4 ms·

>> Israel and Russia are considered 1st world countries. [There are higher standards for them] I acknowledged that when I wrote "How many thousands of times is

by berntb 13y ago

>> Israel and Russia are considered 1st world countries. [There are higher standards for them] I acknowledged that when I wrote "How many thousands of times is reasonable for different standards?" So, how many factors of ten higher standards should be held for Israel than for, say, the countries that spend a large part of their GNP on artillery for use on civilians? 3? 4? (I've asked that multiple times and never gotten an answer when people repeat your argument. Including in what you comment on.) >> Sudan's problems are a symptom of Sudan's level of social progress I also brought up that at least Swedish media avoid mentioning that the dictators taking control of the UNHRC and not complaining about each others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council#Specific_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Cou... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council#Sudan_.26_Ethiopian_candidacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Cou... That is not explained by you thinking it is OK to have a factor thousands in different standards. >>As for immigrants being criticized for holding 3rd world views after moving to a 1st world country, they don't have the kind of power that a government does You really see no problem having factors of ten different standards for different groups of citizens inside a country? Besides, I think you simplify (on the border of excusing) unpleasant regimes that oppress, mass murder and steal -- when you just describe the reason as "different levels of social progress". Countries today are poor mainly because they are controlled by corrupt juntas (or in a conflict, usually created by juntas). Every country on the planet with population over a few millions can and should have a competent government.

Amadou 13y ago
"How many thousands of times is reasonable for different standards?" That is hyperbole. You've quantified something that is not really quantifiable. As long as that is your argument you'll got no satisfactory answer. All you are doing is begging the question.
- berntb 13y ago
  >> [E.g. Sudan's atrocities is at least a factor thousand worse than anything from Israel] is hyperbole. And that is not an argument. I motivated my position, you're calling names. I wrote specifically that Sudan is at least a thousand times worse than Israel -- even with a Palestinian description (where e.g. killing people attacking civilians is not self defence). Look at number of dead, rapes, deportations etc etc -- what is NOT a thousand times worse? If we can't quantify e.g. human rights violations we should close down international law. Etc.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    Your complaint is that the media criticism is not proportional to the level of harm. The hyperbole is in your measurement of the criticism.
    - berntb 13y ago
      Let me note that you are arguing something completely different than you started with. >> Your complaint is that the media criticism is not proportional to the level of harm. The hyperbole is in your measurement of the criticism Well, no. One is at least a thousand times larger than the other in effect. The criticism (in my local Swedish and from much of the European media) is much larger. See e.g. the UNHRC discussion above. That is all I need for my thesis to not be "hyperbole". Notes: 1. Since the Syrian situation started it has been very quiet re Israel, the different standards would probably be too obvious. 2. Serious media, e.g. BBC/NY Times, was (well, by definition) more serious than bad media.
      - Amadou 13y ago
        Let me note that you are arguing something completely different than you started with. Yes, I started off explaining why there is relatively unbalanced coverage. You made it clear that your argument is based on hard numbers that you've basically made up. So now I am pointing out that making up hard numbers and not accepting arguments that don't precisely fit your arbitrary numbers is just a form of rhetoric. Measuring the effect of coverage is even more arbitrary. "Effect" is something so vague that there aren't even any units to measure it. You will not receive any satisfactory answers because you have designed the question to be unanswerable so as to advocate a position rather than seek an explanation.
        berntb 13y ago
        >>hard numbers that you've basically made up. Here are quick overviews of the facts I claimed in the GP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Sudan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Sudan http://www.oxfam.org/en/emergencies/sudan-southsudan http://www.oxfam.org/en/emergencies/sudan-southsudan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#Fatalities_1948.E2.80.932011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_con... But you knew that. So it is easy to claim different standards as a factor of thousands. But you knew that, too.

by berntb 13y ago

Amadou 13y ago

"How many thousands of times is reasonable for different standards?" That is hyperbole. You've quantified something that is not really quantifiable. As long as that is your argument you'll got no satisfactory answer. All you are doing is begging the question.

berntb 13y ago
>> [E.g. Sudan's atrocities is at least a factor thousand worse than anything from Israel] is hyperbole. And that is not an argument. I motivated my position, you're calling names. I wrote specifically that Sudan is at least a thousand times worse than Israel -- even with a Palestinian description (where e.g. killing people attacking civilians is not self defence). Look at number of dead, rapes, deportations etc etc -- what is NOT a thousand times worse? If we can't quantify e.g. human rights violations we should close down international law. Etc.
- Amadou 13y ago
  Your complaint is that the media criticism is not proportional to the level of harm. The hyperbole is in your measurement of the criticism.
  - berntb 13y ago
    Let me note that you are arguing something completely different than you started with. >> Your complaint is that the media criticism is not proportional to the level of harm. The hyperbole is in your measurement of the criticism Well, no. One is at least a thousand times larger than the other in effect. The criticism (in my local Swedish and from much of the European media) is much larger. See e.g. the UNHRC discussion above. That is all I need for my thesis to not be "hyperbole". Notes: 1. Since the Syrian situation started it has been very quiet re Israel, the different standards would probably be too obvious. 2. Serious media, e.g. BBC/NY Times, was (well, by definition) more serious than bad media.
    - Amadou 13y ago
      Let me note that you are arguing something completely different than you started with. Yes, I started off explaining why there is relatively unbalanced coverage. You made it clear that your argument is based on hard numbers that you've basically made up. So now I am pointing out that making up hard numbers and not accepting arguments that don't precisely fit your arbitrary numbers is just a form of rhetoric. Measuring the effect of coverage is even more arbitrary. "Effect" is something so vague that there aren't even any units to measure it. You will not receive any satisfactory answers because you have designed the question to be unanswerable so as to advocate a position rather than seek an explanation.
      - berntb 13y ago
        >>hard numbers that you've basically made up. Here are quick overviews of the facts I claimed in the GP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Sudan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Sudan http://www.oxfam.org/en/emergencies/sudan-southsudan http://www.oxfam.org/en/emergencies/sudan-southsudan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#Fatalities_1948.E2.80.932011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_con... But you knew that. So it is easy to claim different standards as a factor of thousands. But you knew that, too.