3 ms·

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
brigandish 1y ago
You've chosen a number there, conveniently lower than the one the Israelis picked. I must say, an argument that convenient is not persuasive. To address it properly we must start with whether anything above zero is "acceptable" (in the sense of a level that would accord with the realities of increased food insecurity in a war zone, not morally). If it is, then a level needs to be set, and if the level is met then I would expect the parties in question to argue about it, if only because of the propaganda value, let alone the truth of the claim. The claims about mistakes in the data, or presentation of the data, are here[1], I am unable to tell if they are right or not, but that is not the point of this conversation. The point is, whether their should be stages at all, and if so, should the results of reports be scrutinised? I would say yes to both. [1] https://www.israeltoday.co.il/read/gaza-famine-claim-based-on-fabricated-data/ https://www.israeltoday.co.il/read/gaza-famine-claim-based-o...
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  > You've chosen a number there, conveniently lower than the one the Israelis picked. I must say, an argument that convenient is not persuasive. They're disputing whether the actual rate is 12% or 16%. So if I can make my argument without any numbers inside that range, of course I will do so. Why is that less persuasive? You could say that I'm giving Israel the benefit of the doubt. Sure, let's say it's 12%. That's still bad. > whether their should be stages at all Sure, there are many levels of hunger issues. > should the results of reports be scrutinised? In general yes. But in this particular case we can be confident it's at least the number Israel is giving, plus or minus some fraction of a percent, so that's what I based my argument on.
  - brigandish 1y ago
    You chose a number lower than either of the parties involved, one of them an agency tasked with deciding the numbers. Clearly, that is for convenience and hence, not persuasive.
    - Dylan16807 1y ago
      I gave Israel the benefit of the doubt, plus extra. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt is a common way to make arguments more persuasive by avoiding nitpicks. So it's convenient for that specific reason. Why do you act like convenience is ipso facto bad? How does it make my argument less persuasive? I will point out that picking a number below both of them only works when I'm arguing that even my number is still too high. If I was arguing that something is sufficiently low, my "still sufficiently low" number would have to be above both of their numbers. Let me make an analogy: Two people are arguing about whether a crashed car would take $3000 or $4000 to repair. I come in and point out that any number above $2500 would mean it's totaled, so the car is totaled and that's the important part. $2500 is not the exact threshold, but I'm confident that the exact threshold is less than or equal to $2500. By introducing the convenient number of $2500, have I ruined the persuasiveness of my argument? If so, how? Please explain beyond just accusing it of being convenient.

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

brigandish 1y ago

You've chosen a number there, conveniently lower than the one the Israelis picked. I must say, an argument that convenient is not persuasive. To address it properly we must start with whether anything above zero is "acceptable" (in the sense of a level that would accord with the realities of increased food insecurity in a war zone, not morally). If it is, then a level needs to be set, and if the level is met then I would expect the parties in question to argue about it, if only because of the propaganda value, let alone the truth of the claim. The claims about mistakes in the data, or presentation of the data, are here[1], I am unable to tell if they are right or not, but that is not the point of this conversation. The point is, whether their should be stages at all, and if so, should the results of reports be scrutinised? I would say yes to both. [1] https://www.israeltoday.co.il/read/gaza-famine-claim-based-on-fabricated-data/ https://www.israeltoday.co.il/read/gaza-famine-claim-based-o...

Dylan16807 1y ago
> You've chosen a number there, conveniently lower than the one the Israelis picked. I must say, an argument that convenient is not persuasive. They're disputing whether the actual rate is 12% or 16%. So if I can make my argument without any numbers inside that range, of course I will do so. Why is that less persuasive? You could say that I'm giving Israel the benefit of the doubt. Sure, let's say it's 12%. That's still bad. > whether their should be stages at all Sure, there are many levels of hunger issues. > should the results of reports be scrutinised? In general yes. But in this particular case we can be confident it's at least the number Israel is giving, plus or minus some fraction of a percent, so that's what I based my argument on.
- brigandish 1y ago
  You chose a number lower than either of the parties involved, one of them an agency tasked with deciding the numbers. Clearly, that is for convenience and hence, not persuasive.
  - Dylan16807 1y ago
    I gave Israel the benefit of the doubt, plus extra. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt is a common way to make arguments more persuasive by avoiding nitpicks. So it's convenient for that specific reason. Why do you act like convenience is ipso facto bad? How does it make my argument less persuasive? I will point out that picking a number below both of them only works when I'm arguing that even my number is still too high. If I was arguing that something is sufficiently low, my "still sufficiently low" number would have to be above both of their numbers. Let me make an analogy: Two people are arguing about whether a crashed car would take $3000 or $4000 to repair. I come in and point out that any number above $2500 would mean it's totaled, so the car is totaled and that's the important part. $2500 is not the exact threshold, but I'm confident that the exact threshold is less than or equal to $2500. By introducing the convenient number of $2500, have I ruined the persuasiveness of my argument? If so, how? Please explain beyond just accusing it of being convenient.