UN Bias Hurts The World

Anything and Everything about Uplink

Moderators: jelco, bert_the_turtle, Chris, Icepick, Rkiver

Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:09 pm

"Well researched and well structured" and packed well full of lies, manipulations and implicit insults?

Yes, they may "seem" to be a lot of things, but that does a very convenient job of hiding what they really are. A cover of respectability can let you get away with virtually anything. Any mass-murdering doctor will tell you that. :-P
His lies, manipulation, implicit insults, agendas and ignoring of facts are small in comparison to murder perhaps, but I believe the principle is clear.

I say what I think in the manner in which I think it and yes that can be inflammatory and will annoy people and cause conflict, but at least I don't manipulate and lie and throw subtle insults and generally act like a scheming tosspot. And my posts are researched and structured, look through this very topic to find numerous sources and points made in a very orderly fashion. Especially here (notice how after he did not respond to this point exposing his lies, he then accused me of ignoring the debate) and on my damning evidence of his lies on the previous page. Well researched, well sourced and well structured.

Stewsburntmonkey has utterly abused status he has built up around here and quite clearly thinks himself above both people and facts and thinks he can lie and manipulate anything he wants with utter impunity. It is this which I object to. And people like you will come along and back him up, with no idea of the debate, and quite clearly ignoring the evidence of his lies.

What have I picked up from your comments?
That he lied on other issues too, if you see here. He never responded to that point but still claimed later on (here) that I was ignoring the issues. Does that count as lying or manipulation of opinion? Hmm...

Everytime I look I find more proof for my accusations that he is a liar and a manipulator of the first order. You can shut your eyes if you want, when you open them all the irrefutable evidence will still be there.
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:20 pm

Rkiver wrote:You're against same sex marriages, and? It's not that you are against it, it's the idiotic reasons you gave. If you had some sensible reasons, well that'd be fine, but you gave none, hence you got blasted.


I don't remember and I don't keep my IRC logs, so perhaps you'd remind me of my reasons? Although, seeing as you've publically declared your hatred of religion (a lot of people around here don't seem to like religion very much, seems to go with the liberal territory), obviously you don't consider religious and moral objections to be good enough for you.
There are economic objetions that run along the lines that a gay marriage has no chance of producing children (which are of economic benefit to a state), and yet marriage provides economic benefits to couples at the cost of the state, so why should the state provide for it without incentive.

Rkiver wrote:Now I'll admit that's the only one I can think of off hand.


So, you can remember one single disagreement on an issue and that's enough to label me as "a complete right winged extremist idiot." Even if you do find others, the fact remains you only remembered one and still saw that as fit for a ridiculous label.

Rkiver wrote:Disagreeing with somone is one thing, that doesn't make you an extremist, but the way you put forward your views does. Ask anyone who has seen you in IRC when it comes to certain topics, you go off the deepend.


Putting forward views in certain ways does not make you an extremist per se. Having views that are 'extreme' makes you an extremist. If I have a view on something that disagrees with yours but is not an extremist view, and I put that across in a loud manner, does that make me an extremist? No, my political views are fundamentally no different, and those are what constitute extremism.

Rkiver wrote:I respect your views, as they are yours. I don't respect how you put them across, or your reasons for them.


Well, I don't really need preaching on 'respect' from someone who boasts their hatred of religion and has a complete lack of respect for the views religion propagates. I don't even obey nearly all the rules of my religion, and I really couldn't care less about christianity or islam or hinduism or whatever, but I still have a respect that makes me feel distinctly uneasy when you start attacking religion. I've even found myself defending the catholic church from your sweeping attacks several times and I think most of catholicism is crap.
However, I am also of the opinion that this 'respect' that everyone needs to have for everyone elses' views is crap. I think that if someone disagrees they should say they disagree and the view is bullshit rather than having to go 'I respect your views, but...'
Because the truth is, not all views deserve respect and it is mainly a furthering of political correctness that means everyone has to walk around saying they have respect for everything else. I think the point this really hit home to me is when someone, in all seriousness, said that we should respect the rights of suicide-bombers to have their views and express them.
I think the whole 'respect for views' thing just creates falseness and a constricting environment for proper criticism.
But that's just my opinion.
FrostShard
level5
level5
Posts: 1664
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:37 pm
Location: Scotland. Och aye the noo, and all that.
Contact:

Postby FrostShard » Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:46 pm

In my ever-so-humble opinion, I think that when people say that they "respect the views" of someone they're arguing against, they obviously don't mean that, because if they did they wouldn't be arguing against the person.

