Iranian Earthquake

  • News
  • Thread starter Monique
  • Start date
  • #26
22
0


Originally posted by phatmonky
ad hominem is a great thing to yell about when it doesn't pertain to you, isn't it?:)
Yes, actually. It's quite simple. You obviously can't read what has already been posted. This is not my biased opinion or character assassination, merely an observation of what has transpired. Deal with it.
 
  • #27
kat
26
0


Originally posted by Adam
How can you say Iran is a third world country? Did you not read the definitions I supplied?
Yeah, actually when the subject first came up I checked with dictionary.com to see what they had to say of the usage of the term. I will say that dictionaries do not always reflect common usage of terms as they are not able to neccesarily keep pace with what in reality is fluid and not stagnant. This becomes particularly obvious when a study of the media/print usage of the term third world is attempted.
On the other hand it would seem that you don't need a dictionary to reflect fluid use as you seem to be quiet capable of being fluid in your own transcripting of the dictionaries definitions.


Originally posted by Adam
Third world nation: Non-industrialised nations in Africa, Central America, South America, and Asia which were not strictly part of the NATO or Warsaw Pact alliances.


3 entry found for third world (this is your previous dictionary link for 3rd world)
1.The developing nations of Africa, Asia, and Latin American.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Israel is hardly a good example of any sort of positive governmental method.
Well, I was speaking in regards to economic indicators. However, according to the U.N.s 2003 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (The HDI measures achievements in terms of life expectancy, educational attainment and adjusted real income)Israel rates 22, Iran lags far behind at 106 and amazements of all amazements (particularly concerning the where the media focuses) The "Occupied" Palestinian Territories fall in ahead of Iran at the 98th spot! OOPS! And I'd get into why Palestine decreased in the HDI index after it was turned over to the Pa's authority but then..that's for another thread isn't it?


Well duh, they are within only 8 per cent of each other. That's a pretty small difference.
Not 8 percent..8 years. significant, particularly when comparing countries. Australia have a 3 year overall advantage to the U.S.


The cause is irrelevent. Population growth rates are almost identical.
It is relevent when you consider birth rates as an indicator of development status. Particularly how it is influenced by increased female education etc.


That is another discussion, and I will start a thread on it in the Value Theory forum.
it's not really for another discussion. But I'll leave it at mentioning that Iran health minister has publicly acknowledged that HIV in Iran is grossly(5x or greater) under-reported and the term "ticking timebomb" has been used frequently in regards to an HIV epidemic in Iran.


GDP growth rate is a good indication of economic health.
it's one indicator and I'm glad that it's positive growth for Iran..but suggesting that Iran's economy is superior or even comparable to the U.S. is ridiculous.


I don't know how I minimised it. In fact I stated quite clearly that the USA is superior to Iran in this regard. The interesting thing about this is Iran's industry is growing, which means more employment, while the USA's is dropping, which means less employment.
Iran's industry is growing and yes that usually means greater employment. However, Iran also suffers a very large issue of lack of skilled labor and a droping educational rate of the tune of almost 30%. Also, given the present possiblilty of future civil upheaval Iran's growth could be viewed as "shakey". On the other hand the United states industry has been dropping but there has been no significant pattern of unemployment and in fact recently an increase in employment.



[sarcasm]
I don't know how your little ad hominem applies in any way to this thread, but let me assure you that I honestly appreciate your concern.
[/sarcasm]
I think you should recieve, in addition to your current and rather interesting title, the title of "king of ad hominem". I'm actually surprised that Zero let's you get away with what he does. It seems he should have at the very least edited out your Baboon reference (among many others).
 
Last edited:
  • #28
kat
26
0


Originally posted by Adam
Heck, I worked for Australia. Two of my cousins do still. Are we "leading Australians"? Well, we actually are, but that's classified.
If you are the leadership that Australia has to offer...I'm rather frightened for Australia. I hardly think that comparing your government employment is comparable to being your countries representative to the U.N. and being given the right by your government to speak for the entire country on a global basis can be compared. Stop playing the idiot. /ad hominem /ad hominem
 
  • #29
member 5645


Originally posted by kat
I'm actually surprised that Zero let's you get away with what he does. It seems he should have at the very least edited out your Baboon reference (among many others). [/B]
He actually has now :D
 
  • #30
22
0
kat

Yeah, actually when the subject first came up I checked with dictionary.com to see what they had to say of the usage of the term. I will say that dictionaries do not always reflect common usage of terms as they are not able to neccesarily keep pace with what in reality is fluid and not stagnant. This becomes particularly obvious when a study of the media/print usage of the term third world is attempted.
On the other hand it would seem that you don't need a dictionary to reflect fluid use as you seem to be quiet capable of being fluid in your own transcripting of the dictionaries definitions.
I used the source I linked to earlier, for your convenience. You could thank me for it. I like to assist in peoples' education now and then.

