Leviathan.Chaosx said: »
Quote:
Note that these countries represent roughly one-third of the people on earth.
Quote:
China
Russia And Ukraine
|
Russia and Ukraine
Compelling link. No, wait, what's the opposite of compelling... Does Google not work for you?
Is your brain broken? Do you not know that China has roughly 1/3 of the world's population? Do you not know that 1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3 leaving still 1/3 left? You do realize that you can look up the source by clicking on the source link from wikipedia by matching up the dates right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations Shiva.Onorgul said: » Your link demonstrated nothing supporting your point, you demand that people read sources you haven't posted, you try to dodge simple questions... it's not a question of civility to judge you a twerp. Is there a point to all this? As if bombing a country equates to killing all of its inhabitants.
Shiva.Viciousss said: » Is there a point to all this? Quote: This list makes it seem clear that the United States has been as bellicose as any other country in the history of the world. At least, it seems clear to non-Americans. Less clear are the reasons behind the bellicosity, the reasons that so few Americans realize how bellicose they are, and the reasons that so many Americans believe their country to be peaceable and benign. Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Shiva.Onorgul said: » Your link demonstrated nothing supporting your point, you demand that people read sources you haven't posted, you try to dodge simple questions... it's not a question of civility to judge you a twerp. You responded with some *** about how Americans don't know where Ukraine is. I can't remember if Ukraine was even a country on the maps I saw as a kid. Wasn't it part of the USSR 25 years ago? It's hardly surprising that older Americans have trouble on that front. But it's also irrelevant to what you were asked to do. Crazy thing, by the way, Jassik actually reads and responds to real data. Failing to provide it to someone who'll actually accept it is basically admitting defeat before you even try. And way to go on completely failing to understand why I declared a site that says "Americans have bombed countries representing 1/3 of the world's population" when one of those countries is literally 1/3 of the world's population to be uncompelling. It's called sensationalistic propaganda and the rest of that page is full of it. But it's something special when I don't even complete a full paragraph before spotting the reason why it can be safely ignored. I'm just wondering where you people are getting the idea that China has 1/3 of the world's population. By the latest estimates, it's slightly less than 1/5.
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Shiva.Viciousss said: » Is there a point to all this? Quote: This list makes it seem clear that the United States has been as bellicose as any other country in the history of the world. At least, it seems clear to non-Americans. Less clear are the reasons behind the bellicosity, the reasons that so few Americans realize how bellicose they are, and the reasons that so many Americans believe their country to be peaceable and benign. So, whats the point? I don't believe many Americans think of our country has "peaceable and benign" given we invaded Iraq. Or is this another mystery study you pulled out of nowhere? If you can't understand the reasons for the wars thats not our problem, we are under no obligation to be peaceable when attacked, nor are we under any obligation to be peaceable when not attacked. Oh I get it now. You don't know how to cross reference. You'd rather just argue with arrogance and make other people do research for you and argue against whatever research they provide without doing any work for yourself.
Never mind then. Carry on. Bahamut.Ravael said: » I'm just wondering where you people are getting the idea that China has 1/3 of the world's population. By the latest estimates, it's slightly less than 1/5. I was not aware that a study published by The Washington Post and Time Magazine was "a mystery study I pulled out of nowhere."
