6 ms·

Definitions matter. It's possible for an organization to redefine "acutely malnourished" as less than 4000 Cal/day, and then use that to make an accusation. Is

Definitions matter. It's possible for an organization to redefine "acutely malnourished" as less than 4000 Cal/day, and then use that to make an accusation. Is that reasonable? No, because that does not match reality. It's unreasonable to criticize pushback on changing definitions because definitions should be pushed toward reality.

basisword 1y ago
As you say definitions matter - so let's not invent hypothetical scenarios to dismiss points. Israel was not arguing about the definition of 'acute malnourished'. The threshold for famine is 15%. The IPC said it had just hit 16% and was thus a famine. Israel was arguing that other data showed it was only 12.2-13.5% and therefore not a famine. When you get to the point of arguing "only 12% of the children are starving, not 16%" you probably shouldn't bother.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > When you get to the point of arguing "only 12% of the children are starving, not 16%" you probably shouldn't bother Devil's advocate: we grow enough food to feed every human. What we lack is the logistics. War disrupts logistics. Food insecurity rising is thus, unfortunately, an expected (and probably unmitigatable) consequence of war. That's why we have to define a line, based on history and capability, that sets what's a tolerable amount of starvation. And what is not.
  - istjohn 1y ago
    Famine is not an inevitable outcome of war. It is the inevitable outcome of Israel's deliberate actions to limit access to food, which are well-documented.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Famine is not an inevitable outcome of war Food insecurity is. Famine is not. The latter is statistically defined, which is why we have levels and people arguing about which side of that level they stand.
      - Dylan16807 1y ago
        Fine, remove the word famine. Acute malnourishment going above 10% is not an inevitable outcome of war. This was deliberate action.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Acute malnourishment going above 10% is not an inevitable outcome of war I don't know enough about this topic to debate levels. I'd just point out that you're still specifying a level, and that level can't be zero if it's going to be taken seriously.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        I'm specifying a level that is clearly too high, and everyone agrees has been hit, and avoids semantic arguments. This solves the problem you were devil's advocating. And we don't need to theorize about other numbers.
        foxglacier 1y ago
        Not sure this is defined the same way but 10% seems pretty common even without war. Even India is apparently already worse than that [1]. Who would you blame for starving the Indians? [1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/malnutrition-rate-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/malnutrit... and "in 2019, the global rate of malnutrition was estimated to be approximately 9 percent." [1].
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Not sure this is defined the same way It's not. According to the IPC, "acute malnutrition is a form of malnutrition that occurs when an individual suffers from current, severe nutritional restrictions, a recent bout of illness, inappropriate childcare practices or, more often, a combination of these factors. It is characterised by extreme weight loss, resulting in low weight for height, and/or bilateral oedema, and, in its severe form, can lead to death." [1]. Your chart measures undernourishment, which the FAO defines relative to "how many calories [one] need[s] to maintain a healthy life" [2]. [1] https://www.nutritioncluster.net/sites/nutritioncluster.com/files/2020-03/IPC-for-Acute-Malnutriton-Concepts-and-Tools-Cleared-by-TAG-and-Endorsed-by-SC.pdf https://www.nutritioncluster.net/sites/nutritioncluster.com/... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/undernourishment-definition https://ourworldindata.org/undernourishment-definition
    - Alupis 1y ago