The UN's HDI is rather useful as a basic guide to the wellbeing of various member states. However, it does not take into account the factors already discussed; ie. industrial growth, unemployment, the influence of unions, et cetera.

Not 8 percent..8 years. significant, particularly when comparing countries. Australia have a 3 year overall advantage to the U.S.
Yep, so it is, almost 8 years. I should pay more attention.

It is relevent when you consider birth rates as an indicator of development status. Particularly how it is influenced by increased female education etc.
One of the biggest differences, to me, is the number of medical professionals per population. You will note that the USA is far higher. However, class polarisation is removing them from the reach of the general population. Health insurance there is a joke. Without some serious work, the healthcare system in the USA is in big trouble. Iran, on the other hand, is already crap in comparison, yet improving.

it's not really for another discussion. But I'll leave it at mentioning that Iran health minister has publicly acknowledged that HIV in Iran is grossly(5x or greater) under-reported and the term "ticking timebomb" has been used frequently in regards to an HIV epidemic in Iran.
Hopefully you are aware that every country with statistics on HIV infection includes some measure they consider as "not reported". Particularly in the USA, hispanic and black citizens have rather limited access to the healthcare system, and are less likely to report such conditions.

it's one indicator and I'm glad that it's positive growth for Iran..but suggesting that Iran's economy is superior or even comparable to the U.S. is ridiculous.
I never suggested that. What you have done there is what is known as a Straw Man argument, and is of course a logical fallacy. You can read about it here http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html if you want.

Iran's industry is growing and yes that usually means greater employment. However, Iran also suffers a very large issue of lack of skilled labor and a droping educational rate of the tune of almost 30%. Also, given the present possiblilty of future civil upheaval Iran's growth could be viewed as "shakey". On the other hand the United states industry has been dropping but there has been no significant pattern of unemployment and in fact recently an increase in employment.
The UNICEF organisation gives these literacy figures:
1990: 73% for male, 55% for female.
2000: 84% for male, 70% for female.

Looks like growth to me.

I think you should recieve, in addition to your current and rather interesting title, the title of "king of ad hominem". I'm actually surprised that Zero let's you get away with what he does. It seems he should have at the very least edited out your Baboon reference (among many others).
That is off-topic.
 
  • #31
22
0
kat

Originally posted by kat
If you are the leadership that Australia has to offer...I'm rather frightened for Australia. I hardly think that comparing your government employment is comparable to being your countries representative to the U.N. and being given the right by your government to speak for the entire country on a global basis can be compared. Stop playing the idiot. /ad hominem /ad hominem
1) You missed the point entirely. To put it simply: I worked for Australia, yet I was not involved in the leaderhip of Australia. Taht gentleman works for Iran; why do you say he is involved in some leadership capacity?

2) If you knew what we do, you would not be frightened of Australia, but frightened by it.

3) I was given the ultimate right to speak for my government in the ultimate manner.

4) That entire post of yours seems both off-topic and entirely ad hominem. I think you should relax a little.
 
  • #32
member 5645


Originally posted by Adam
1) You missed the point entirely. To put it simply: I worked for Australia, yet I was not involved in the leaderhip of Australia. Taht gentleman works for Iran; why do you say he is involved in some leadership capacity?

2) If you knew what we do, you would not be frightened of Australia, but frightened by it.

3) I was given the ultimate right to speak for my government in the ultimate manner.

4) That entire post of yours seems both off-topic and entirely ad hominem. I think you should relax a little.

1>Diplomat to the UN is a fairly high power here - maybe it's competely different in your world.

2>Well I'm neither. I like Australia.

3>I hope this line isn't some bull**** attempt to make your military service sound like a diplomatic mission to the UN. So long as you are being completely ambiguous with this, I can't assume otherwise.
http://bad-sports.com/~archive/images/Adam.jpg [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
22
0
phatmonky

Diplomat to the UN is a fairly high power here - maybe it's competely different in your world.
No, diplomats rarely warrant a mention at all here.