Bahamut.Ravael said: » I'm just wondering where you people are getting the idea that China has 1/3 of the world's population. By the latest estimates, it's slightly less than 1/5. The sentence is covertly trying to imply that we've bombed 1 out of every 3 people on the planet rather than happening to bomb land belonging to the same states that house that number of people. It's the kind of cheap tactic I expect of bad argumentation. Compare with the claim that Americans somehow think we're benign and peaceful. Most liberal-leaning folks won't make that claim, especially not after our extended campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, and among the conservatives and unaligned, realism hasn't gone the way of the dodo in spite of what Huffington Post occasionally says to boost its reader statistics and ad revenue. Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Oh I get it now. You don't know how to cross reference. You'd rather just argue with arrogance and make other people do research for you and argue against whatever research they provide without doing any work for yourself. Never mind then. Carry on. Shiva.Onorgul said: » The sentence is covertly trying to imply that we've bombed 1 out of every 3 people on the planet rather than happening to bomb land belonging to the same states that house that number of people. Quote: Note that these countries represent roughly one-third of the people on earth. Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Oh I get it now. You don't know how to cross reference. You'd rather just argue with arrogance and make other people do research for you and argue against whatever research they provide without doing any work for yourself. Cerberus.Tikal said: » Shiva.Onorgul said: » The sentence is covertly trying to imply that we've bombed 1 out of every 3 people on the planet rather than happening to bomb land belonging to the same states that house that number of people. Quote: Note that these countries represent roughly one-third of the people on earth. Meh, I see the implication as well, and I don't think I am reading too deeply. Whats the point of that sentence, if not to imply America's guilt? Bahamut.Ravael said: » I'm just wondering where you people are getting the idea that China has 1/3 of the world's population. By the latest estimates, it's slightly less than 1/5. We smoke weed and play video games all day If you want something other than artifical intelligence try a different site
[+]
Cerberus.Tikal said: » Shiva.Onorgul said: » The sentence is covertly trying to imply that we've bombed 1 out of every 3 people on the planet rather than happening to bomb land belonging to the same states that house that number of people. Quote: Note that these countries represent roughly one-third of the people on earth. He specifically draws attention to the fact by starting it with the word "Note." The fact itself is meaningless. I could point out that X% of the countries he listed are in the Eastern Hemisphere and the first thought that should occur to you is, "And what message am I supposed to take from that?" There are, what, about 150 nations on the planet? And that list covers about 20 or so (don't feel like counting)? That'd mean we've bombed nations that represent 13% of the planet. No, wait... damn, that fraction isn't sensationalistically high enough, not when I'm making a blog post about how the US is a war-mongering rogue state (check the bottom of the page, by the by). Cerberus.Tikal said: » This post is saturated in arrogance. However the sentence is constructed in a way that clearly delineates that the integer, 1/3, is the population that those countries represent on a whole. Unless this is some psychological meta-game of leading, there's no implication that America has bombed 1/3rd of all humans - only that we've attacked nations that represent 1/3rd. 27 were listed, over the course of 75-ish years. However listing the % of nations isn't very honest or accurate by scope, as that can be a misleading number too. A country could bomb 50 nations and still never reach 15% of the world's population, by representation. (I looked this one up. Nation 50 in population is only .33%, and it drops from there. Honestly, you could probably tally 200 of the smallest nations by population and never hit 15%.)
I'll give you this, the sentence isn't strictly necessary, but it does give a form of context. It converts jargon into layman's. The fact that China is included does make up a huge portion of the tally, however if we're going by the 1/5th integer (Wiki says 19.1%) of what China actually represents, then 26 of those nations represent 13% of the national population. Of course, none of this is truly accurate because of the range variance in time, but hey. If you wanted to take issue with that sentence, that's what I'd criticize. The time variable. Cerberus.Tikal said: » However the sentence is constructed in a way that clearly delineates that the integer, 1/3, is the population that those countries represent on a whole. Unless this is some psychological meta-game of leading, there's no implication that America has bombed 1/3rd of all humans - only that we've attacked nations that represent 1/3rd. 27 were listed, over the course of 75-ish years. However listing the % of nations isn't very honest or accurate by scope, as that can be a misleading number too. A country could bomb 50 nations and still never reach 15% of the world's population, by representation. (I looked this one up. Nation 50 in population is only .33%, and it drops from there. Honestly, you could probably tally 200 of the smallest nations by population and never hit 15%.) I'll give you this, the sentence isn't strictly necessary, but it does give a form of context. It converts jargon into layman's. The fact that China is included does make up a huge portion of the tally, however if we're going by the 1/5th integer (Wiki says 19.1%) of what China actually represents, then 26 of those nations represent 13% of the national population. Of course, none of this is truly accurate because of the range variance in time, but hey. If you wanted to take issue with that sentence, that's what I'd criticize. The time variable. Oh yeah, but it's an accurate stance. Not something I'd knit-pick over though. I'd probably point it out in passing, but that's about it. Like I did above.
I bestow upon you the title of Deep Comment Reader. Let my proclamation now be known!
