ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:39 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Does a Dominant WorldWide Culture Help Humanity?
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2004 6:36 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 10551
Location: Bris-Vegas Australia
I was watching this documentary about the Japanese film industry and I noticed that some of the producers where talking about how nowdays they have had to make some of their movies more "American" to attempt to re-coup their investments.
The Doco had spent the first 45 minutes talking about how Japanese cinema was different to American Cinema because they base their Stories on different things(I think they said Emotion and Charecter Interaction above Story and Spectacle which is what the Japanese directors claimed that American Films concentrated on) and they expressed concern that changing this tradition would lead to an overall downfall of the old ways which made Japanese cinema so great(yes, they included Godzilla in this).

Then I remembered on several occasions on these forums and other forums that American and other worldwide cultures meant that a lot of us all had at least some common experiences that helped to unite communities around the world like this one.
Some examples are Monty Python jokes, hatred of each Season of Survivor, assorted movies and Sporting events, that POS American Idol, Anime Movies and Series. All of these things are common themes that we all know about and recognise.

So my question is:
Does an Dominant International Culture help the human race?

It leads to a connection between peoples of different backgrounds and origins which is good.

But it can also lead to the end of older systems and traditions which remove the uniqueness of certain places around the world.

So what is everyones opinion?

Actor.
Don't look at me like that: I was originally going to make a Console VS PC gaming thread, this seemed more interesting.

_________________
"Why can't we go back to living like cavemen? I know it was a rough and ready existence - the men where always rough and the women were always ready! " - Santa.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2004 10:20 am 
Offline
Native

Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 903
Whether or not a single culture is beneficial depends entirely on what the dominant culture is. If it's the culture of the Aztecs, the world gets screwed. If the culture is Western-style liberalism (and I say "liberalism" in the classical sense, not in the modern ultra-politically-correct sense), then it's a good thing.

Quote:
But it can also lead to the end of older systems and traditions which remove the uniqueness of certain places around the world.


Uniqueness is overrated. If the new system is superior, by all means let it replace the old system completely. Look at pre-colonialism India. Unique, yes --- also a culture where they burned widows alive on the husband's funeral pyre, and which had a caste system where your birth determined your station in life. Uniqueness is outweighed by factors such as these. Or how about Egypt, where they carry on the grand old tradition of female "circumcision" (more accurately termed genital mutilation)? That's not a unique tradition, unfortunately, because it's practiced widely in Africa and in much of the non-African Islamic world as well, but it is definitely a practice that needs to be eradicated.

Now, does that mean all differences are a bad thing? Of course not. I don't care if the Vietnamese choose to eat dog rather than beef; these are differences that are merely cosmetic, and do not affect the core of a society. But there are cultural values and practices that are truly better or worse for a population, and spreading positive ones should be performed at all times.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2004 11:00 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
Kylaer wrote:
Look at pre-colonialism India. Unique, yes --- also a culture where they burned widows alive on the husband's funeral pyre


largly a myth i'm afraid, it was a symbolic and metaphorical thing etc that the colonial authorities took al too literally and stanped out a custom that really no longer existed, for instance note that many Christian priests and bishiops an dth like carry ceromonial weapons, usually maces as most clergy weren't allowed edged weapons, but we dont' go and take them away today under the impression that all Churchers are *just about* to go on a skull bashing rampage?

still, to continue the church line, Islam, Christianity and Judaism all have common points of referance, but differing interpretations on events, people and the like, you dont' need to get rid of all comedy shows to make sure that Monty Python will survive and be recieved by the people etc, one world culture can easliy mean lots of cultures, not clashing, but overlapping and crossbreeding, only the strong survives, moan as much as you want for the values of a mass culture, but that's the dictatorship of the masses for you

i mean, look at th growing popularity of the buk-cake, just because it wasnt' made in the US of A doen't mean it'll fail, it gets by on it's own world popularity, less popular things will still have a niche, in fact a world culture alows for more niches and larges audiances for specialist stuff, buk-cake made after a week long diet of red food dye for instance, even better if you dont' tell the girl involved

from the church to sex-horror in 3 paragraphs, now that's modern culture for you

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2004 1:00 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Must... resist... urge.. to... debate morality.

Ah, fuck it.

Kylaer wrote:
Uniqueness is overrated. If the new system is superior, by all means let it replace the old system completely.

[.snip]

But there are cultural values and practices that are truly better or worse for a population, and spreading positive ones should be performed at all times.