Well I'm neither. I like Australia.
I like Australia too. I hate its government though.

I hope this line isn't some bull**** attempt to make your military service sound like a diplomatic mission to the UN.
Diplomacy is not the ultimate authority. Physical force is the ultimate authority. The military is a nation's ultimate expression of policy.
 
  • #34
member 5645


Originally posted by Adam


Diplomacy is not the ultimate authority. Physical force is the ultimate authority. The military is a nation's ultimate expression of policy.
I figured I was right. I commend you for your military service, but drop the shady act in order to fulfill your own points here. It's grossly unneeded.

In fact, further, just how is that your definition of Iran as devleoping is greater than that of this Iranian diplomat?
Also, how is it that you have gone from saying they are developed, to 'developing but not third world'?
 
  • #35
22
0
phatmonky

I figured I was right. I commend you for your military service, but drop the shady act in order to fulfill your own points here. It's grossly unneeded.
There is nothing shady about my military service. I was granted the strongest voice my country has to offer.

In fact, further, just how is that your definition of Iran as devleoping is greater than that of this Iranian diplomat?
I never said it was. If you would care to actually read these posts rather than skim over in your hurry to launch further ad hominems, you might see that I agreed with Kat.

Also, how is it that you have gone from saying they are developed, to 'developing but not third world'?
Iran is developing. Iran is not a third world nation. "Developing" and "third world" are not the same thing. Why is this so difficult for you?
 
  • #36
kat
26
0


Let me just walk you through this interaction so that it's absolutely clear.

Originally posted by phatmonky
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=third world

Would you not consider Iran developing? Or have they hit superpower status in secret?
The dictionary link given states that the meaning of the term "third world" means "The developing nations of Africa, Asia, and Latin American.

Originally posted by Adam preceded by a long list of tourist links (har har)
Iran was a "developing nation" six thousand years ago. Good grief. The ignorance of some people is astronishing.
I respond:

Originally posted by kat

MR. MEHDI MOLLAHOSSEINI,
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
TO THE UNITED NATIONS,
AT THE 25TH SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON INFORMATION
29 APRIL 2003

http://www.un.org/ga/coi/statements03/iran.htm [Broken]

OOPS! What's wrong with those people! How come they don't know what YOU know Adam! It's a global travesty! Oh My Gawds! I just can't believe it!
Russ further clarifies for you:

Originally posted by russ_watters
Its pretty simple, Adam. The terms "third world" and "developing" are referring to industrialization. Iran is not a fully-industrialized nation.
You come back with some fruity sarcastic reply:

Originally posted by Adam
Well, I am very surprised that an Iranian would refer to Iran in such a way.

Iran and USA have almost identical life expectancy. Similar population growth rate. The USA has six times as many (by percentage) people infected with HIV. USA has higher literacy (dropping by the year). Iran has a higher GDP growth rate. USA has better rates for poverty and unemployment. Iran has an undustrial growth rate of 5.5%, while the USA has -0.4%.

Yep, you're right. Iran is getting better, while the USA is getting worse. I guess the fact that the state is improving does make it a developing nation. The same must then apply to Australia.
Then...despite the fact that the dictionary link..that you later use to attempt to support....whatever it is your really trying to argue...clearly shows that Iran is a third world aka developing naiton..you state:

Originally posted by Adam
I still don't see why you said Iran is third world. It seems you think countries can be either superpowers OR third world, and nothing else.
I get a whiff of straw here (while were pointing out logical errors)

Phatmonkey then clarifies that the dictionary is clear on developing=3rd world and that it's clear Iran through it's spokesman in an official capacity has stated that Iran is a developing country

Originally posted by phatmonky
I think the definition is pretty clear :) Now the debate is whether they are developing or not- I leading Iranian says yes, you say no, so what now?
You then agree that Iran it is correct to refer to Iran as a developing nation...confirming that is correct according to the dictionary to say that Iran is a third world country..of course interesting enough you offer the same link to the term 3rd world country at dictionary.com as your evidence that it's not applicable...when it's already proven to be...applicable..huh?

Originally posted by Adam
I agree that Iran's economy is improving, they have industrial growth, therefore it does seem appropriate to refer to it as developing.