Cerberus.Tikal said: » However the sentence is constructed in a way that clearly delineates that the integer, 1/3, is the population that those countries represent on a whole. Unless this is some psychological meta-game of leading, there's no implication that America has bombed 1/3rd of all humans - only that we've attacked nations that represent 1/3rd. 27 were listed, over the course of 75-ish years. However listing the % of nations isn't very honest or accurate by scope, as that can be a misleading number too. A country could bomb 50 nations and still never reach 15% of the world's population, by representation. (I looked this one up. Nation 50 in population is only .33%, and it drops from there. Honestly, you could probably tally 200 of the smallest nations by population and never hit 15%.) I'll give you this, the sentence isn't strictly necessary, but it does give a form of context. It converts jargon into layman's. The fact that China is included does make up a huge portion of the tally, however if we're going by the 1/5th integer (Wiki says 19.1%) of what China actually represents, then 26 of those nations represent 13% of the national population. Of course, none of this is truly accurate because of the range variance in time, but hey. If you wanted to take issue with that sentence, that's what I'd criticize. The time variable. As someone who has made a lifelong study of literature, rhetoric, and political science, I'll admit that my ***cannon comes pre-primed, but don't let's defend some sensationalized blog post as though its academic truth. In the meantime, a study was mentioned regarding tendency to bomb as one is further distant from the target. My instinct is actually to agree, but I want to see the citation. What sounds reasonable is not what is actually true. Calling the Earth flat when one lives in a land-locked country is hardly unreasonable, but that doesn't make it true. You hyper-focused onto a single sentence. I just followed you down the rabbit hole. :)
I'm not defending the post itself, just that the sentence in question was devoid of that implication. A small hole not mended in time will become a big hole much more difficult to mend.
Shiva.Onorgul said: » The twerp has a point, Jassik: do you have a citation for your claim that bombing largely happens among neighbors? That said, many of those you listed, Chaosx, were part of UN missions. It's disingenuous to condemn the US for having the world's strongest military and being asked to participate in multi-national campaigns. I can dig up something if anyone actually questions it. Most of the active bombing happening in recent memory (aside from Iraqistan) is either within countries (arab spring) or between neighbors over disputed territory (Israelistine). Odin.Jassik said: » Shiva.Onorgul said: » The twerp has a point, Jassik: do you have a citation for your claim that bombing largely happens among neighbors? That said, many of those you listed, Chaosx, were part of UN missions. It's disingenuous to condemn the US for having the world's strongest military and being asked to participate in multi-national campaigns. I can dig up something if anyone actually questions it. Most of the active bombing happening in recent memory (aside from Iraqistan) is either within countries (arab spring) or between neighbors over disputed territory (Israelistine). I already explained it for the average forumgoer...which means you might need to break it down further for the P&R section.... Leviathan.Chaosx said: » A small hole not mended in time will become a big hole much more difficult to mend. A stitch in time saves nine. Odin.Jassik said: » Shiva.Onorgul said: » The twerp has a point, Jassik: do you have a citation for your claim that bombing largely happens among neighbors? That said, many of those you listed, Chaosx, were part of UN missions. It's disingenuous to condemn the US for having the world's strongest military and being asked to participate in multi-national campaigns. I can dig up something if anyone actually questions it. Most of the active bombing happening in recent memory (aside from Iraqistan) is either within countries (arab spring) or between neighbors over disputed territory (Israelistine). Also, when you say bombing, do you mean any incendiary/explosive device? I kinda got from context that it was air-to-surface assaults (which would likely include missiles) being discussed. Shiva.Onorgul said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Shiva.Onorgul said: » The twerp has a point, Jassik: do you have a citation for your claim that bombing largely happens among neighbors? That said, many of those you listed, Chaosx, were part of UN missions. It's disingenuous to condemn the US for having the world's strongest military and being asked to participate in multi-national campaigns. I can dig up something if anyone actually questions it. Most of the active bombing happening in recent memory (aside from Iraqistan) is either within countries (arab spring) or between neighbors over disputed territory (Israelistine). Also, when you say bombing, do you mean any incendiary/explosive device? I kinda got from context that it was air-to-surface assaults (which would likely include missiles) being discussed. I'm just talking about anything larger than standard arms, so things like mortars and IED's all the way up to drones and actual bombs dropped from aircraft. If you're talking strictly large bombs, I'd be inclined to agree, but that's only because they haven't been widely used since WW2. |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.