What they mean is that they respect the person's right to their opinion and their view, and the fact that they have made their decision and come to this conclusion.

As for the "extremist" stuff, which If would quote if I wasn't Willing To Fuel Your Imaginative Skills (read: lazy), I respect your opinion :wink:, but can't agree with you on this one.

If you were to say "I think Palestinian suicide bombers aren't evil, as their country is being oppressed and crushed as punishment for something over which they have no control. They are fighting for their freedom and the freedom of their families in the only way they can," then I wouldn't think of you as an extremist.

If you were to say "Palestinian suicide bombers aren't evil, because those twelve-year-old Israeli fuckers deserve to die anyway," then I would think of you as an extremist.

Appearing extremist can be very dependent on the way your position is put accross.



EDIT: Depenent. Ent. Yes, it's sad, but it was annoying me.
Last edited by FrostShard on Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rkiver wrote:So as you see, the average person is a fucking idiot.
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:53 pm

I can see your point, but I think it's a horrible example to use, because I view those who advocate and condone suicide bombing on purely civilian targets for the purposes of mass innocent death to be extremist, irrespective of the justification they gave. Anyway, the whole 'desperation' excuse is rather pathetic as statistics show attacks go up as peace and deals progress. After the significant step forward of the Oslo accords, within a year, 10 MAJOR terror attacks by a variety of groups were carried out on Israel and the usual hundreds upon hundreds more attempts were prevented.
If they had been "desperate" they would have supported major steps toward a peace deal and resolving the conflict, instead of bombing the crap out of Israel at a higher rate than before.

That aside.

Iin your example you don't note that it is not only the way the view is put across that is different, it is the actual view that has changed. I cited "political views" as the basis for whether something is extremism. In your example, the political view has changed from "they're desperate" to simply "the others deserve to die", the support of the action has not changed but the "political viewpoint" certainly has.

In your examples, people are not just saying their view louder or more forcefully which are the grounds Rkiver used for calling me 'extremist', they are saying something fundamentally different. That is not just a change in expression, it's a change in view.

When I advocate something more strongly and more forcefully, I don't change the justifications, I change the language and perhaps the tone, but the reasoning and justification stays the same and thus the political viewpoint stays the same..

If I was arguing for the security barrier Israel is constructing, if I said 'It's needed to protect Israel', that's one view. If I said 'it's needed to inconvenience the palestinians', that is another different view entirely, not just a change in the way I said it. The result is the same, but the view has changed, not just the expression.

Just because the same result is advocated, that does not mean the actual "political viewpoint" has not changed.

EDIT: I know what I said above looks complicated and it is kinda. Simply put, I'm saying that your point and example don't stand up because they include a difference in 'political view', and while one may be extremism and the other not, it's not because of a difference in expression, it's because of a fundamental difference in viewpoint.
FrostShard
level5
level5
Posts: 1664
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:37 pm
Location: Scotland. Och aye the noo, and all that.
Contact:

Postby FrostShard » Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:40 pm

Curiosity wrote:In your example you don't note that it is not only the way the view is put across that is different, it is the actual view that has changed. I cited "political views" as the basis for whether something is extremism. In your example, the political view has changed from "they're desperate" to simply "the others deserve to die", the support of the action has not changed but the "political viewpoint" certainly has.

In your examples, people are not just saying their view louder or more forcefully which are the grounds Rkiver used for calling me 'extremist', they are saying something fundamentally different. That is not just a change in expression, it's a change in view.