[Socrates]So you're saying that there exists some kind of moral code separate from or independent of cultural mores? If this is the case, please explain where these values are derived from, if not society itself. After all, saying that western society is better because other cultures do things which are horribly wrong by the standards of western society isn't saying much, now is it? [/Socrates] (What can I say? I like using elenchus.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2004 2:40 pm 
Offline
Native

Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 903
Of course they're derived from society; I don't suggest that the concept of, for example, human rights can arise in a vacuum. Instead, I challenge your concept that all cultures are equally valid, and should be allowed to progress along their own way without interference. The moral code developed by the Western classic-liberalism school of thought is superior to other systems that do not contain the concept of human rights, because it allows for greater freedom, a larger degree of personal determination of destiny, and increased security from the predations of church or state.

Let's look at the Aztecs, for example. Central to their religion was the need for a constant stream of human sacrifices, in order to power the sun. Tens of thousands were sacrificed every year; the death toll for a single event, the dedication of the Great Temple by King Ahuitzotl, is placed by contemporary accounts to be approximately 80,000 slaves and prisoners of war. If the Aztecs existed today, should we assume that this cultural practice is valid, and allow it to continue? Of course not. To allow it to continue would be to permit murder on a vast scale.

To say that mass murder, slavery, oppression on a basis of race or gender, or outright tyranny should be allowed simply because "that's their culture" is ludicrous and wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2004 2:57 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Kylaer wrote:
Of course they're derived from society; I don't suggest that the concept of, for example, human rights can arise in a vacuum. Instead, I challenge your concept that all cultures are equally valid, and should be allowed to progress along their own way without interference. The moral code developed by the Western classic-liberalism school of thought is superior to other systems that do not contain the concept of human rights, because it allows for greater freedom, a larger degree of personal determination of destiny, and increased security from the predations of church or state.


Ah, but in other cultures, these are not considered good things. To say that Western society has (more or less) successfully achieved the goals it has set out to accomplish and fosters the values it itself has determined to be good isn't saying much; so have most Islamic countries under Shari'ah law (more or less, once again). How can we justify freedom, individuality, and secularization as good things without appealing to created cultural values? And if we have to do that, how can we justify the superiority of a culture itself based on that culture's own particular values? Couldn't every culture "prove" its superiority using this method?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2004 3:06 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2788
Location: Neo-Connecticut
Nobody can really judge fairly on this issue.

We judge our culture's 'rightness' based around the way we were taught, not in school necessarily, but through life. We're taught that our culture is 'right' and that others are not. However, this is judging through our own culture's morals- some of which are VERY arbitrary and stupid.

Sacrifices are not wrong to the Aztecs, but... let's say Christianity is for the sake of the argument. Are they less valid than us because of that? You certainly are going against their religion for pretty much the same reasons (they have different moral values). You need to consider the fact that freedom isn't something that everyone wants.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2004 3:20 pm 
Offline
Native

Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 903
Zarathustra wrote:
Ah, but in other cultures, these are not considered good things. To say that Western society has (more or less) successfully achieved the goals it has set out to accomplish and fosters the values it itself has determined to be good isn't saying much; so have most Islamic countries under Shari'ah law (more or less, once again). How can we justify freedom, individuality, and secularization as good things without appealing to created cultural values? And if we have to do that, how can we justify the superiority of a culture itself based on that culture's own particular values? Couldn't every culture "prove" its superiority using this method?


Maybe we could look at the fact that nations under sharia are, uniformly, hellholes. Freedom, secularity, and individuality can be justified because they lead to a higher quality of life for more people. This is a measurable statistic, and it judges in favor of the Western ideals.

Quote:
Sacrifices are not wrong to the Aztecs, but... let's say Christianity is for the sake of the argument. Are they less valid than us because of that?


Yes, they are less valid. If your religion calls for a continual stream of sacrificial victims, it is wrong in absolute terms. Murder is wrong, whatever your culture says about it.

I have to wonder about your viewpoint. How does it apply to, say, the U.S. South prior to the civil war? Should the Confederates have been allowed to leave the Union, and continue practicing slavery, because that was their culture? After all, they considered it valid that all men should not be equal in the eyes of the law; who are you to judge them as being wrong? Progressing logically along your path of belief, the U.S. should also have done nothing to stop the slaughter of the "untermenschen" in World War II; it was the dominant cultural belief of the Germans that they were the master race, and who were the Americans to argue with them?

