. And governments do that a lot, releasing conclusions without sources or explanations on the methods used to come to those conclusions. Why is it wrong for academics to do it and not governments?
"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."
So what? Yes, generally, they are lazy and scared to get dirty and live in ivory towers. But not this Rebekah Lewis, which is why I consider her a LEADING authority on the issue.
"And note the group of people you refer to. Academics."
I don't refer to a group of people. Do you speak English? Can you read, Zarf? I refer to academics. Plural. As in a number of academics. Maybe I refer to some of them or only a few of them or a lot of them. Who knows how many academics I think are too lazy and scared to leave their ivory towers and get a little dirty. I didn't give my opinion on that. And yet, you think you know what my opinion is on how many academics are like that. You automatically assume I meant ALL of them? Go back to grammar school, Zarf.
I'm bored with you trolls, too. Start stating some solutions to what is clearly a growing problem: Solutions to socio-political-economic strife, which is the topic, or find another thread.
If no serious discussion starts on solutions to socio-political-economic strife, I'm going to assume IC forum is infested with a bunch of egotistical, useless trolls, none of whom are worth responding to anymore.
ROFLAMO! I'm sorry. *wipes a tear from his eye* Xeno's post here is so freaking hilarious I nearly fell out of my chair!
I haven't seen a post so full of double standards, hypocrisy, ignorance, paranoia, and incompetence in quite some time.
Xeno, but you lack the intellect to be allowed to have an intelligent discussion with us. I'll let the other people read what you said and laugh at you in their own way. That was just too funny.
----
Now onto more important issues. Seems the new episode of Bleach is out, it's a RAW ATM but should be subbed soon. Man this is a long series, will it ever end!?
As you said, courtrooms do use the appeal to authority quite often. But, if you have ever been in a courtroom (I have), you would know that the expert witnesses aren't given full discretion. They'll ask what the expert did to obtain their information. They'll ask about specific procedures. If you were a defense attorney and some doctor was accusing your client of causing $2,000,000 in damage to their client, wouldn't you do the exact same thing?
"Lizon does it all the time, appealing to studies which use data collected by government researchers, researchers who have been proven to manipulate their conclusions to suit their political agendas."
Guess what, xeno: I couldn't give a shit what Lizon is doing. Want to know why? You've misinterpreted my objective. I'm not defending Lizon.
Look, Lizon has provided reference material which you can, and just did, look over and attack at their root source. You haven't. Whether or not Lizon's evidence is bullshit isn't my concern, because frankly, I'm just a spectator watching this debate. Lizon has done the basic work in trying to find evidence, even if every piece of evidence he has is a lie (which you're perfectly justified in taking up with him). All I want is to be able to watch this debate evolve fairly (in other words, with you actually citing your source material).
The very fact that you have scrutinized his evidence at the root source proves the value of citing sources that in themselves provide sources.
"Yup. And governments do that a lot, releasing conclusions without sources or explanations on the methods used to come to those conclusions. Why is it wrong for academics to do it and not governments?"
Justifying your actions by saying other people do it doesn't make it justified. All that means is:
Yes, when the government releases documents that don't have expert citations, it's bad. And the same goes for private individuals, including you and your source.
"So what? Yes, generally, they are lazy and scared to get dirty and live in ivory towers. But not this Rebekah Lewis, which is why I consider her a LEADING authority on the issue."
Now we get back to the basic question: Why? How do you know what Rebekah Lewis did to obtain that information? Go back to the document, and provide a quote about how the information was obtained. If you can't, then you can't say that Rebekah Lewis didn't sit in her ass in a 5 star hotel because you actually don't know what the person did.
"I don't refer to a group of people. Do you speak English? Can you read, Zarf? I refer to academics. Plural. As in a number of academics. Maybe I refer to some of them or only a few of them or a lot of them. Who knows how many academics I think are too lazy and scared to leave their ivory towers and get a little dirty. I didn't give my opinion on that. And yet, you think you know what my opinion is on how many academics are like that. You automatically assume I meant ALL of them? Go back to grammar school, Zarf."
Look, there was no modifier on the number. You didn't say "most," "some," "a dozen," or use any modifier word on the number. If someone says "Americans are assholes," grammatically speaking, they are referring to all individuals that fit the qualification of being an American.
Your opinion may be different, but it's not what you said. I can only judge your opinion based on the things you say, regardless of whether the things you say are different than the views you actually hold.
