3 ms·

Think about South Africa under apartheid. It was doing great financially. Much better than most (or all) African countries was it not? Yet much of its populatio

Think about South Africa under apartheid. It was doing great financially. Much better than most (or all) African countries was it not? Yet much of its population didn't have a right to vote. What good is financial progress if most of it goes to a minority and much of the population can not make things better because they cannot even vote? And Southern States before Civil War, were also doing great financially. Is that all that's worth discussing?

airstrike 6y ago
You're arguing a separate point entirely, which I wager is why you're getting downvoted. It doesn't follow logically. The author isn't arguing that we should ignore all of the issues afflicting people across the globe and only look at the poverty line. He's countering the claim that people have not been lifted out of poverty.
- galaxyLogic 6y ago
  I'm not arguing against the author. I'm just saying as a general notion that measuring only financial well-being is not the only thing we should care about. Not sure if logic has anything to do with that
  - airstrike 6y ago
    In your opening comment, you asked "Is that all that's worth discussing?" The answer is no, but then again nobody claimed that it was. This was just the one article about the poverty line, so discussing something other than the poverty line is off-topic (which I called "illogical" from a debate perspective, in perhaps too formal of a tone, in hindsight)
    - galaxyLogic 6y ago
      True. At the same time I don't think there is any rule set in stone that says everything that is not strictly explicitly in the article is "off-topic". Discussion can in my view include discussion about the discussion itself, its implicit preferences and assumptions. Putting too much effort into discussing what is off-topic and what is not, is kind of off-topic itself, I would say :-)
lolinder 6y ago
The discussion isn't about GDP but about % of the population in poverty. If you have a country where the bulk of the population suffers in poverty while an elite does very well, that country will look great in terms of GDP, but the poverty stats will show the truth.
barry-cotter 6y ago
> What good is financial progress if most of it goes to a minority and much of the population can not make things better because they cannot even vote? Indeed. Or look at malnutrition or child mortality among blacks in the US South after the War to Kick Slavers In the Balls. Both went up. Or murder and crime rates in South Africa post apartheid. Went up. Or the total lack of economic improvement in Ireland after kicking the Brits out. No one cares now and no one cares then. People would rather be miserably poor and ruled by a ruling class that they identify with than have higher living standards and be ruled by an out group.
- pydry 6y ago
  War has a habit of causing malnutrition and child mortality. In South Africa's case murder and crime rates were going up for a long time before apartheid fell (& continued to go up after).
- chalst 6y ago
  The Reconstruction Era essentially recreated the slave system through the Black Codes in the southern states. Death rates of blacks on plantations actually went up after the civil war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_(United_States) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_(United_States)
- galaxyLogic 6y ago
  > People would rather be miserably poor and ruled by a ruling class that they identify with than have higher living standards and be ruled by an out group. There's truth to that no doubt. But I would say many also prefer to be ruled by those who give them preferential treatment over others. But I have faith that many people prefer to be ruled by a democratic system of equal justice.

airstrike 6y ago

You're arguing a separate point entirely, which I wager is why you're getting downvoted. It doesn't follow logically. The author isn't arguing that we should ignore all of the issues afflicting people across the globe and only look at the poverty line. He's countering the claim that people have not been lifted out of poverty.

galaxyLogic 6y ago
I'm not arguing against the author. I'm just saying as a general notion that measuring only financial well-being is not the only thing we should care about. Not sure if logic has anything to do with that
- airstrike 6y ago
  In your opening comment, you asked "Is that all that's worth discussing?" The answer is no, but then again nobody claimed that it was. This was just the one article about the poverty line, so discussing something other than the poverty line is off-topic (which I called "illogical" from a debate perspective, in perhaps too formal of a tone, in hindsight)
  - galaxyLogic 6y ago
    True. At the same time I don't think there is any rule set in stone that says everything that is not strictly explicitly in the article is "off-topic". Discussion can in my view include discussion about the discussion itself, its implicit preferences and assumptions. Putting too much effort into discussing what is off-topic and what is not, is kind of off-topic itself, I would say :-)

lolinder 6y ago

The discussion isn't about GDP but about % of the population in poverty. If you have a country where the bulk of the population suffers in poverty while an elite does very well, that country will look great in terms of GDP, but the poverty stats will show the truth.

barry-cotter 6y ago

> What good is financial progress if most of it goes to a minority and much of the population can not make things better because they cannot even vote? Indeed. Or look at malnutrition or child mortality among blacks in the US South after the War to Kick Slavers In the Balls. Both went up. Or murder and crime rates in South Africa post apartheid. Went up. Or the total lack of economic improvement in Ireland after kicking the Brits out. No one cares now and no one cares then. People would rather be miserably poor and ruled by a ruling class that they identify with than have higher living standards and be ruled by an out group.

pydry 6y ago
War has a habit of causing malnutrition and child mortality. In South Africa's case murder and crime rates were going up for a long time before apartheid fell (& continued to go up after).
chalst 6y ago
The Reconstruction Era essentially recreated the slave system through the Black Codes in the southern states. Death rates of blacks on plantations actually went up after the civil war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_(United_States) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_(United_States)
galaxyLogic 6y ago
> People would rather be miserably poor and ruled by a ruling class that they identify with than have higher living standards and be ruled by an out group. There's truth to that no doubt. But I would say many also prefer to be ruled by those who give them preferential treatment over others. But I have faith that many people prefer to be ruled by a democratic system of equal justice.