Read this report for more: about 14% of US adults have a below Basic literacy level for prose/documents (can't read a TV program or jury instructions), another fifth have only a "Basic" literacy level for prose/documents (cannot consult documents to find what foods contain certain vitamins.).
A quarter of adults are quantitatively illiterate (have a below basic skill in reading numbers). These people cannot even compare prices of two event tickets.
I say this as an atheist who is strongly against ID:
I have a hypothesis as to why people who are very educated believe in religions. It has to do with comfort of the mind. There is some scientific evidence (I have not personally investigated it thoroughly so take this statement with a grain of salt) that the human mind is wired to believe.
Furthermore, you have to consider that if people were raised in a religious envioronment, with all its social and psychological nuances and benefits (and downsides), this also contributes to their desire to believe.
Why look down upon those who are more comfortable believing? I personally hold some (minor) delusions about how I look, for example, and they make it easier to make it through the day.
Is the goal of personal beliefs necessarily to determine and follow the ontological truth as set down by Western philosophical tradition? Perhaps it is true that this approach gives certain advantages in personal decision making, but perhaps it does not in all situations. I don't know, so I see it as a personal decision to believe whatever someone wants, and do not view that choose to do so as inferior.
Of course, this does not make it socially responsible to elevate beliefs to the status of science. Thankfully there is a well-developed system of peer review to filter out these biases as best we can.
(It is a whole other topic about religious morality and law, so I will not go there for the sake of pertinance.)
How well would you be living in LA if you made 3000$?
You must remember, when you adjust GDP/capita for PPP you get the average income of the person as if he were living in the US (if you are using the US as unit PPP).
When comparing size of economies, is it not more useful to use PPP? In this case no, but read on to find out when to use what metric.
If a person in New York pays 20$ for a haircut, and a person in New Dehli pays 2$, where is there more economic activity going on?
If you just use exchange rates, you learn something about how one economy has sway over another, or how much shove it has on the global economy, but you do not learn about how large an economy is, i.e. how much economic activity is going on within the country. For example, rapid appreciation of currency (e.g. Japanese yen after 1985 Plaza Accords, or the recent rise of the Euro versus the Dollar) does not change the size of the economy (the Europeans didn't suddenly get 30% richer when their currency valued versus the dollar between 2001 and 2003); it does change how powerful of an investor the country can be in foreign lands.
If you are not convinced, here is another example: look at consumption of natural resources. China is the second largest consumer of most resources, even the largest for some, but its economy by exchange rates is only 1.5$Trillion (5th largest AFAIK, about the size of Italy). When adjusted for PPP, you see how much economic activity is really going on: ~8$Trillion (second largest).
So, the GDP of India when measuring economic activity is 3.3$Trillion. However, like I said, when it does come to international transactions, GDP comparison at exchange rates is more useful. I still doubt MS can buy India though.
What you are talking about is called the god-of-the-gaps argument. It is a notorious logical fallacy. I see it all over the place here, even on slashdot.
It states that since we cannot explain something, then we must assume that some unexplainable supernatural phenomena (e.g. a god) caused it.
I am not going to waste space refuting it: it is easy to google for it.
Another argument that has been destroyed, yet seems to permeate these discussions, is the "watchmaker" argument, proposed sometime around the early 19th century. This argument goes something like the following AFAIK (a) anything that is complex is unlikely, and thus must have been designed (b) the universe is complex (c) therefore, the universe has been designed
This argument has several major holes. First, "complexity" is vaguely defined. Second, we are not warranted to assume (a), especially since science has demonstrated how "complex" things can come from "simpler" things (e.g. "complex" behavior of a chaotic system following "simple" rules of newtonian physics). Third, the infinite regression: if the universe is designed, the designer must be at least as complex as the universe. If he is not, then we contradict (a) by saying "complex" things can come from "simpler" things. Since the designer is complex, then by (a) he himself must have been designed.
There are possibly more holes, but the above is sufficient to put an end to this nonsense.
a) Things that are complex are too unlikely to come about themselves; we must presuppose a designer. b) The universe is complex. c) From a and b, the universe has a designer.
Problems with this argument: 1. vague definitions of complexity and design 2. Suppose (a) is true -- Things that are complex are too unlikely to come about themselves; we must presuppose a designer. Then, if we state that the universe has a designer, he must be at least as complex as the universe, otherwise complex things can come from simpler things and this is a contradiction. Since he is complex, again by (a), he the designer must also be designed. Infinite regression that leads to nowhere.