I got the impression that what Rkiver was saying was that you provided little or no justification for your points. While they both said said "suicide bombing is okay," the difference in the two viewpoints was that the first one (and I'm not saying it's right or that it isn't, although I have to agree with most of what you said before "that aside,") was backed up with justification and was a reasonable , if questionably moral, opionion to hold.

The first one is saying "[blah] because I think this and this is my view on the subject," while the second one is saying "[blah] because this is." One states an opinion, one says that their opinion is fact. The first one doesn't seem extremist to me, because anybody can say they think [blah blah blah]. But no-one has the right to say that [blah blah blah] is true simply because. Not least when [blah blah blah] happens to be that an entire group of people don't deserve to live.
Rkiver wrote:So as you see, the average person is a fucking idiot.
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:58 pm

FrostShard wrote:While they both said said "suicide bombing is okay," the difference in the two viewpoints...


My whole contention was that there was a difference in viewpoint and that there were two separate views, not merely two ways of expressing the same view. Now it seems you agree that there are two different viewpoints, and if that is the case then the fact that one is extreme and one is not extreme is not the issue.

Rkiver's contention was that:

Rkiver wrote:...but the way you put forward your views does [make you an extremist].


He said 'the way I put forward' my views/viewpoints can make them extremist, not that my actual viewpoints were in themselves extreme.

My contention is that the same viewpoint simply "expressed in a different way" cannot suddenly become extreme, only if the justification changes can it become extreme, and if the justification changes, it is no longer the same viewpoint anyway, so his point is meaningless.

In the end, "extremism" is an "extreme political viewpoint". One single political viewpoint can either be extremist or not. Shouting it louder does not make it extremist, nor does swearing while saying it. Changing the justification can make it extremist, but as soon as you change the justification of the viewpoint you have gone far beyond changing the "way it is put forward" and actually fundamentally changed the viewpoint itself in to something different.

My contention is that changing the way a viewpoint is expressed CANNOT make it extremist. Changing the reasoning CAN make it extremist, but if you change the reasoning, then you fundamentally change the viewpoint in to a new viewpoint, and so the original one is not extremist, the new one is.
Rkiver
level5
level5
Posts: 6405
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 10:39 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby Rkiver » Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:28 pm

I apologise, what I typed was in error.

What I should have said is "The way you put across your views tends to make me think of you frothing at the mouth about something the same way extremists tend to do."

As for same sex marriage not producing children.....and? Not all marriages produce kids. Rather archaic view there.
Uplink help: Read the FAQ
FrostShard
level5
level5
Posts: 1664
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:37 pm
Location: Scotland. Och aye the noo, and all that.
Contact:

Postby FrostShard » Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:34 pm

Curiosity wrote:My contention is that changing the way a viewpoint is expressed CANNOT make it extremist. Changing the reasoning CAN make it extremist, but if you change the reasoning, then you fundamentally change the viewpoint in to a new viewpoint, and so the original one is not extremist, the new one is.


Fair enough. I might argue later, when I've not got dinner to go and eat, but for now I admit you're probably right.

But... uhh... it was a moral victory.


















(Yay for calvin! Yay for Hobbes! Yay for Stupendous Man! Yay! :D )
Rkiver wrote:So as you see, the average person is a fucking idiot.
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:54 pm

Rkiver wrote:I apologise, what I typed was in error.

What I should have said is "The way you put across your views tends to make me think of you frothing at the mouth about something the same way extremists tend to do."


Well, for some reason that's ok with me. I do get exceedingly angry about things and even if my views aren't extremist, I can sometimes try to defend them with the same zeal. For example, my views on Israel are not extremist, but obviously the issue can get me incredibly annoyed.

Rkiver wrote:As for same sex marriage not producing children.....and? Not all marriages produce kids. Rather archaic view there.