So, what shall it be? Will you defend slavery and the Holocaust, or will you admit that the idea of relativism is invalid in cases such as these?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2004 3:37 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Kylaer wrote:
Murder is wrong, whatever your culture says about it.


Prove it.

Quote:
So, what shall it be? Will you defend slavery and the Holocaust, or will you admit that the idea of relativism is invalid in cases such as these?


Saying that a belief will lead to wholesale war, destruction, and death is not equivalent to saying the idea is wrong. I'm not necessarily saying I believe in relativism; I'm just bringing it up as a problem that must be addressed. Whence can we derive our values if we wish to judge one culture as superior to another?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2004 3:43 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2428
Location: In the ether, Hand of DM poised for enervation at will
Zan-Icy-Thing wrote:
Prove it.


*walks up behind Icy and shoots him in the head*

Dead by my hand. Nobody thinks it's wrong until it happens to them.

_________________
The scent of Binturong musk is often compared to that of warm popcorn.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:37 am 
Offline
Native

Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 903
Zarathustra wrote:
Saying that a belief will lead to wholesale war, destruction, and death is not equivalent to saying the idea is wrong.


Image

If the belief, by its very nature, will lead to those things, then of course it's wrong.

Also, I will remember that you do not think of slavery or the Holocaust as ideas that were wrong. That says a lot about someone, and what it says isn't positive.

Quote:
Whence can we derive our values if we wish to judge one culture as superior to another?


We can derive them by looking at their effects on a populace. Is the sacrifice of tens of thousands of people necessary in order to make the sun rise? No, it is verifyably not; therefore, Aztec sacrifice is a detriment to a society, because it slaughters the members of that society. Are systems of personal freedom and human rights benefits to society? Indeed; you can see in the nations that have these that the citizens enjoy longer, healthier, safer, and more comfortable lives than citizens in a sharia nation like Afghanistan or Iran, or in any of the chaos-wracked African nations where power still flows from the barrel of a gun.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 11:50 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2788
Location: Neo-Connecticut
They were killing slaves, Kylaer. Slaves aren't people in most circumstances. They're usually considered objects.

The Holocaust is only wrong if you view it from our perspective. Do I think it should have never happened? Yes. Do I think it's wrong? Yes. But the point is that I THINK IT IS WRONG. THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS WRONG IN AND OF ITSELF. An action can't be 'wrong' or 'right' because you have to place value on it to say that. And if you're placing value on it, you're not exactly impartial, now are you?

'Murder is wrong, whatever your culture says about it.'?

That's so fucking retarded, Kylaer.

TO YOU, murder is wrong.

TO. YOU.

Are you an omnipotent god-emperor that determines all that's right and wrong in the universe? No, I didn't think so, because I certainly haven't been smitten by your awesome might yet. If a culture wants murder to be okay, it's okay, but they just have to live with the consequences. The Aztec thought ritual murder was perfectly fine... were they right about that? NO. Were they wrong about it? NO. Were they defeated in the end? YES. Their killing of large amounts of their own people could easily be attributed to this. But it certainly doesn't make one's moral code inferior or wrong if they die because of it. I mean, yeah, my moral code is wrong if I die while trying to save someone's life? RLLY SMRT.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 12:51 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
And your point being...

I mean really, you can shout about relativity all you want, in practicle terms what would that actually, you know, mean? You can't be divorced from culture anymore than you can be divorced from, say, race (Michael Jackson doesn't count.)