      It has also been well-documented that the controlling interest within Gaza also limits access to food - of it's own citizens/people. While it seems undeniable the people of Gaza are experiencing food scarcity - we cannot lay blame soley at the foot of Israel here. That would be grossly disengenous and an outright falsehood.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > we cannot lay blame soley at the foot of Israel here For the famine, yes we can. Let the aid in. Let Hamas steal it. Now you can blame Hamas. The fact that we have zero evidence of Hamas stealing the current aid makes it entirely one side's fault.
        Alupis 1y ago
        Aid did get in, and Hamas did steal it. The media ignored it, so the narrative continues status-quo. Israel has no reason to support Hamas and their efforts here. If Hamas wasn't stealing all of the aid earlier in this conflict, perhaps aid would still be flowing into Gaza. It doesn't seem so absolute/cut-and-dry like you try to make it.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Aid did get in, and Hamas did steal it We have no proof this was routinely happening [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/26/world/middleeast/hamas-un-aid-theft.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/26/world/middleeast/hamas-un...
        Alupis 1y ago
        The UN's own data does not support your claim or article[1]. The UN's data showed 88% of trucks delivering aid to Gaza were looted along their routes - failing to reach their intended destination. [1] - https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/08/05/un-reports-88-percent-of-aid-trucks-slated-for-delivery-in-gaza-since-may-looted-along-routes/ https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/08/05/un-reports-88-percen...
  - ipaddr 1y ago
    There is enough food to feed the children but Israel won't let the food in. Not logistics someone trying to kill them and claiming to be the victim.
wat10000 1y ago
Does this particular (supposed) definition change matter here? Because if it doesn't, pushback by the aggressor is heinous and obviously disingenuous even if your abstract love of accuracy means you happen to agree with the objection.
- BJones12 1y ago
  From my understanding there is an argument about whether 12% or 16% of children meet a certain threshold of food availability, which affects whether or not it is called a famine. One is regarded as not a famine, one is regarded as a famine, and there is argument over what data to use. And the definition does matter, because 'famine' has the meaning of a certain level of bad thing happening. If we do not preserve the meaning, then the word will not have a meaning, then we have no more word to talk about that bad thing, so we will pay no attention to averting or fixing the bad thing because we don't have the literal ability to talk about it. I'm in favor of being able to have a productive discussion about famines and how to avoid them, so I'm in favor of having a word for 'famine' with a clearly defined meaning.
  - matthewdgreen 1y ago
    The word “famine” does not have a clearly-defined statistical meaning outside of some very specific circumstances. We abhor the idea of famine whether it occurs at 12% or 14% or 23% of children because we see all of these things to be very bad circumstances. One particular organization chose a 15% threshold for a legalistic definition in their framework, and the government is lawyering this because they can lawyer an arbitrary threshold and they think that will help them win some PR points. Thats all this is. PS Do you really think the number “15%” is some natural value that nature or the Bible or teams of scientists chose to define “famine”? It’s an arbitrary threshold that someone picked because it’s a bit larger than 10% and less than 20% and divisible by the number of digits on the human hand.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > It’s an arbitrary threshold But it’s a threshold. Remove the threshold and we lose accountability. Any level is simultaneously abhorrent and unavoidable.
falconroar 1y ago
Are Gazans receiving adequate nutrition? If not, why are we discussing semantics?