However, it is clearly NOT a third world nation, as was originally stated.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=first world
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=second world
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=third world

And "leading Iranian", because he works for the UN? My ex-girlfriend works for the UN too.
maybe that's why you decided to attack the position of MR. Mehdi Mollahosseini and fudge with the fact that Iran herself has sent Mr. Mehdi Mollahosseini as their representative. Nobody said he was "leading Iran" only that he was a leading Iranian. slight difference I know but big enough to make your comments..really silly. I did try to clarify this for you. You'll note the quotation marks around "Leading Iranian".

Originally posted by kat
Small point. Mr. Mehdi Mollahosseini does not work for the UN. He works for Iran as a representative of his country to the global body of the U.N.. That does indeed make him a "Leading Iranian" I doubt that your x girlfriend was sent as the official Australian representative to speak on behalf of Australia and before the U.N...but if indeed she was then she is also..despite any personal relationship with yourself...a leading Australian.
Then, having already proven that the Dictionary's definition is applicable and that it does indeed show that Iran as developing country is quantifiable as "third world" you revisit the issue AGAIN, totally ignoring that the dictionary link YOU GAVE proves that it is applicable! *boggle*

Originally posted by Adam
How can you say Iran is a third world country? Did you not read the definitions I supplied?


Then you again veer off into some bizarre place where what is said above about Mr Mehdi Mollahosseini being an official spokesperson for Iran on a GLOBAL level is the equivelant of simply being a leading Iranian because.....he...worked...for Iran...uh? can you see the problem here? again *boggle*

Originally posted by Adam
Heck, I worked for Australia. Two of my cousins do still. Are we "leading Australians"?
Then russ...tries to clarify for you AGAIN that indeed your dictionary link to the term 3rd world prove that Iran as the developing nation it is...indeed is considered third world...

Originally posted by russ_watters
Did you read them? You said yourself that Iran is developing:
Then with all of the above, with the dictionary link that not only phatmonky but yourself supplied having proven the point you come back with:

Originally posted by Adam
Good grief. The reading comprehension skills are declining.

Third world nation: Non-industrialised nations in Africa, Central America, South America, and Asia which were not strictly part of the NATO or Warsaw Pact alliances.

Now, these were strictly Cold War propaganda terms. They apply to Cold War entities. Now, at various times, Iran was occupied by, and allied with, either the USA side or the USSR side. That condition alone precludes the possibility of Iran being a third world nation.


Iran is developing, yes. But it is not, and never has been, a third world nation.
You criticise his reading comprehension, and then offer a your own re-vamped definition with a restriction that the term third world only be used towards nations that were not part of NATO or Warsaw pact alliances...further restricting the term to only cold war propaganda usage. These is not a restriction given by the dictionary in regards to third world. It is given in regards to the usage of the term "first world" and "second world". There is however, according to the dictionary's definition and common usage NO RESTRICTION to usage of the term "third world" in the manner you try to purvey.

Later when I do try to point out your error here you come back with:

Originally posted by Adam
I used the source I linked to earlier, for your convenience. You could thank me for it. I like to assist in peoples' education now and then.

You dishonesty isn't an education I care to take up. you'll not be getting any "thank you" from this direction *boggle*


Then, we come back to our "Leading Iranian" issue.
Originally posted by Adam
1) You missed the point entirely. To put it simply: I worked for Australia, yet I was not involved in the leaderhip of Australia. Taht gentleman works for Iran; why do you say he is involved in some leadership capacity?
Quite frankly, you obviously missed the point entirely and if your not simply dishonest in your argument then even franker, your reading comprension is horrendeous.


To prove my point...you continue with:


[/QUOTE]

2) If you knew what we do, you would not be frightened of Australia, but frightened by it.
[/QUOTE] If you scroll back you will qiute clearly see that I said frightened "FOR"..not "OF" or "BY"!


and then finally it comes back around to....despite the dictionary defition:

Originally posted by Adam

Iran is developing. Iran is not a third world nation. "Developing" and "third world" are not the same thing. Why is this so difficult for you?

AEEEIIII *up to my ovaries with this bull*****
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads on Iranian Earthquake

  • Last Post
3
Replies
55
Views
8K
  • Last Post
10
Replies
232
Views
20K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
5K
Replies
116
Views
13K
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • Last Post
7
Replies
164
Views
14K
Replies
43
Views
4K
Replies
56
Views
7K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Top