You also attempt to use a god-of-the-gaps argument. This is a famous invalid form of reasoning: use google to find out about it.
Legitimacy is granted through the social contract.
If even one person refuses it, then the state no longer has legitimacy of control over that individual, HOWEVER, that individual has no right to reside in territory controlled by the state, as they have set themselves apart from society.
Conversely, if a majority of the people in a region refuse the contract, then the rule of that area by the state is not legitimate. The state can force obedience with arms, but a contract accepted only due to coersion is not binding. They may rule the region, but will not be legitimate there until the people freely agree to it.
If this is not the case, then the entire point of having a state has been lost and its purpose perverted.
This is mostly a copy and paste of my reply below:
So, you claim that some subset of people on Earth (I suppose including you) think that conquering territory is not kosher, and that there is a clear disctinction between "legitemate" government and "illegitemate" government, that these terms are defined and there is a litmus test for them. This subset of people also, by extension of this reasoning, claims that a people have a clearly defined "right" to rebel against "illegitemate" government. Furthermore you claim that self-determination/self-governance and a social contract is vital for legitemacy.
Very well.
That does not necessarily mean that all other groups of people will agree with you. There are perhaps subsets of people on Earth that consider conquering and holding territory is sufficient to deem it under their rule. There are also perhaps subsets of people who don't consider consent of the ruled to be relevant at all in terms of rule, neither in their current domains or in any domains acquired in the future. I think substantially populous examples of both of these subsets can be found throught history and in the world today.
Thus, it is clearly possible for different groups of people, usually allied via cultural or political constructs, to hold different opinions on what defines legitemacy of government. They probably think your perceptions about government are foolish, just as you must think of theirs as not sufficiently "enlightened".
What makes your opinion relevant to the situation? Only as much as what you can do about it? I doubt anyone here would propose displacing the Chinese out of Tibet. Well, since Google is a US company, maybe we can somehow influence it to represent Tibet as an independent territory under occupation. The question then would be: do you think this would more accurately represent the state of affairs in Tibet today? Take note that the PRC administers Tibet as they wish, and furthermore is gaining legitemacy -- by the demographic method you mentioned -- populating it with Han Chinese.
Maybe the American public would not be comfortable with conquering the Americas (OTOH I could go into all those fun activities US government has done down there in Latin America purely for its own interests), but there is Chinese KFC in Lhasa.
Disclaimer: For those concerned about what perspective I am coming from, I am Russian.
All of your examples are correct. However, in this more enlightened age, we frown on doing such things and believe instead in self-governance and self-determination. If there still existed any population of oppressed Celts in Britain, they would have the right to reclaim their territories. Unfortunately, they have mixed with the occupiers to the point that there is little to no genetic distinction, and as this happened 1500 years ago, there aren't any victims left.
However, Tibet is still around, as are Tibetans. China has no legitimate claim to the land, and your argument of "might makes right" doesn't fly. If it does, then the US could easily own all of the western hemisphere within 5 years, and by your argument would be well within its powers to do so.
Who is "we"? So, you claim that some subset of people on Earth (I suppose including you) think that conquering territory is not kosher, and that there is a clear disctinction between "legitemate" government and "illegitemate" government, that these terms are defined and there is a litmus test for them. This subset of people also, by extension of this reasoning, claims that a people have a clearly defined "right" to rebel against "illegitemate" government. Furthermore you claim that self-determination/self-governance is vital for legitemacy.
(For example, the poster replying above you claims this legitemacy is established via social contract.)
Very well.
That does not necessarily mean that all other groups of people will agree with you. There are perhaps subsets of people on Earth that consider conquering and holding territory is sufficient to deem it under their rule. There are also perhaps subsets of people who don't consider consent of the ruled to be relevant at all in terms of rule, neither in their current domains or in any domains acquired in the future. I think substantially populous examples of both of these subsets can be found throught history and in the world today.
Thus, it is clearly possible for different groups of people, usually allied via cultural or political constructs, to hold different opinions on what defines legitemacy of government. They probably think your perceptions about government are foolish, just as you must think of theirs as not sufficiently "enlightened".
What makes your opinion relevant to the situation? Only as much as what you can do about it? I doubt anyone here would propose displacing the Chinese out of Tibet. Well, since Google is a US company, maybe we can somehow influence it to represent Tibet as an independent territory under occupation. The question then would be: do you think this would more accurately represent the state of affairs in Tibet today? Take note that the PRC administers Tibet as they wish, and furthermore is gaining legitemacy -- by the demographic method you mentioned -- populating it with Han Chinese.