So, what practicle use does said claim have? And I'd also like to see information backing up the claim that there is no one correct moral standpoint, or that western moral standpoints arn't "the" correct stance.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:07 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2788
Location: Neo-Connecticut
Jim and I have been talking about this over AIM, and we've pretty much come to the agreement that this debate will never end- Icy is too set in the belief that the acceptance of all ideas is important, and Kylaer's too set in the Western moral code (i.e, killing = wrong) so that in effect, neither can ever convince the other. In other words... this is a totally moot point, we're all waaaaay too biased on an issue like this to ever make any progress. Effectively, the lasts few posts have been saying 'IM RIGHT AND UR WRONG' 'NO IM RIGHT AND UR WRONG' back and forth. 'n stuff.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:11 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:12 pm
Posts: 3394
Location: Royal Court of Unfounded Speculation
Ok, so Kylaer, you basically are saying there are universal things that should be wrong. I agree in general. I think that the American way is wrong. Short term and self destructive really. Cutting down trees instead of harvesting Hemp, just so it can line the pockets of a few men. Having 90% of the wealth in the hands of 4% of the people. That's just wrong.
Now, the Aztecs. They would do well in this situation. Overpopulation wouldn't be a problem. Many people would volunteer for the honour of being a sacrifice to their god. The meat from the kills could go to feed starving families. No more drive campaigns to help third world nations. They would be fed.
Slavery can work if done properly. I think it is better that there is a system where an owner looks after a person. Gives them room and board, clothes in return for labour. You wouldn't see any homeless people freezing to death on the streets.
Now there are short sighted things that I could argue against, but it all comes down to truth. I am against racism, but if there was a world with purple people and orange people. And the Purple people were stronger and smarter then the orange people. I would support the Purple people rising above the Oranges.
Now on to the actual debate.
I am against a universal culture because it would lead to social stagnation. I'll say this the short way. Multiple cultural evolutions are better then one giant culture evolving. (Assuming that such a culture could STAY as one culture for more then a year, and that’s a bid if) When there are many different cultural evolutions, they start to interact. Do you think we would have jazz if the blacks weren’t brought here as slaves. Jazz was brought on by an intermingling of two cultures, the African and American. Jazz mixed with Gospel (another Black music) and something else (I cant remember) to create rock, witch eventually lead to... well I give high odds that at least one of your favourite songs was influenced by an intermingling of cultures.
The definition of synergy is that more then one thing is present. Kill multi-cultural ways and you kill that synergy.
Two say there are two sets of clones. Each set is made of a Male and Female. They just switched the genetic markers, that's all. Female clone A hooks up with Male clone B and vis versa. Are the children identical? No. Both are unique.
Always remember. Nothing is perfect, and when your talking about perfection, it is binary. 1 or 0. Therefore a law abiding man is the same as a mass murderer.

_________________
A man said to the Universe, "Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the Universe, "the fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."


- Stephen Crane


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 2:19 pm 
Offline
Native

Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 903
Chaos_Descending wrote:
Ok, so Kylaer, you basically are saying there are universal things that should be wrong. I agree in general. I think that the American way is wrong. Short term and self destructive really. Cutting down trees instead of harvesting Hemp, just so it can line the pockets of a few men.


Trees, hemp, it's all biomass, planted and harvested. You would still have to annihilate forestland in order to make room to grow the hemp. And you're deluding yourself if you think switching over to hemp would stop "a few men from lining their pockets;" the same people who make money off tree farms would, in a heartbeat, switch over to hemp farms if it were legal and they could make more money by doing so. The free market > your dreams that marijuana will save the world.

Quote:
Having 90% of the wealth in the hands of 4% of the people. That's just wrong.


Your figures are also wrong, considering that the top 10% of the population controlled 71% of the wealth as of 1998 (most recent stats I could find in a quick search). And, to be honest, I don't see what is the big issue people have with this; the rich are rich, as they always are, but in the modern U.S. the poor are also rich, compared with the poor (or even the average people) of virtually any other time and place in the history of the planet.

Quote:
Now, the Aztecs. They would do well in this situation. Overpopulation wouldn't be a problem. Many people would volunteer for the honour of being a sacrifice to their god.


Except that voluntary sacrifice accounted for only a tiny fraction of those killed. The vast majority of them were slaves, taken as prisoners of war and executed at their masters' whim.

Quote:
Slavery can work if done properly. I think it is better that there is a system where an owner looks after a person. Gives them room and board, clothes in return for labour. You wouldn't see any homeless people freezing to death on the streets.
Now there are short sighted things that I could argue against, but it all comes down to truth. I am against racism, but if there was a world with purple people and orange people. And the Purple people were stronger and smarter then the orange people. I would support the Purple people rising above the Oranges.


That saying about if you follow the left and right ends of the political spectrum far enough, they wrap around and meet each other...well, looks like it's true.

Quote:
Now on to the actual debate.
I am against a universal culture because it would lead to social stagnation. I'll say this the short way. Multiple cultural evolutions are better then one giant culture evolving. (Assuming that such a culture could STAY as one culture for more then a year, and that’s a bid if) When there are many different cultural evolutions, they start to interact. Do you think we would have jazz if the blacks weren’t brought here as slaves. Jazz was brought on by an intermingling of two cultures, the African and American. Jazz mixed with Gospel (another Black music) and something else (I cant remember) to create rock, witch eventually lead to... well I give high odds that at least one of your favourite songs was influenced by an intermingling of cultures.
The definition of synergy is that more then one thing is present. Kill multi-cultural ways and you kill that synergy.