"I'm bored with you trolls, too. Start stating some solutions to what is clearly a growing problem: Solutions to socio-political-economic strife, which is the topic, or find another thread."
Hey, xeno. I'm going to issue a challenge. I'm going to report myself to the mods for you. 
Reported myself, and a mod reviewed the case.
Not trolling, but I was picking on you a little bit. (Bad, but not punishable)
So:
A: You accusing me of trolling is, and has been, a lie. I suggest you stop it, as it is now slanderous, equivalent to me accusing you of a crime you were found innocent of.
B: As for "picking on you," fine. I'm limiting my posts to our discussion only. No more backhanded insults. I suggest you do the same, xeno.
Oh, and the mod said Lizon and I are perfectly on topic (except for that little bit at the end of page 6, which I wasn't a part of).
Now, you're perfectly justified in going to another mod and asking about it again, to your liking. But we've already got a ruling (from a full moderator), and that's the one that should stick due to simple recency issues. Since this is the only place where I'm posting, really, I'll assume that if I get a ban, it's because you found a mod who ruled differently. (That would be my first ban ever)
Somehow I already know what Xeno's response is going to be. -.-
In a nutshell Xeno you must provide information and sources that allow themselves to be scrutinized. You want source material where you can say:
"This is my source, this is how the information was gathered. As you can see from the methodology used this ensures that the data is a valid representation of fact. "
This is what I have done. Every reference source I've given goes like this. Many times it goes into great detail showing how the data was gathered and validated. Furthermore the references come from a variety of sources, from government sponsored studies, to academic studies, non-profit surveys, UN general studies, and everything in-between. The sources that I've given that are general references provide detailed bibliographies as to where their data came from again allowing their sources to be scrutinized and challenged.
Thus because I have allowed my source material to be scrutinized it has the added weight of validity in terms of actual debate.
This is in contrast to what your doing. The source you gave did not allow itself to be scrutinized, it does not state where the data came from, it did not say how it was gathered. Thus it's entire validity is called into question. It doesn't matter who wrote it, every source regardless of the author must be held up to the same standards of scrutiny as every other source. Regardless of where it came from. Because it doesn't allow us to do this then we have no choice but to toss the reference out due to being unvalidated.
There simply are standards that MUST be followed by everyone.
You are wrong Xeno, plain and simple. If you want to continue to debate, renounce the source given, and/or show it's source material to allow itself to be scrutinized. Or provide source material that allows itself to be challenged. Complete with methodology with how it was gathered to allow that methodology to be scrutinized as well.
---
Keep in mind Xeno, that the only person here that is stopping this conversation in it's tracks is YOU; via your refusal to allow your data sources to be challenged. If you simply provide us with sources that can be challenged and in turn validated we can then have a proper discussion as to whether there is any problem to address.
Zarf wrote,
"Americans are assholes," grammatically speaking, they are referring to all individuals that fit the qualification of being an American."
Then, to say that "Chinese people eat rice" is to say that all Chinese people eat rice and ONLY rice?
Here's another one: "If you smoke, you'll get cancer." The problem is uneducated, uncritical people (like you and Lizon, Zarf) take such statements to mean absolutes. They can't think statistically - that such statements ACTUALLY mean that such and such percentage of people who smoke such and such amount of cigarettes per day on average tend to have such and such chance of getting cancer, or that such and such percentage of Chinese people eat rice such number of times a week on average.
Take another example. In a conversation between someone who has just returned from a vacation to Japan (person A) and one of their co-workers who has never been to Japan (person B). Person B might ask, "So do people speak English in Japan?" What is the person asking? Is person B asking if EVERY SINGLE PERSON in Japan SPEAKS ENGLISH? No. Person B is asking person A if it was person A's experience that out of the people person A spoke to in Japan how many spoke English. The answer, "Oh yes, people speak English in Japan. It was quite common for us to be able to speak English with people there to get help with directions" does not mean that every single person that they spoke to in Japan speaks English, nor does it mean some or many people with whom they spoke actually spoke English. It simply means that it was common for those people in Japan with whom they spoke to actually speak at least some English.
What a waste of time this is. Now we're discussing grammar in a thread about solutions to socio-economic strife. How is this not trolling?