basisword 1y ago

As you say definitions matter - so let's not invent hypothetical scenarios to dismiss points. Israel was not arguing about the definition of 'acute malnourished'. The threshold for famine is 15%. The IPC said it had just hit 16% and was thus a famine. Israel was arguing that other data showed it was only 12.2-13.5% and therefore not a famine. When you get to the point of arguing "only 12% of the children are starving, not 16%" you probably shouldn't bother.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> When you get to the point of arguing "only 12% of the children are starving, not 16%" you probably shouldn't bother Devil's advocate: we grow enough food to feed every human. What we lack is the logistics. War disrupts logistics. Food insecurity rising is thus, unfortunately, an expected (and probably unmitigatable) consequence of war. That's why we have to define a line, based on history and capability, that sets what's a tolerable amount of starvation. And what is not.
- istjohn 1y ago
  Famine is not an inevitable outcome of war. It is the inevitable outcome of Israel's deliberate actions to limit access to food, which are well-documented.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Famine is not an inevitable outcome of war Food insecurity is. Famine is not. The latter is statistically defined, which is why we have levels and people arguing about which side of that level they stand.
    - Dylan16807 1y ago
      Fine, remove the word famine. Acute malnourishment going above 10% is not an inevitable outcome of war. This was deliberate action.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Acute malnourishment going above 10% is not an inevitable outcome of war I don't know enough about this topic to debate levels. I'd just point out that you're still specifying a level, and that level can't be zero if it's going to be taken seriously.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        I'm specifying a level that is clearly too high, and everyone agrees has been hit, and avoids semantic arguments. This solves the problem you were devil's advocating. And we don't need to theorize about other numbers.
        foxglacier 1y ago
        Not sure this is defined the same way but 10% seems pretty common even without war. Even India is apparently already worse than that [1]. Who would you blame for starving the Indians? [1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/malnutrition-rate-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/malnutrit... and "in 2019, the global rate of malnutrition was estimated to be approximately 9 percent." [1].
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Not sure this is defined the same way It's not. According to the IPC, "acute malnutrition is a form of malnutrition that occurs when an individual suffers from current, severe nutritional restrictions, a recent bout of illness, inappropriate childcare practices or, more often, a combination of these factors. It is characterised by extreme weight loss, resulting in low weight for height, and/or bilateral oedema, and, in its severe form, can lead to death." [1]. Your chart measures undernourishment, which the FAO defines relative to "how many calories [one] need[s] to maintain a healthy life" [2]. [1] https://www.nutritioncluster.net/sites/nutritioncluster.com/files/2020-03/IPC-for-Acute-Malnutriton-Concepts-and-Tools-Cleared-by-TAG-and-Endorsed-by-SC.pdf https://www.nutritioncluster.net/sites/nutritioncluster.com/... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/undernourishment-definition https://ourworldindata.org/undernourishment-definition
  - Alupis 1y ago
    It has also been well-documented that the controlling interest within Gaza also limits access to food - of it's own citizens/people. While it seems undeniable the people of Gaza are experiencing food scarcity - we cannot lay blame soley at the foot of Israel here. That would be grossly disengenous and an outright falsehood.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > we cannot lay blame soley at the foot of Israel here For the famine, yes we can. Let the aid in. Let Hamas steal it. Now you can blame Hamas. The fact that we have zero evidence of Hamas stealing the current aid makes it entirely one side's fault.
      - Alupis 1y ago
        Aid did get in, and Hamas did steal it. The media ignored it, so the narrative continues status-quo. Israel has no reason to support Hamas and their efforts here. If Hamas wasn't stealing all of the aid earlier in this conflict, perhaps aid would still be flowing into Gaza. It doesn't seem so absolute/cut-and-dry like you try to make it.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Aid did get in, and Hamas did steal it We have no proof this was routinely happening [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/26/world/middleeast/hamas-un-aid-theft.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/26/world/middleeast/hamas-un...
        Alupis 1y ago
        The UN's own data does not support your claim or article[1]. The UN's data showed 88% of trucks delivering aid to Gaza were looted along their routes - failing to reach their intended destination. [1] - https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/08/05/un-reports-88-percent-of-aid-trucks-slated-for-delivery-in-gaza-since-may-looted-along-routes/ https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/08/05/un-reports-88-percen...
- ipaddr 1y ago
  There is enough food to feed the children but Israel won't let the food in. Not logistics someone trying to kill them and claiming to be the victim.

wat10000 1y ago

Does this particular (supposed) definition change matter here? Because if it doesn't, pushback by the aggressor is heinous and obviously disingenuous even if your abstract love of accuracy means you happen to agree with the objection.

BJones12 1y ago
From my understanding there is an argument about whether 12% or 16% of children meet a certain threshold of food availability, which affects whether or not it is called a famine. One is regarded as not a famine, one is regarded as a famine, and there is argument over what data to use. And the definition does matter, because 'famine' has the meaning of a certain level of bad thing happening. If we do not preserve the meaning, then the word will not have a meaning, then we have no more word to talk about that bad thing, so we will pay no attention to averting or fixing the bad thing because we don't have the literal ability to talk about it. I'm in favor of being able to have a productive discussion about famines and how to avoid them, so I'm in favor of having a word for 'famine' with a clearly defined meaning.
- matthewdgreen 1y ago
  The word “famine” does not have a clearly-defined statistical meaning outside of some very specific circumstances. We abhor the idea of famine whether it occurs at 12% or 14% or 23% of children because we see all of these things to be very bad circumstances. One particular organization chose a 15% threshold for a legalistic definition in their framework, and the government is lawyering this because they can lawyer an arbitrary threshold and they think that will help them win some PR points. Thats all this is. PS Do you really think the number “15%” is some natural value that nature or the Bible or teams of scientists chose to define “famine”? It’s an arbitrary threshold that someone picked because it’s a bit larger than 10% and less than 20% and divisible by the number of digits on the human hand.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > It’s an arbitrary threshold But it’s a threshold. Remove the threshold and we lose accountability. Any level is simultaneously abhorrent and unavoidable.

falconroar 1y ago

Are Gazans receiving adequate nutrition? If not, why are we discussing semantics?