Skip to main content

View Diary: Some statistics on pie (163 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  By that logic.... (4.00)
    ...the following scenario thus makes all the sense in the world:

    I lob a bomb into a kindergarten.

    Someone says: "What have you done, 90% of the people you killed were children?!"

    I should say: "You know, that's a junk stat.  More than 95% of the targeted population was children.  Don't give me no bleeding-heart claptrap."

    "When the intellectual history of this era is finally written, it will scarcely be believable." -- Noam Chomsky

    by scorponic on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 02:53:25 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I think you missed the point (none)
      I don't think the post was suggesting for a second women and children refugees aren't a serious and important humanitarian concern.  The point was that the statistics don't show that women are more likely to be displaced than men.  I haven't double checked the stats, but assuming they are correct then the post is dead on.

      Your "scenario" doesn't really follow the point of the logic of the post.

      •  I don't think I did. (none)
        I missed the logic, of which I see none.  If bad thing X usually tends to occur in underdeveloped countries, which we'll assume have larger proportions of women and children than developed countries, then it is simply true that women and children are disproportionately impacted by bad thing X.

        If a mad bomber targets venues that have disproportionately higher numbers of women and children in them, then it is simply true that women and children are disproportionately impacted by the mad bomber.

        We can care, or not, but it's not a "junk stat".

        "When the intellectual history of this era is finally written, it will scarcely be believable." -- Noam Chomsky

        by scorponic on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 03:11:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  One more try (4.00)
          First - as some of the posts below point out - the same stat could be applied to men and children.  And, as the point of the diary was to discuss discrimination of women, the state therefore adds nothing to the discussion.

          In any case, to draw the conclusion that just because a certain group is disproportionately impacted by something it is therefore being singled out for persecution or discrimination is logically flawed.  That is why your scenario of a kindergarden bomber is not on point.  In that scenario the bomber intentionally targeted a location that he/she presumably knew to have a disproportionate number of children.  Therefore the children were singled out for persecution.

          You haven't presented any evidence that countries in which people are displaced are intentionally targeted because they have a disproportionate number of women and children.  Therefore it cannot logically follow that their displacement is a result of gender discrimination, etc.

          •  By the way (none)
            None of this means that I don't agree with the ultimate point regarding discrimnation that women face.  It just means that I appreciate logical arguments.
            •  Let's see... (none)
              I don't see any comment, mine, Jerome's or anyone else's, that claims or implies that someone is causing conditions that produce refugees with the intent to discriminate against women. Instead, the point, as I understand it, is that (a) it's a fact that such conditions have a disparate impact on women and children, (b) that fact should be of special concern given that women and children are generally the least able to survive such conditions, and (c) the fact that the fact of disparate impact is neither generally known nor a cause for special efforts to mitigate such conditions is prima facie evidence that the welfare of women and children, as a group, is not given particular concern.

              The poster who called this a "junk stat" certainly has the right to fairly disagree with these implicit assertions, and an argument addressing (b) and (c) above would have been fair comment.  But the label "junk stat" is (a) not an argument, (b) insultingly dismissive, and (c) a logical inanity for the reasons I've posted elsewhere.  

              "When the intellectual history of this era is finally written, it will scarcely be believable." -- Noam Chomsky

              by scorponic on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 07:51:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  75% affected men and children (none)
          What he is saying is that 75% percent of the people affected are men and children.  (50% population children, 50% divided between men and women).

          So instead of saying women and children or disproportuenly affected you could also say "hey 75% of the victims are men and children.  Those women are evil!!"

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site