True, not all marriages produce children. But marriages are overwhelmingly likely to produce children and the state can afford the marriages that don't produce children, cause most do.
I have to say, I was merely expounding this view to say that their are arguments for not introducing gay-marriage on a number of grounds, not merely religious etc.
It's not actually an issue I care about much. If they decided to introduce gay marriage here, I'd say 'Fine, go ahead, I don't care'. You'd never find me out there campaigning for it, but I'd never be out there campaigning against it, either. My opposition is just passive. If asked my opinion or if the topic comes up, I'll say what I think, otherwise I don't really care.
I actually can see the virtue of some of the arguments for gay marriage, and the logical part of me has few objections. I don't know if being able to marry the person you love is a right, but maybe it should be (although, I'm not in favour of abolishing incest laws etc.). I want to marry the person I love, and if I was told I couldn't legally marry them (actually, my parents did say I shouldn't, but that doesn't mean I can't ignore them) then that would be very distressing. I mean, I am not very religious (though I do have religious beliefs), so that's not really my problem. I've actually liberalised a lot on the whole gay issue in general, so that's not it either. It's something else. It's the reactionary, gut-instinct part of me that is against it. And that's something I struggle to change. However much I rationalise it to myself, some prejudice inside me disagrees. That's something I have to work on, who knows, it might change. One thing I do know though, telling me I'm an extremist will not help it change.
Rkiver
level5
level5
Posts: 6405
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 10:39 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby Rkiver » Tue Jun 21, 2005 10:16 pm

Incest laws are there for a number of reasons, least not incest usually results in genetical defects and other no so nice side affects. Same sex marriages don't result in any offspring, hence the whole "Well next they'll allow incestual couples to marry" arguement really is not valid here.

Regardless you've changed your tune quite a bit over same sex marriages in the past while. I think your girlfriend is rubbing off on you. As for your parents saying you shouldn't marry the one you love (is this with relation to your current girlfriend who is of a different religion?) I'd honestly tell them to get lost. You are their son, yes, but you will marry whomever you care for. Your choice, not theres.
Uplink help: Read the FAQ
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Tue Jun 21, 2005 10:46 pm

Rkiver wrote:I think your girlfriend is rubbing off on you.


Maybe she is, but is that any of your busi... ohh, I see what you mean... :D

Rkiver wrote:As for your parents saying you shouldn't marry the one you love (is this with relation to your current girlfriend who is of a different religion?)


Yes it is. They say that she should convert, and that's something that would make me happy, but it's a long (it can take several years) and difficult (there are exams and tests and checks and all sorts) process. Plus, the authorities want to see genuine commitment to the religion not just for the sake of marriage.

It's a bit silly really, because if it was simpler (as it is in reform communities) then she could convert easily, kids would be Jewish and I could raise a Jewish family with all the right beliefs and values and such. However, if she can't convert then she and any kids won't be Jewish and it will be a lot harder trying to instil them with values and beliefs, not to mention being unable to get them in to Jewish schools and synagogues and such.

It's actually a lot bigger a problem than just my parents not approving. Funnily enough, if I didn't care about my religion there wouldn't be problems or issues, but it's because I care that it will be problematic.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:11 am

Curiosity wrote:I say what I think in the manner in which I think it and yes that can be inflammatory and will annoy people and cause conflict, but at least I don't manipulate and lie and throw subtle insults and generally act like a scheming tosspot.


Of course you don't. . . :roll:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would hope (and judging from the comments here that hope is justified) that people see what my style of debate actually is. I certainly have my views about things and have never been shy about expressing them here. I argue the same way now that I did when I first came here (some may remember the huge topics of yester-year, specifically the ones including The Goldfish). My idea is to stay as close to the facts as I can. This is of course hard, but I think it is worth trying to look at what the actual facts of any matter are and them make the conclusions from there, as opposed to making a conclusion and then finding facts to support it (as it is easy to simply exclude facts that don't mesh with a presupposed world view). I tend to use a rather Socratic method in many of my arguments, which means letting people get tangled up in their own contradictions. This can be a messy approach at times, but in the end it generally produces the clearest picture of a person's views.