Maybe the American public would not be comfortable with conquering the Americas (OTOH I could go into all those fun activities US government has done down there in Latin America purely for its own interests), but there is Chinese KFC in Lhasa.
Disclaimer: For those concerned about what perspective I am coming from, I am Russian.
So, European powers and their descendant governments are "...occupying, illegitimate, oppressive power in..." the Americas? And that the Germanic tribes are "...occupying, illegitimate, oppressive power in..." England? And that the Turks are "...occupying, illegitimate, oppressive power in..." what was known as Lydia or whatever? And that the Japanese are "...occupying, illegitimate, oppressive power in..." Japan?
I was under the impression that an occupying power automagically by definition becomes the owner and ruler of occupied territory after it conquers/annexes it, regardless of whether the residents consent to this or not. Or what, you want all countries to release all claims and revert to the original tribal groups (whatever that means)?
Please define then how conquered territory is "legitemate" or becomes "legitemate".
If you say that all conquered territory is illegitemate, well, I have news for you! Most territory I can think of was conquered by someone at one time or another.
Alexander conquered Persia, so was his reign "legitemate"?
Furthermore, regardless of what you define as "legitemate", the occupying force controls the territory de facto and claims it. Alexander does not give a shit about your definitions of legitemacy!
I agree. Why do so many slashdotters think quality will deteriorate?
Here are some high quality electronics products assembled in China:
powerbooks ipods thinkpads (these have been made there for some time)
Those are the major brand names I can remember off the top of my head that slashdotters would identify with immediately. There are of course many other electronic products, such as Creative speakers (the good ones too), quality LCD's, and so forth, that are made in China now.
I wonder if anyone here has any real evidence that, given that the countries industries are progressing so well and that they have been successfully manufacturing ThinkPads for years, the quality of Lenovo's ThinkPads will deteriorate. No? Well then quit posting stupid predictions that ThinkPad is now teh suXXX0rz!
Slashdot Mirror
But isn't this great for those of us sufficiently endowed to take advantage of the feebs?
They won't be online because they cannot read.
Shameless plagarism courtesy of wikipedia:
"In the United States alone, one in seven persons (i.e., over 40 million people) can barely read a job offer or utility bill..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy
Read this report for more: about 14% of US adults have a below Basic literacy level for prose/documents (can't read a TV program or jury instructions), another fifth have only a "Basic" literacy level for prose/documents (cannot consult documents to find what foods contain certain vitamins.).
A quarter of adults are quantitatively illiterate (have a below basic skill in reading numbers). These people cannot even compare prices of two event tickets.
http://nces.ed.gov/NAAL/
I say this as an atheist who is strongly against ID:
I have a hypothesis as to why people who are very educated believe in religions. It has to do with comfort of the mind. There is some scientific evidence (I have not personally investigated it thoroughly so take this statement with a grain of salt) that the human mind is wired to believe.
Furthermore, you have to consider that if people were raised in a religious envioronment, with all its social and psychological nuances and benefits (and downsides), this also contributes to their desire to believe.
Why look down upon those who are more comfortable believing? I personally hold some (minor) delusions about how I look, for example, and they make it easier to make it through the day.
Is the goal of personal beliefs necessarily to determine and follow the ontological truth as set down by Western philosophical tradition? Perhaps it is true that this approach gives certain advantages in personal decision making, but perhaps it does not in all situations. I don't know, so I see it as a personal decision to believe whatever someone wants, and do not view that choose to do so as inferior.
Of course, this does not make it socially responsible to elevate beliefs to the status of science. Thankfully there is a well-developed system of peer review to filter out these biases as best we can.
(It is a whole other topic about religious morality and law, so I will not go there for the sake of pertinance.)
How well would you be living in LA if you made 3000$? You must remember, when you adjust GDP/capita for PPP you get the average income of the person as if he were living in the US (if you are using the US as unit PPP).
When comparing size of economies, is it not more useful to use PPP? In this case no, but read on to find out when to use what metric.
If a person in New York pays 20$ for a haircut, and a person in New Dehli pays 2$, where is there more economic activity going on?
