Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

tres, I wonder if those poll numbers will change if they learned that the majority of Iraqis are children? c.i.

Here's Iraq's age group distribution for 2000. The age group from zero to 14 makes up 46.6 percent of Iraq's population. The age group from 15 to 24 makes up 19.6 percent. c.i.

http://www.escwa.org.lb/popin/indicators/country/iraq/main.html

They might, though there's no telling which way they might change. Some people might shift towards opposing war, thinking to safeguard children from harm by so doing. Others might shift towards supporting military action, for the same reason. Whether the net result would be a shift for or against war is hard to say.

But it looks like we will never know how people might react to this "fact" because it appears that it isn't a "fact" at all. I just took two or three minutes to check your fact and find that your claim that the majority of Iraqis are under 15 is untrue. I found a number of sources, but this was the most recently updated:


Do you have an actual source that claims otherwise, or is this just something you "heard" and repeated? (If you have a source that contradicts this and all the other sources I found, I'd be happy to see it.)

tres, So what you're saying is that just because the 0-14 age group makes up only 41.1 percent of the total population, it's okay to justify collateral damage? c.i.

No, and it is stupid of you to suggest that I was writing anything like that.

I am pointing out that you have a tendency of throwing out information that is not accurate, and asking people to base their decisions on those inaccuracies and untruths. Of course, you'd rather play this game of pretending I don't care about children than acknowledge that you need to be a little more discerning in what you choose to call a fact.

It is both lazy and lacks intellectual honesty to pretend that because you are adamantly opposed to war in Iraq it means you cherish life more than those who have considered the available information about this issue and come to the conclusion that the terrible, horrific thing that is war may be warranted and appropriate to removing the threat Iraq and Saddam present to the world. It also makes for a very useless debate.

Unless you can get your head around the fact that--with a few exceptions (we are all individuals after all)--everybody abhors the idea of war and the reality of the loss of innocent lives in war, but some people measure that against all that they believe is at stake here and think that it may in fact be necessary and appropriate to go to war with Iraq.

And while you're at it you might try getting it into your head that more people have considered all of that and come to a conclusion other than that which you have reached.

tres, So the "fact" that the percentages vary by which stats one looks at, people will decern the difference between the 9 percent variance for the under 15 age group? You've got to be kidding me! No matter, this is our last discussion between you and I on A2K. Goodbye. c.i.

I hope you'll forgive me if I am unwilling to take the blame for the fact that you came here and offered as fact something that is not. I actually took the time to answer your question before politely pointing out that your numbers weren't accurate. Now you want to take your ball and go home.

As I wrote following a similar tirade of yours elsewhere in A2K tonight, if you post here and I think it is something that needs responding to, I will respond. You are welcome to control your actions here, not mine.

Oh, and the stats don't vary based on "which ones you look at". The only stats I've seen vary because there is a two year difference in when they took the census, and that difference was not 9 points but 5.5 points (46.6-41.1). (What is my point? My point is that some things are true and others are untrue, and it is important to know which is which whenever possible. I wish you didn't take that as a personal attack, but I can't see that it's really my problem if you do.)

sigh

Someone could use lessons on how to make friends and influence people. Amazon may carry Emily Post's book.

As I've said elsewhere, I wonder whether if we classified children as under-18's -- as they are in the US -- whether Cicerone's numbers wouldn't be met or even exceeded? In any event, the argument is badly stated, in my view. It would have been better to counter Cicerone's assertion with "I think those figures may be off, but it's still too many children to put at risk."

Whether we're talking about poll numbers or prospective casualties, we have to realize we'll never know the whole truth. Poll numbers depend on which questions are asked and how, and even then unless you read the ENTIRE poll you won't know what the results really are; and even if you do that, pollsters admit there are margins of error and that the polls come from samples, not entire populations. As for "collateral damage," we'll never know the results. The victors are the official statisticians and they will necessarily underplay deaths of civilians by.... how much? Tres? Maybe 41%? Maybe 50%? Depends on sources, right?

For me, this week's most fascinating story was deep inside Tuesday's New York Times, a piece by Erica Goode headlined, "Among the Inept, Researchers Discover Ignorance Is Bliss.''

It seems that studies by psychologists have found that most incompetent people have no idea they're incompetent.

On the contrary, the researchers found that the incompetent are "usually supremely confident of their abilities, more confident, in fact, than people who do things well.'' ...

The two psychologists think that inept people are often self-assured because they lack self-monitoring skills, which are the same skills required for competence. Subjects who scored in the lowest quartile in tests of logic, English grammar, and humor were also the mostly likely to "grossly overestimate'' how well they performed.

"Not only do (incompetent people) reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices,'' wrote Dr. Kruger, "but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it.''

The inept, then, are in an impossible position. Is there any hope for them? Or don't they care?

Dunning and Kruger found that a short course in logical reasoning helped some of the subjects assess their performance more realistically. But it appears a lot more work must be done. Stamping out incompetence, especially among people who won't admit they're incompetent, could be a Herculean task. One of the obstacles to encouraging realistic self-assessment is that, in most situations, honest feedback is nonexistent. As Goode puts it, "Social norms prevent most people from blurting out, 'You stink!' ''


This goes a long way toward explaining several things:

1) Bush's sense of his own competence despite all evidence to the contrary. He doesn't have the ability to understand that he isn't very good at what he does.

2) The hesitancy to point out to him just how incompetent he is, especially in the press. People who are insecure about their own competence will have an especially hard time questioning the competence of someone who is self-assured.

3) Why so many people like him despite his incompetence: because self-confidence is a very attractive quality for many people, especially people who lack confidence in their own abilities. The insecure look to the secure to provide them security. Thus the competent may actually be more trusting of the incompetent because the incompetent are less likely to publicly question their own competence. (It's also why assholes never seem to have problems getting women.)

Still others could use a good mirror.

Perhaps I am not stating it well, but the point I made (and this topic has strayed across several discussions, so I am unsure whether I made it here or in another) was that some might consider going to war in Iraq the best way to safeguard the most Iraqi children. The question of how many children they have is only marginally valuable if you assume that they are not at risk from harm by their own government. History suggests this would be a foolish position to take.

I know it makes arguing this easier if you pretend that those who are against war hold a monopoly on caring and concern for innocents, but it simply isn't true. So why not take a more meaningful tack?

(And no, it doesn't "depend upon your source". Nobody has offered any source the supports the claimed "over 50%", and the only source he did offer contained 2000 figures. The most recent available data is from 2002, and I know of no data as recent or more recent which disputes those numbers. Again, the question here isn't whether children are precious, but whether spreading falsehoods as truths is acceptable and makes for a useful discussion.

What absolutely delicious irony.

Horse of a different color?

um i think its called a zebra

No compute. Clarify.

Maybe mule?

trespassers will: The more I read of your posts, the more convinced I am that I want to be just like you when I grow up.