I also check facts. This applies firstly to my own facts, but more interestingly to the facts other people provide. I should note that I check the facts provided by those who agree with me as much as I check the facts provided by those who I disagree with. It is amazing how often a quick search will find very interesting things about the facts many people give. Often you will find people using facts that are simply urban myths or widespread misconceptions (I have been thankful for my own double checking on many occasions as it has prevented me from using many such fallacious ideas). Other times it will reveal the source of the facts is rather untrustworthy. In several instances I have found whole sections of posts are simply copy and paste jobs from other sources. I would actually advise anyone who seriously wants to participate in debates in this sort of medium to do similar fact checking. In verbal debates such checking is impossible, so people can make up "facts" or use unreliable or biased sources with impunity (which is one reason verbal debates have become virtually pointless). However in written exchanges facts can be checked and inaccuracies pinpointed and specifically addressed. That is one reason I am so fond of this mode of discussion.

I also don't take absolute positions on things, for instance I am not easily labeled pro-Israel, nor am I easily labeled anti-Israel (I am sure someone may object to that). I have defended Israel against posts I felt faulted it wrongly, and I have certainly made my fair share of criticism of Israel. I have defended America on many occasions against anti-American rubbish, yet feel free to criticize American actions that I feel are wrong. I don't think it is intellectually healthy to limit criticism of something or someone because you like it/them. I love America, but should I stand silent while it does things I find abhorrent? I feel it is my duty as a patriot to do what I can to push America in what I feel is the right direction. After all, just look at what silence in the name of patriotism has wrought. Millions of Germans remained silent during the Nazi rule because they loved their homeland. Millions died as a result. Patriotic or other similar pride based silence has no place in the modern world. It only serves to undermine democracy and promote dangerous activity.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Curiosity wrote:
Stewsburntmonkey wrote:A study by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Johns Hopkins University, and Al Quds University, indicates 30 percent of Palestinian children suffer from chronic malnutrition, and another 21 percent from acute malnutrition (2002).

That's 51% of Palestinian children suffering from malnutrition. That is in fact 6% higher than the figure given for Burundi.

3% would be better than nearly any other country in the world.


Well, that would be very damning... If it were true...

Unfortunately, I cannot find a single piece of verification for your claim. In fact, I found numerous articles on the precise report that you claim to be quoting from...


Not looking very hard I suppose. . . That is part of their report that goes into a great deal of detail about the problems.


Also, I wonder why you quoted from a 3 year old survey, carried out with Al Quds university (because they have nothing against Israel...)


My figures are more recent than the 1990-2001 figures you gave (from the UN Human Development Report). . . As for the bias Al Quds University may have. . . You just got through defending the use of information from a totally bias (by your own admission) organization and you have the gall to disqualify information provided by two major Universities and the US government? That is simply incredible, though given you not surprising. Like Deepsmeg said, you tend to only care about bias if it might hurt your position.


Also, if the malnutrition rate was "51%", do you not think the palestinian territories would be on the FAO's list of food emergencies?


The FAO's emergencies list is for catastrophic and generally short term issues (drought, mudslides, locusts, etc). But the FAO certainly does acknowledge the emergency in the occupied territories:

ReliefWeb wrote:According to the 2004 FAO/WFP assessment mission report, food insecurity is a real or near constant threat for about 70 percent of both West Bank and Gaza Strip populations, with four out of ten households identified as chronically food insecure.

For the West Bank and Gaza Strip, FAO is asking for $4 million to support a range of projects, including helping female-headed households improve nutrition and income through backyard farming, beekeeping and other activities, enabling poor farmers to produce high-quality olive oil through improved production and post-harvest techniques, rehabilitation of damaged greenhouses for vegetable production, and developing a food insecurity and vulnerability information mapping system to monitor and provide up-to-date information on food insecurity and nutrition status among Palestinians.



Funny how the palestinian territories have never been on the FAO list of food emergencies, has never been declared a Food Emergency of any sort.