If you just use exchange rates, you learn something about how one economy has sway over another, or how much shove it has on the global economy, but you do not learn about how large an economy is, i.e. how much economic activity is going on within the country. For example, rapid appreciation of currency (e.g. Japanese yen after 1985 Plaza Accords, or the recent rise of the Euro versus the Dollar) does not change the size of the economy (the Europeans didn't suddenly get 30% richer when their currency valued versus the dollar between 2001 and 2003); it does change how powerful of an investor the country can be in foreign lands.
If you are not convinced, here is another example: look at consumption of natural resources. China is the second largest consumer of most resources, even the largest for some, but its economy by exchange rates is only 1.5$Trillion (5th largest AFAIK, about the size of Italy). When adjusted for PPP, you see how much economic activity is really going on: ~8$Trillion (second largest).
So, the GDP of India when measuring economic activity is 3.3$Trillion. However, like I said, when it does come to international transactions, GDP comparison at exchange rates is more useful. I still doubt MS can buy India though.
What you are talking about is called the god-of-the-gaps argument. It is a notorious logical fallacy. I see it all over the place here, even on slashdot.
It states that since we cannot explain something, then we must assume that some unexplainable supernatural phenomena (e.g. a god) caused it.
I am not going to waste space refuting it: it is easy to google for it.
Another argument that has been destroyed, yet seems to permeate these discussions, is the "watchmaker" argument, proposed sometime around the early 19th century. This argument goes something like the following AFAIK
(a) anything that is complex is unlikely, and thus must have been designed
(b) the universe is complex
(c) therefore, the universe has been designed
This argument has several major holes.
First, "complexity" is vaguely defined.
Second, we are not warranted to assume (a), especially since science has demonstrated how "complex" things can come from "simpler" things (e.g. "complex" behavior of a chaotic system following "simple" rules of newtonian physics).
Third, the infinite regression: if the universe is designed, the designer must be at least as complex as the universe. If he is not, then we contradict (a) by saying "complex" things can come from "simpler" things. Since the designer is complex, then by (a) he himself must have been designed.
There are possibly more holes, but the above is sufficient to put an end to this nonsense.
Your argument has classical fallacies.
a) Things that are complex are too unlikely to come about themselves; we must presuppose a designer.
b) The universe is complex.
c) From a and b, the universe has a designer.
Problems with this argument:
1. vague definitions of complexity and design
2. Suppose (a) is true -- Things that are complex are too unlikely to come about themselves; we must presuppose a designer. Then, if we state that the universe has a designer, he must be at least as complex as the universe, otherwise complex things can come from simpler things and this is a contradiction. Since he is complex, again by (a), he the designer must also be designed. Infinite regression that leads to nowhere.
You also attempt to use a god-of-the-gaps argument. This is a famous invalid form of reasoning: use google to find out about it.
Legitimacy is granted through the social contract. If even one person refuses it, then the state no longer has legitimacy of control over that individual, HOWEVER, that individual has no right to reside in territory controlled by the state, as they have set themselves apart from society. Conversely, if a majority of the people in a region refuse the contract, then the rule of that area by the state is not legitimate. The state can force obedience with arms, but a contract accepted only due to coersion is not binding. They may rule the region, but will not be legitimate there until the people freely agree to it. If this is not the case, then the entire point of having a state has been lost and its purpose perverted. This is mostly a copy and paste of my reply below:
So, you claim that some subset of people on Earth (I suppose including you) think that conquering territory is not kosher, and that there is a clear disctinction between "legitemate" government and "illegitemate" government, that these terms are defined and there is a litmus test for them. This subset of people also, by extension of this reasoning, claims that a people have a clearly defined "right" to rebel against "illegitemate" government. Furthermore you claim that self-determination/self-governance and a social contract is vital for legitemacy.
Very well.
That does not necessarily mean that all other groups of people will agree with you. There are perhaps subsets of people on Earth that consider conquering and holding territory is sufficient to deem it under their rule. There are also perhaps subsets of people who don't consider consent of the ruled to be relevant at all in terms of rule, neither in their current domains or in any domains acquired in the future. I think substantially populous examples of both of these subsets can be found throught history and in the world today.
Thus, it is clearly possible for different groups of people, usually allied via cultural or political constructs, to hold different opinions on what defines legitemacy of government. They probably think your perceptions about government are foolish, just as you must think of theirs as not sufficiently "enlightened".
What makes your opinion relevant to the situation? Only as much as what you can do about it? I doubt anyone here would propose displacing the Chinese out of Tibet. Well, since Google is a US company, maybe we can somehow influence it to represent Tibet as an independent territory under occupation. The question then would be: do you think this would more accurately represent the state of affairs in Tibet today? Take note that the PRC administers Tibet as they wish, and furthermore is gaining legitemacy -- by the demographic method you mentioned -- populating it with Han Chinese.
