3 ms·

Are you really caught up on "majority"? Semantics are the line you've chosen to draw? http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/country/IND http://povertydata.w

Are you really caught up on "majority"? Semantics are the line you've chosen to draw? http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/country/IND http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/country/IND In India, as of 2011: - 293 million (or 22% of the population) live on less than $1.90 a day (international poverty line). - 708 million (or 55% of the population) live on less than $3.10 a day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Below_Poverty_Line_(India) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Below_Poverty_Line_(India) "Internationally, an income of less than $1.90 per day per head of purchasing power parity is defined as extreme poverty. By this estimate, about 32.7% percent of Indians are extremely poor. Income-based poverty lines consider the bare minimum income to provide basic food requirements; it does not account for other essentials such as health care and education.[2] The number of people living on less than $1.9 per day in 2011 was 259.5 million (21.3% of the total population)." 32.7% are considered "extremely poor" and the poverty line counts only for basic food - not healthcare, education, etc. India's poverty levels are extreme, severe, and talking about it is neither false, inflammatory, derogatory, or an attack. Edit: what's with the glut of down-votes all of a sudden? Usually links and evidence - especially in recognizing social injustice - are welcomed on HN.

whack 10y ago
Someone stated that "the majority of people live below international poverty lines" I replied stating that his comment contains factually false statements. You replied calling me out, saying that there were no false statements. You later provided proof that only 22% of the population lives below the international poverty line. 22% is no where even close to 50%. I don't know why you keep trying to defend this as a true statement. It isn't, as you yourself supplied proof for. ------- Regarding your point that I'm getting lost in semantics: I should be the one saying that to you. The entire debate about the international poverty line was not even my main point. My main point as stated originally was that the post was an unnecessarily condescending rant. And it is. If we were discussing the overall state of India, then the above comment might be a fair one. But that's not even close to what this thread is about. This thread is about India's space agency launching 20 satellites in a single mission. Someone then went off on a (unnecessary) tangent about the original definition of "3rd world", as relating to the cold war. Someone else then went off on another completely unrelated rant about every single problem he could think of, that exists in the country. Bringing up valid criticisms during the appropriate context/discussion, is certainly very valuable. But criticizing someone/something during completely unrelated discussions isn't. It's usually just a sign of someone who enjoys condescending to others and enjoys the feeling of power that comes with it.

whack 10y ago

Someone stated that "the majority of people live below international poverty lines" I replied stating that his comment contains factually false statements. You replied calling me out, saying that there were no false statements. You later provided proof that only 22% of the population lives below the international poverty line. 22% is no where even close to 50%. I don't know why you keep trying to defend this as a true statement. It isn't, as you yourself supplied proof for. ------- Regarding your point that I'm getting lost in semantics: I should be the one saying that to you. The entire debate about the international poverty line was not even my main point. My main point as stated originally was that the post was an unnecessarily condescending rant. And it is. If we were discussing the overall state of India, then the above comment might be a fair one. But that's not even close to what this thread is about. This thread is about India's space agency launching 20 satellites in a single mission. Someone then went off on a (unnecessary) tangent about the original definition of "3rd world", as relating to the cold war. Someone else then went off on another completely unrelated rant about every single problem he could think of, that exists in the country. Bringing up valid criticisms during the appropriate context/discussion, is certainly very valuable. But criticizing someone/something during completely unrelated discussions isn't. It's usually just a sign of someone who enjoys condescending to others and enjoys the feeling of power that comes with it.