This is all reasonable. I think at this point you're talking about cosmetic cultural differences (different music, food, etc.) whereas from the beginning I've been talking about core cultural differences (equality under law vs. racial supremacy, etc.)

Quote:
Two say there are two sets of clones. Each set is made of a Male and Female. They just switched the genetic markers, that's all. Female clone A hooks up with Male clone B and vis versa. Are the children identical? No. Both are unique.
Always remember. Nothing is perfect, and when your talking about perfection, it is binary. 1 or 0. Therefore a law abiding man is the same as a mass murderer.


And, umm, no clue what you're trying to say with this bit.

I am honestly shocked by some of the things I've read in this thread. Support for slavery, support for human sacrifice and cannibalism, support for murder, support for the Holocaust of all things.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 3:07 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2788
Location: Neo-Connecticut
And thus, you yourself prove that you're already biased towards your moral system WAY too much to be rational in a debate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 4:14 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3706
Kylaer wrote:
Chaos_Descending wrote:
Ok, so Kylaer, you basically are saying there are universal things that should be wrong. I agree in general. I think that the American way is wrong. Short term and self destructive really. Cutting down trees instead of harvesting Hemp, just so it can line the pockets of a few men.


Trees, hemp, it's all biomass, planted and harvested. You would still have to annihilate forestland in order to make room to grow the hemp. And you're deluding yourself if you think switching over to hemp would stop "a few men from lining their pockets;" the same people who make money off tree farms would, in a heartbeat, switch over to hemp farms if it were legal and they could make more money by doing so. The free market > your dreams that marijuana will save the world.


Wrong, existing non-forst land could give room to plant enough hemp to have a maintainable system.

Kylaer wrote:
Quote:
Having 90% of the wealth in the hands of 4% of the people. That's just wrong.


Your figures are also wrong, considering that the top 10% of the population controlled 71% of the wealth as of 1998 (most recent stats I could find in a quick search).

Put another way 71% of the weath is in the hands of 10% of the people. Thusly his figures could very easily still be correct within the constraints of this statistic, furthermore anyone who has studied maths to any reasonable level will know how easy it is (with minimal knowlege) to maipulate raw data to look like it means almost anything...

I just thought i'd throw that into the debate ^__^

PTLIS

_________________
There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies
within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:31 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 4:10 pm
Posts: 1035
Location: New York City
To answer the question: no.


Why? Sounds like assimilation if you ask me. And what government system would be able to handle a culture that is shared widespread. Within cultures come the same laws, trends, and traditions. It would be a travesty if you ask me.

My question to you is what culture would you suggest would be the most efficient as a worldwide society?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 8:15 pm 
Offline
Native

Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 903
PTLIS wrote:
Wrong, existing non-forst land could give room to plant enough hemp to have a maintainable system.


Non-forested land that's currently being used for what, exactly? It's not as if we just have great tracts of non-forested arable land sitting around unused. All that marijuana has to take the place of something; what would you suggest?

Quote:
Kylaer wrote:
Your figures are also wrong, considering that the top 10% of the population controlled 71% of the wealth as of 1998 (most recent stats I could find in a quick search).

Put another way 71% of the weath is in the hands of 10% of the people. Thusly his figures could very easily still be correct within the constraints of this statistic


Maybe you should go back and study that math a little more, since you seem to have a very poor grasp of the calculations involved here. Chaos claimed that 90% of the wealth is in the hands of the top 4% of the populace. I showed the statistic that 71% of the wealth is in the hands of the top 10% of the populace. Let's take a look at the math involved, shall we?

71% < 90%
10% > 4%

Thus, if a greater percentage of the populace still controls a smaller amount of money than Chaos claimed, then Chaos cannot be correct.

Quote:
furthermore anyone who has studied maths to any reasonable level will know how easy it is (with minimal knowlege) to maipulate raw data to look like it means almost anything...


While that is a known problem, particularly when using biased polling questions, it isn't a possible factor in this kind of study. This is a very simple one: you identify the section of the population has the most money, and you measure how much money they have in relation to the total money possessed by all citizens. It's not the kind of thing that can be skewed around the way an opinion poll can.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group