Discussion in 'Never Ending Stories' started by Nylan, Dec 24, 2011.
Or people with really bad standards or an over abundance of "glass half full" attitude.
"See, we're better than 12th century crusader-lords. Could be worse."
"OK! Our social development has just about reached that of France in 1600! Keep trying, we'll get there eventually!"
More like, "We're already as good as Saudi Arabia!!! What more do you want?!?!?! SOVIET RUSSIA?!?!?!?!!?"
You harped on about how African Americans were super disadvantaged and how dare I even consider comparing them with Indigenous Australians. (You touch on this a number of times below).
I'm comparing data at the national level with large numbers together and in a manner that allows for comparisons of those statistics on a meaningful basis (i.e. on a population adjusted basis). This is what statistical authorities do all the time and is widely accepted practice. If you want me to cherry pick regional or state or whatever data, I'm willing to do so but that would make valid comparisons harder to make.
Dude. Get over it. Australian social spending is lower than US public social spending as a proportion of GDP (19.5% compared with 20.0%) and is lower than US public social spending on a GDP per capita basis as well ($7 288.5 compared with $9 204.1). The same is true of public healthcare expenditure as a proportion of GDP (8.6% compared with 8.9% of GDP). Thanks OECD!
I remember reading this 2 years ago and being floored, but I never hear this research talked about. It's making me think either 1. I'm crazy 2. everybody else is
Assume #2. Nothing bad could possibly come from that.
You're the one comparing them to an improper group that barely has a population. This is most easily compared to Native Americans, who most certainly have it worse than your Indigenous Australians.
The statistical authorities love to cherry pick this kind of crap to make specific things look worse when they aren't. If you want to talk about real African American unemployment or income, how about you look at the South during the same time frame as your own data? You cherry picked 2011 Indigenous data vs 2014 African American. In 2011-2012 the African American unemployment in Georgia alone was around 17% (some states were as high at 28%), and that's for more people than your entire group. But let's pretend that isn't how it works. How about we compare data from the 1930s to 1990? Cause it doesn't make a lick of sense when comparing current conditions!
No, I'm not going to get over it. This is a major factor in the statistics! You can't compare our social spending as percentage of GDP when the programs aren't the same and don't reach the same groups. Most of our social spending is on the elderly and retired, not the young. Australians have access to universal healthcare from birth, including private if they want to afford it. It is part of your package. Americans do not have this. Our income must be reduced in comparison if you want to include the same services your people gain. Guess what? We have twice the population of your country who don't even have access to healthcare! Black Americans with insurance would further reduce their income by thousands of dollars. But you want to ignore that because you don't understand the implications of medical debt or mental health or unwanted pregnancies, etc. on the population. What about the single parent household issue in America? How does that align with Indigenous populations?
But in make believe Australian demography land, Australia is suffering so much more!
There is no winner in a "our people suffer more" competition, Masada. The point stands that the statistics you're using don't address the major issues, and in fact skirt around important factors in the debate (which you say don't matter cause you've obviously never been here).
Okay, I don't really want to get deeply involved in this and I'll admit that to be honest I can't say I have first hand knowledge of how either indigenous population is being treated or the advantages they have over each other, but when you look at the document I'll link below it has many points that seem relevant in this discussion.
The difference in between Australia's indigenous population and non-indigenous regarding HDI was ranked 3rd largest in the world, whereas America's was 30th.
Although you may disregard this point perhaps, Australia's indigenous population at the time was dying 20 years earlier than compared with the non-indigenous population, whereas America's in comparison was only 2.4 years.
I'm not going to check the average life expectancy of Australian and American citizens during the year when they conducted the research but I feel safe in assuming that there is still going to be a considerable gap regardless.
Admittedly the report is 5 years old, so if you guys find anything else more recent that contradicts it then I'd consider myself to be wrong.
Hey Masada, do you hear the same revolting justifications down there that we do up here? You know, the thinly coded "blacks are locked up so much more than everyone else because they're innately violent thugs," or "they're poor because they only care about gang-banging and swag instead of responsible life decisions" kind of thing? Or is it just ignored entirely like we do with the Indian reservations, or what?
I like how different breeds of other animals are recognized as having different attitudes, temperaments, and learning ability, but when someone suggests this same thing might apply to the human animal... Well that's just unacceptable. Either we're not animals and live by separate rules than that of the animal kingdom's evolutionary rules, or we are not and do not... Which means that creation theory is real, and that all humans were "created" by god as equals under him?
Huehue, imaginary friend argument wins over anti-racists evolutionist?
Racism is science, and other cutting-edge ideas from the 1920's, courtesy of Amon Savag. Tune in tomorrow for his bi-weekly serial "Ostjuden: Slavs, or Tartars?"
Remember when I told you you were a racist, Amon?
Seems I was right.
I take each individual as they present themselves, and recognize that if we are animals the same rules must apply to us as the rest of the animal kingdom. If that is far fetched then something must have tampered to make humans different, and I reject that idea without proof.
So go ahead and demonize me for believing that natural laws apply across the board. Not like anyone's opinion really matters here anyway (mine own, included).
What the message board poster doesn't know is the question of "sapience" is millenia old and is still an open-ended question in philosophy. With a rudimentary understanding of taxonomy, he will now attempt to argue his crypto-racist point of view on a forum devoted to computer video games. Let's watch.
Moderator Action: Speaking of computer video games, lets bring the conversation back into the realm of NESing. There is a whole other forum for discussions like this one (OT).
This is where we talk about things unrelated to NESing? There would be no purpose to this thread otherwise. It isn't like we want to go to the cesspit that is OT.
Technically it is not. Check out the OP. I can also see things devolving with the current line of discussion and it is probably a good idea to take a little break from the current topic.
If we're not allowed to discuss non-NESing things, and if you're going to dictate what we can and cannot talk about, what is the purpose of even posting? We can't have conversations in OT, because the place is filled with the worst kind of internet users. I mean, what exactly do you want out of this place? For us to not post at all?
We're bringing that sort of "worst kind of internet users" stuff from OT to here is the problem. This is why this thread in it's entirety should be moved to the OT, and this section of the forums should simply be for NESing, as it was pre-WWW threads.
No, that is ridiculous. Before WWW people just spammed in NES threads on anything not directly related to said NES. We don't need to go back to that.
Separate names with a comma.