Zarf, it is due to your inherently flawed sense of logic that you read such absolute meanings in generalized statements. I suppose I take it for granted that when I make such generalizations, it is understood that the other person has at least some understanding of logic, statistics and sociological theory. Tell you what, Zarf, skip grammarschool and take some sociology and philosophy courses, then come back and discuss with me.
"The source you gave did not allow itself to be scrutinized, it does not state where the data came from, it did not say how it was gathered. Thus it's entire validity is called into question. It doesn't matter who wrote it, every source regardless of the author must be held up to the same standards of scrutiny as every other source. Regardless of where it came from. Because it doesn't allow us to do this then we have no choice but to toss the reference out due to being unvalidated."
Show me ONE governmental source that Lizon has cited that does that. Why don't you hold governmental sources up to the same standards? Hell, they don't even put their names to their studies. They don't give bios on the researchers. They don't explain their methodologies. And, when people request such info from them, they hide behind a shroud of secrecy, claiming it is in the interest of national security not to release such information to the public. However, I am sure that if you asked ANY professor to explain their research methodology and cite their sources, they'd in most cases would be happy to comply, if you asked nicely, that is.
I find it quite poetically just that academics, then, are beginning to flex their muscles a bit, not being so sheepish, and starting to play the game a bit more, and a little more mischievously, at that. It's quite refreshing to see.
One governmental study comes up with a conclusion that only 20% of the world's population lives in poverty. Other non-governmental studies come up with 80% of the world's population living in poverty. Neither of them cite sources properly nor offer explanations on their methodologies. That's ok with me. I'll, personally believe the NGO rather than the governmental studies.
Of course, when challenged, regarding the issue of poverty indicators, the governmental polidemic researchers will merely define poverty as X,Y, and Z and come up with NO ARGUMENTS why their set of indicators is accurate. However, the NGO academic researchers will define poverty as ABCDEFHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ0123456789101112131415161718192021... etc. and then give MILLIONS of arguments to back up how their much larger set of indicators is more accurate. But then governmental twits like Lizon never read their arguments; just sit back and collect fat pay-checks, cushy pensions, vacations, car collections and summer homes.
They continue to come out with what are increasingly considered to be faulty conclusions, citing themselves as the primary source. Sadly, because they supposedly have the public's trust, people believe them. However, increasingly, more and more people are waking up to the fact that governments have violated the public trust, and their public doesn't trust them anymore.
In other words, when academic, if the trend is for NGO sources to state one thing citing themselves as the ultimate authority on the issue, while governmental polidemic sources continue to state another conclusion citing themselves as the ultimate authority on the issue, I, and a growing number of people, will tend to believe the NGO authority.
How governmental authorities should start behaving is to take themselves down a notch, realize they are authorities on nothing other than their field of expertise: administration; that they are NOT ultimate authorities on everything under the sun; that it is not their place to conduct their own often manipulated, errant studies; that it is not their place to argue against NGO academic consensus, but rather merely to comply with it, and administer the courses of action recommended by NGO academic consensus.
The sources I gave out show how the data was gathered and state which institute was used. If you want you can go into further detail and look up the institute and find out each researcher's name. The data is all there. So the names and methodology are all transparent.
I expect the same high standards from everyone. Other people beyond myself have even stated as such.
So I gather you refuse to validate your sources and you stand by them despite them being unvalidated?
---
Again, you are the one holding this conversation back. Not everybody else, you.
---
Just to show you the difference: This is from the Indian Press Information Bureau. Notice how it states directly how the information was gathered:
"The statistics on various aspects of household consumer expenditure are the source of prime indicators on social consumption and wellbeing, level of living and inequality thereof. The survey results relate to the year July 2006
"So I gather you refuse to validate your sources and you stand by them despite them being unvalidated?"
Look, Lizon, it is up to you to validate the way in which governments determine poverty lines, as I have already cited this source (which questions it):
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPA/Resources/deaton_kozel_2004.pdf
Yes, xeno. When you make an absolute statement, it means there are no exceptions.
"Americans are assholes" means that every individual American is an asshole.
"Chinese people eat rice" would mean that every Chinese person eats rice (though unlike your characterization, it wouldn't take a stand on whether someone eats something other than rice, since you can eat rice and eat other things).
"If you smoke, you'll get cancer" means that every person who smokes will get cancer.
Yes, it is ridiculous. That's why the old adage exists that statements which say "always," "never," or otherwise present absolutes are usually wrong.
But I'll drop the grammar debate, for the sake of preventing what you call "trolling" again.
"Here's another one: "If you smoke, you'll get cancer." The problem is uneducated, uncritical people (like you and Lizon, Zarf) take such statements to mean absolutes. They can't think statistically - that such statements ACTUALLY mean that such and such percentage of people who smoke such and such amount of cigarettes per day on average tend to have such and such chance of getting cancer, or that such and such percentage of Chinese people eat rice such number of times a week on average."
"Zarf, it is due to your inherently flawed sense of logic that you read such absolute meanings in generalized statements. I suppose I take it for granted that when I make such generalizations, it is understood that the other person has at least some understanding of logic, statistics and sociological theory. Tell you what, Zarf, skip grammarschool and take some sociology and philosophy courses, then come back and discuss with me."
1: Wow... so I offer an olive branch, and you slap my hand away with the personal attacks. Good going, xeno!
2: I haven't even gotten into the meat and potatoes of the issue you are debating with Lizon. Look in my posts. I haven't even taken a stance on the majority of the political substance within the debate. I'm only acting, at most, as a fact check on a couple issues.
3: Try using proper grammar. I could take a shit on the English language and assume everyone knew what I was talking about, but it doesn't work for this exact reason: some people actually read what you write, and assume that's your advocacy.
4: Actually, you were the one who started the grammar debate.
"I don't refer to a group of people. Do you speak English? Can you read, Zarf? I refer to academics. Plural. As in a number of academics. Maybe I refer to some of them or only few of them or a lot of them. Who knows how many academics I think are too lazy and scared to leave their ivory towers and get a little dirty. I didn't give my opinion on that. And yet, you think you know what my opinion is on how many academics are like that. You automatically assume I meant ALL of them? Go back to grammar school, Zarf."
Xeno trolled his own thread, by his own admission!
5: Another old adage: When two contradictory theories are equally plausible to explain something, all other things being equal, the simpler explanation is probably the correct one.
So if I say "if you smoke, you'll get cancer..."
Under my theory, the statement would be wrong because I can think of one example of someone who wouldn't get cancer even though they smoke (someone killed in a car accident while smoking).
Under your theory, the listener would need to go do research on the effects of cigarettes, find the proper number of people who smoke and do get cancer, and plug that number in as the meaning of your statement. By that time, the final interpretation of the sentence in no way reflects the words used. Under this interpretation, human error is impossible, and the problem is the words themselves, rather than the choice of words.
Which is simpler? Hmmmm?
"Show me ONE governmental source that Lizon has cited that does that. Why don't you hold governmental sources up to the same standards? Hell, they don't even put their names to their studies. They don't give bios on the researchers. They don't explain their methodologies. And, when people request such info from them, they hide behind a shroud of secrecy, claiming it is in the interest of national security not to release such information to the public. However, I am sure that if you asked ANY professor to explain their research methodology and cite their sources, they'd in most cases would be happy to comply, if you asked nicely, that is."
1: You're doing the job of holding government sources to those standards.
2: Lizon doesn't rely entirely on government sources.
3: It is standard practice in the scientific community to cite their sources anyway. In fact, it's plagiarism if they don't do so. At the point where it's standard practice to divulge sources for public scrutiny, you shouldn't have to ask nicely in the first place.
4: If government sources don't cite their methodology for public scrutiny, yet private individuals do cite their methodology for public scrutiny, guess who the scientific community will usually give more weight to. The private individuals, actually. The reason? Because that person can be checked.
This very debate between you and Lizon proves the importance of scrutinizing methodologies. You have yet to answer this.
Xeno in case you don't remember, as I know you have short term memory problems, this entire discrepancy started with your proclamation of this:
"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."
Because you said this we had to backtrack to correct your mistake and make sure you don't make that mistake again. And the fact that you zealously used that .ppt as a basis of your argument showed how weak your case was.
---
"Look, Lizon, it is up to you to validate the way in which governments determine poverty lines, as I have already cited this source (which questions it):
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPA/Resources/deaton_kozel_2004.pdf"
I already read that. And I looked at the numbers. They are no different than the current numbers that are put in both by the Indian Government, and UNICEF. All 3 documents support each other. The issue he was talking about was the differences between the 1990 study and the study used now. If you look up the historical references on http://www.mospi.nic.in/nsso_test1.htm you can see how their systems have changed over the past 2 decades to be more accurate.