Maybe the American public would not be comfortable with conquering the Americas (OTOH I could go into all those fun activities US government has done down there in Latin America purely for its own interests), but there is Chinese KFC in Lhasa.
Disclaimer: For those concerned about what perspective I am coming from, I am Russian.
All of your examples are correct. However, in this more enlightened age, we frown on doing such things and believe instead in self-governance and self-determination. If there still existed any population of oppressed Celts in Britain, they would have the right to reclaim their territories. Unfortunately, they have mixed with the occupiers to the point that there is little to no genetic distinction, and as this happened 1500 years ago, there aren't any victims left.
However, Tibet is still around, as are Tibetans. China has no legitimate claim to the land, and your argument of "might makes right" doesn't fly. If it does, then the US could easily own all of the western hemisphere within 5 years, and by your argument would be well within its powers to do so.
Who is "we"? So, you claim that some subset of people on Earth (I suppose including you) think that conquering territory is not kosher, and that there is a clear disctinction between "legitemate" government and "illegitemate" government, that these terms are defined and there is a litmus test for them. This subset of people also, by extension of this reasoning, claims that a people have a clearly defined "right" to rebel against "illegitemate" government. Furthermore you claim that self-determination/self-governance is vital for legitemacy.
(For example, the poster replying above you claims this legitemacy is established via social contract.)
Very well.
That does not necessarily mean that all other groups of people will agree with you. There are perhaps subsets of people on Earth that consider conquering and holding territory is sufficient to deem it under their rule. There are also perhaps subsets of people who don't consider consent of the ruled to be relevant at all in terms of rule, neither in their current domains or in any domains acquired in the future. I think substantially populous examples of both of these subsets can be found throught history and in the world today.
Thus, it is clearly possible for different groups of people, usually allied via cultural or political constructs, to hold different opinions on what defines legitemacy of government. They probably think your perceptions about government are foolish, just as you must think of theirs as not sufficiently "enlightened".
What makes your opinion relevant to the situation? Only as much as what you can do about it? I doubt anyone here would propose displacing the Chinese out of Tibet. Well, since Google is a US company, maybe we can somehow influence it to represent Tibet as an independent territory under occupation. The question then would be: do you think this would more accurately represent the state of affairs in Tibet today? Take note that the PRC administers Tibet as they wish, and furthermore is gaining legitemacy -- by the demographic method you mentioned -- populating it with Han Chinese.
Maybe the American public would not be comfortable with conquering the Americas (OTOH I could go into all those fun activities US government has done down there in Latin America purely for its own interests), but there is Chinese KFC in Lhasa.
Disclaimer: For those concerned about what perspective I am coming from, I am Russian.
So, European powers and their descendant governments are "...occupying, illegitimate, oppressive power in..." the Americas? And that the Germanic tribes are "...occupying, illegitimate, oppressive power in..." England? And that the Turks are "...occupying, illegitimate, oppressive power in..." what was known as Lydia or whatever? And that the Japanese are "...occupying, illegitimate, oppressive power in..." Japan?
I was under the impression that an occupying power automagically by definition becomes the owner and ruler of occupied territory after it conquers/annexes it, regardless of whether the residents consent to this or not. Or what, you want all countries to release all claims and revert to the original tribal groups (whatever that means)?
Please define then how conquered territory is "legitemate" or becomes "legitemate".
If you say that all conquered territory is illegitemate, well, I have news for you! Most territory I can think of was conquered by someone at one time or another.
Alexander conquered Persia, so was his reign "legitemate"?
Furthermore, regardless of what you define as "legitemate", the occupying force controls the territory de facto and claims it. Alexander does not give a shit about your definitions of legitemacy!
I agree. Why do so many slashdotters think quality will deteriorate?
Here are some high quality electronics products assembled in China:
powerbooks
ipods
thinkpads (these have been made there for some time)
Those are the major brand names I can remember off the top of my head that slashdotters would identify with immediately. There are of course many other electronic products, such as Creative speakers (the good ones too), quality LCD's, and so forth, that are made in China now.
I wonder if anyone here has any real evidence that, given that the countries industries are progressing so well and that they have been successfully manufacturing ThinkPads for years, the quality of Lenovo's ThinkPads will deteriorate. No? Well then quit posting stupid predictions that ThinkPad is now teh suXXX0rz!