You don't seem to understand what the an FAO Food Emergency is. The FAO has what it calls "Food and Agricultural Emergencies". These are natural or human catastrophes that wipe out significant food resources in a country. For example when an earthquake strikes, or massive flooding occurs, or sever drought, or crops are burned during civil war. None of these has occurred in the occupied territories in any significant measure. The food problems are not acute shortages, but long term food supply issues. Thus it makes perfect sense that the occupied territories are not considered a "food emergency" by the FAO.

And furthermore, I based my figures on the UN Human Development Report 2003, and the statistics it gives for children under weight for age (which is how it calculates malnourishment in children). The UN Human Development Report 2004, pegs undernourishment of palestinian children at 4%. Burundi gets 45%.
In the same region:
Syria: 7%, Egypt: 11%, Iran: 11%, Jordan: 5%, Bahrain: 9%, Kuwait: 10% Virtually the whole of Africa is in double figures of around 30%, 40%...


The report also acknowledges that these figures may differ significantly from the estimates taken on a national level, due to the issues involved in compiling statistics on an international level. Also the Johns Hopkins/Al Quds/USAID report was commissioned to look at the effects of the rising violence over the last few years and its effects on the food situation in the occupied territories. That time period is not covered in the UN report. That fact may be a factor in explaining the discrepancy. As would the difference in the measurements taken. The study I referenced actually looked at the diet of the Palestinian children, not simply their weight.
ToRmEnToR
level5
level5
Posts: 2420
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2002 5:48 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Postby ToRmEnToR » Wed Jun 22, 2005 9:25 am

51% of palestinian children suffering from malnutrition?

Sounds like bullshit to me. When was the last time you have seen a realy malnutritioned child in some news report from the palestinian authority? Statistically there should be one out of 2... I dont recall even one case in which a report which was made from some malnutritioned country in africa that didnt show a group of starving kids staring at the camera...

And 51% 'malnutritioned'? Seems like a starving country to me... I wonder what their definition of 'malnutrition' is. And I also wonder if there were any other countries mentioned in that report and what was they presentage of malnutritioned kids...
meow
Rkiver
level5
level5
Posts: 6405
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 10:39 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby Rkiver » Wed Jun 22, 2005 9:36 am

Curiosity wrote:Yes it is. They say that she should convert, and that's something that would make me happy, but it's a long (it can take several years) and difficult (there are exams and tests and checks and all sorts) process. Plus, the authorities want to see genuine commitment to the religion not just for the sake of marriage.

It's a bit silly really, because if it was simpler (as it is in reform communities) then she could convert easily, kids would be Jewish and I could raise a Jewish family with all the right beliefs and values and such. However, if she can't convert then she and any kids won't be Jewish and it will be a lot harder trying to instil them with values and beliefs, not to mention being unable to get them in to Jewish schools and synagogues and such.

It's actually a lot bigger a problem than just my parents not approving. Funnily enough, if I didn't care about my religion there wouldn't be problems or issues, but it's because I care that it will be problematic.


You have faith in your religion, and you feel it is important to you, I can see that. However, and I ask this in all frankness, does it really matter that much to you that you would perhaps not get married to this girl? Obviously not (unless I'm reading that all wrong) because you seem to have given a lot of thought about it. Being raised Jewish, or Muslim, or Christian, really isn't that big a deal. Surely it would be better for you to keep your religion, your girlfriend to keep hers, and let your children decide when they come of age what they want to be.

I do have one little niggling issue. "Right beliefs", I hope that is "Right beliefs in relation to the Jewish belief system" rather then "My beliefs are right and you are all wrong." :P
Uplink help: Read the FAQ
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Wed Jun 22, 2005 9:42 am

Curiosity wrote:Not looking very hard I suppose. . . That is part of their report that goes into a great deal of detail about the problems.


Funnily enough, your 51% figure is still a mystery to me. The report doesn't seem to say what you claim it does. Have you drawn it out of the data that is there, because I'm struggling to find it. Every article I find on the subject, quotes the author saying that the rate is about "22%", not anything like "51%". Well...

sbm wrote:My figures are more recent than the 1990-2001 figures you gave (from the UN Human Development Report). . . As for the bias Al Quds University may have. . .