---
You were the one that made the mistake first Xeno, we're simply trying to correct it. The fact that you persist in defending this "source" despite it's inability to validate itself shows that you, not us, are holding this conversation back. It is up to you to either renounce this source or provide reference material to where the data came from so that the data it contains can be disputed properly in a formal manor.
Stop being a problem Xeno, be a solution. ^.^
"2: Lizon doesn't rely entirely on government sources."
YES HE DOES. His entire argument is based on conclusions obtained by government-obtained census data. It doesn't matter if the sources he uses are wikipedia, encyclopedias, aid-organizations, or neo-malthusian propagada websites, because if those sources use data obtained by the same government sponsored census data, it is still, ultimately, a government source.
"In fact, it's plagiarism if they don't do so."
Alright, so if governments refuse to release their sources and methodology explanations, we can change governments with plagiarism, then?
"This very debate between you and Lizon proves the importance of scrutinizing methodologies. You have yet to answer this."
I've given sources which do just that - their whole point is to scrutinize methodologies involved with obtaining poverty indicators, and you and Lizon have yet to respond to that.
For the last !#@%-ing time, READ THIS:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPA/Resources/deaton_kozel_2004.pdf
Didn't I just post an article from a think tank in London? There's goes Xeno with his selective reading again.
Or the historical references, surely those are government sponsored, oh wait, their in history books.
Oh what about the information about the cost of individual items in India, no wait, one reference was government sponsored, the next was a blog entry from someone that lives there, the last was an apartment listing for the area.
...
Thank you for again making a fool or yourself and reinforcing my sources validity.
---
"Alright, so if governments refuse to release their sources and methodology explanations, we can change governments with plagiarism, then?"
ANY source that does not show where and how it got it's data from can be contended. The thing is Xeno, you did this. You cited a powerpoint presentation as a valid source despite it's lack of validity.
"For the last !#@%-ing time, READ THIS:"
I already read it and cited 2 sources that complement the raw data that it uses that reinforce my base argument that there is no reason to assume that the current urbanization process is out of the ordinary when applied to historical context vs current conditions.
Course your so blinded by your stereotypes, prejudices, and fear that you cannot grasp this currently. I'm starting to think that you are mentally deranged in some capacity and should seek professional help if need be.
---
So what have we learned int his thread so far?
1. There are no problems. The false perception of problems stem from a lack of understanding the 3 stages of the urbanization process. Given historical references to compare to it is suffice to say that the urbanization process is on pace to meet the needs of the worlds developing population within the next 50 years or so or approx 2-3 generations.
2. It is critical in every debate to provide legitimate reference material that is either a primary or secondary source and is validated through a standardized process that holds each piece of evidence tot he same standard, regardless of who compiled the data. Primary sources must dictate how the data was gathered, secondary sources must state their primary sources.
---
Again Xeno for the 3 time. Your only 2 choices are to renounce the data source you gave, or find out what references the source used and post those references here. Those are you only 2 choices, so which will it be then?
---
I think I found the PERFECT work to describe Xeno so far:
ignorangutan - someone who keenly offers on-the-fly explanation about topics they have no clue about. keen like an orangutan, but ignorant.
^.^
"YES HE DOES. His entire argument is based on conclusions obtained by government-obtained census data. It doesn't matter if the sources he uses are wikipedia, encyclopedias, aid-organizations, or neo-malthusian propagada websites, because if those sources use data obtained by the same government sponsored census data, it is still, ultimately, a government source."
I'll defer to Lizon on this.
"Alright, so if governments refuse to release their sources and methodology explanations, we can change governments with plagiarism, then?"
Assuming what you say is true, yes.
"I've given sources which do just that - their whole point is to scrutinize methodologies involved with obtaining poverty indicators, and you and Lizon have yet to respond to that.
For the last !#@%-ing time, READ THIS:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPA/Resources/deaton_kozel_2004.pdf"
You're missing the point. The above statement is not saying that you haven't been scrutinizing methodologies. You have. I know you have. You know you have. I am making the following argument, which I will make very clear for you...
Scrutinizing sources is a good thing. The link which you refer to above... that's awesome. It shows a level of debate that's higher than simply appealing to authority.
Now, why do we scrutinize sources? So that we can figure out which sources are facts and which are crap.
Picture this:
Lizon posts a study that says poverty in Mumbai is at a huge low based on the author's investigation of people living in the region. Yet there was no author listed. You couldn't say that it was crap developed by the government, because nobody from any government signed their name to the document. However, the document could have easily been government produced. Or it could just as easily have been from a legitimate person who actually did conduct a legitimate study. You don't know.
Since you wouldn't know, you couldn't scrutinize it. That doesn't mean the information is accurate. It's only because the person providing the information isn't fully disclosing enough to allow scrutiny. In short, they're trying to stack the deck in a discussion.
Everyone in this discussion agrees that it's a good thing to have sources fully disclosed. The fact that you have used Lizon's disclosure against him by attacking his sources (which is perfectly fine) means you understand the value of disclosing sources.
The only reason we're having this argument Xeno is because the source you provided by your own hand does not disclose where it came from. And you are using that source as a basis of your claims, and you are trying to use it as evidence of corrupted data sources. Thus we have no choice but to call foul play and insist that you correct the mistake and either renounce the source or find out where it got it's data from.
At least I go through the effort to find multiple sources and organizations to cross-verify my data.
---
The basis of debate, regardless of it's type. Is the credit and discrediting of source material used int he said debate. The outcome of that battle determines on what side the consensus will be. Once a consensus is agreed upon then dialogue and analysis of that consensus can begin.
In order to discredit a source you cannot say it cannot be accepted based on a philosophical belief that the source is tainted. You must prove it, and each source must be discredited individually. Either by discrediting the individual organization that the research came form or discrediting the data individually.
When I posted the breakdown showing living expenses in Mumbai, the proper way to counter that list would be to show a counter list with relevant sources showing that it isn't possible at all. You didn't do that. You did find one error that I made and I corrected it and reinforced the argument by identifying a secondary source for my prices. Again you didn't provide any evidence to discredit it. You simply kept saying that it wasn't possible but you didn't SHOW it wasn't possible. You failed to discredit it, thus form a debate standpoint the argument remained uncontested.
That is only one example of your many missed opportunities to settle down properly, and debate in a proper, and formal manor in order to prove a point. But you didn't, thus the only person to blame for your inability to "get people to understand" is your own.
OMG
You actually think that I don't know all of that, don't you? You think that because I'm not playing by your rules that I don't know how to play by your rules. It's simply inconceivable to you that I wouldn't want to play by your rules, isn't it?
Wow.
I'll tell you what. I'm quite fed up with this.
All I'm going to do from now on in this thread is ask questions, since you all seem to know all the answers so well:
1. What percentage of the global population who are earning between $9 and $11 dollars / day are living in poverty?
They are the rules of debate. As soon as you step into the debating arena you are bound to them, willingly or not. Your opinions and desires are irrelevant.
I've already proven that you can live off of less than $2 a day. So it doesn't matter what you say about who lives in poverty under X amount of income (Especially when X is higher than the amount that I aimed for). You must prove that I am wrong with the previous figures, complete with source material and references to support it. Not opinions, debatable facts.
I am going to be utterly relentless here on this and not let up.
---
And I think it's pretty obvious that you are are not aware of what questions should be asked to begin with. As it stands from this stage in the discussion it is doubtful that there's anything to discuss at all. I see no point in trying to discuss anything that very much likely doesn't exist in the first place.
It's true. I lived off $20 a week for a while, just to see how cheap I could get. I didn't feel very healthy though.
> xeno syndicated wrote:
> OMG
You actually think that I don't know all of that, don't you? You think that because I'm not playing by your rules that I don't know how to play by your rules. It's simply inconceivable to you that I wouldn't want to play by your rules, isn't it?
Look... the rules of a debate are created for the sake of facilitating a debate, so that we can actually reach the correct conclusion. You want to reach the correct conclusion. So do we.
You provide absolutely no reason why it's good to not cite references. You just refuse to cite references for reasons unknown. It can only be assumed that either you can't, or won't, cite your references for that particular argument.
If you can't, your argument is unsubstantiated because we can't check it, and therefore invalid.
If you won't, it means you are conducting unethical practices in debate, and your very own credibility here is in question.
Either way, you lose.
Just answer the question according to your research.
What percentage of people living on $9-$11 / day are living in poverty?
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
Actually, Justinian, that doesn't answer his question.
Xeno's question was this:
Group all the people that make between $9 and $11 per day. How many of them are living in poverty?
That statistic only determines the poverty rate based on different poverty levels ($1.00, $2.00, $10.00). That includes people above and below the $9-$11 mark.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Solution to socio-political-economic strife
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.