Actually, I also gave from the later HDR which used figures from 2002. I shall cover that point later. You still haven't shown why we should trust them.

sbm wrote:You just got through defending the use of information from a totally bias (by your own admission) organization and you have the gall to disqualify information provided by two major Universities and the US government? That is simply incredible, though given you not surprising. Like Deepsmeg said, you tend to only care about bias if it might hurt your position.


You and I both know you just made a crap point. Saying that the UN has a political bias against Israel is one thing. I have said that often. However, I really do not see how that comes in to play, or any bias comes in to play when they are simply putting HDI factors in a big table. This is not "simply incredible", you know as well as I do that your point is ridiculous. Arguing that the UN has an anti-Israel bais has nothing to do with them collating statistics on HDI indicators for the world. See, this is called 'discrediting through bollocks', you do it a lot and I'll add it to the list with 'lying', for you.

sbm wrote:The FAO's emergencies list is for catastrophic and generally short term issues (drought, mudslides, locusts, etc). But the FAO certainly does acknowledge the emergency in the occupied territories:


No, you see, that's not true. The list for emergencies includes such factors as "Economic constraints" and "Refugees". I think that both of those could easily be cited as a reason for putting the territories on the list, and yet they aren't.

ReliefWeb wrote:For the West Bank and Gaza Strip, FAO is asking for $4 million to support a range of projects, including...


$4million? Is that all? So they think it's such a serious crisis that they need about a dollar a head? That doesn't seem like a very serious crisis. Couldn't they take it out of the millions upon millions of aid the palestinians get every year? The USA alone hands them over $50m at the drop of a hat...

sbm wrote:You don't seem to understand what the an FAO Food Emergency is. The FAO has what it calls "Food and Agricultural Emergencies". These are natural or human catastrophes that wipe out significant food resources in a country. For example when an earthquake strikes, or massive flooding occurs, or sever drought, or crops are burned during civil war. None of these has occurred in the occupied territories in any significant measure. The food problems are not acute shortages, but long term food supply issues. Thus it makes perfect sense that the occupied territories are not considered a "food emergency" by the FAO.


No, you see, you're doing it again. As I pointed out and you failed to include, some countries are on the list not because of any wiping our of food supplies but because of "Economic constraints" or "Refugees" and "civil unrest". And what about those countries which have been on the list for a rather long time? How come they have not been moved off the "emergency" list if they have had bad food problems for years? Do you think Africn countries have not had a "long term food supply issue"? It seems to me that they have... Your theory doesn't stand up.

Anyway, I'm a little confused about your contention...
Are you arguing that the palestinian territories would be on the emergency list if only they had the right problems?
Because the evidence doesn't suggest their problem is anywhere near serious enough to be placed on the list with those other countries, so it's a very questionable contention you are making.

sbm wrote:The report also acknowledges that these figures may differ significantly from the estimates taken on a national level, due to the issues involved in compiling statistics on an international level.


There may be variances, yes, but you seem to use that to cast aspersions on all the figures, because they really don't fit in with your case.

sbm wrote:Also the Johns Hopkins/Al Quds/USAID report was commissioned to look at the effects of the rising violence over the last few years and its effects on the food situation in the occupied territories. That time period is not covered in the UN report. That fact may be a factor in explaining the discrepancy.


Wait a sec. The John Hopkins study was produced when? August 2002. That means they collected data a fair bit earlier than mid-2002, because they still had time to collate and write it all by then.
The UN report of 2004 contains data up to and including when? 2002.
So it seems the time period is covered...

sbm wrote: As would the difference in the measurements taken. The study I referenced actually looked at the diet of the Palestinian children, not simply their weight.


So now you're operating on a different definition of 'malnourishment'?
Last edited by Curiosity on Wed Jun 22, 2005 10:22 am, edited 6 times in total.

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests