NationStates Jolt Archive

Are you trying to sound stupid? The Cuba Crisis was a RESPONSE to missiles in Turkey. Missiles in Kaliningrad are a RESPONSE to missiles in Poland. Now go and read the Code of Hammurabbi, and prove to me how Russia isn't following it, a single decision please. Thank you.

Do you understand what cherry picking is?

That's like saying 'this shit is the nicest smelling shit I've ever had'.

Except shit didn't fix Russia's economy... And again, if it was oil, with didn't the economy of Saudi Arabia grow, huh?

Do you understand what cherry picking is?

I understand that you lack the capacity to actually counter any of my points and resort to insults and revisionism.

Have you even read a single article by them? They DID predict the recession, they even predicted the dot com bubble, a very highly unpopular prediction at the time.



The Economist is edited in LONDON, Jesus Christ.

And in London everything's just dandy. All of the population agrees with Milliband and the ruling party is very popular. Seriously, do you just ignore facts when they counter your views?

Go back and read questions, and then the responses.

Are you expecting Hydesland to read and digest facts that are counter to his ideas?

SO your argument goes from Putin never had 70%, and if you believe he did then you are biased and blind, to "well ok he did, but that was two years ago". You should facepalm yourself, and do it hard enough to wake up those cells of yours. Please don't ask me what cells, if you cannot figure that one out....

I'm very sceptical of statistics from that source, and also believe that even if it was that high 2 years ago, it's likely declined recently. Regardless, I wasn't actually calling you biased for using that figure, I was calling you biased for attempting to argue that Putin doesn't discard democracy because his approval rating is high.

I'm very sceptical of statistics from that source, and also believe that even if it was that high 2 years ago, it's likely declined recently. Regardless, I wasn't actually calling you biased for using that figure, I was calling you biased for attempting to argue that Putin doesn't discard democracy because his approval rating is high.

You just revised your argument. Your initial argument was "You're citing a two year old source.... from VCIOM (the source all those newspapers are using)... facepalm.jpg" Now apparently I'm not biased for citing thouse sources, such as the Guardian and MSNBC. Now I shall repeat my argument:

Putin is intelligent. He likes power. He is popular. Therefore a Democracy, which makes the most use of a leader's popularity, will give him more power then a dictatorship. Ergo, he would like a Democracy. How's that nonsense? Or Biased?

Except shit didn't fix Russia's economy... And again, if it was oil, with didn't the economy of Saudi Arabia grow, huh?

The economy would have naturally recovered with the fall of the USSR whether Putin had been presiding there or some other dipshit, all the dipshit has to do is to make sure there would be a semi functional market system in place, hardly a difficult job. Have you ever been to Russia? Most of the residents there will say that life now is only very slightly marginally better than it was under the USSR, thanks to huge income inequality and generally rubbish handling of the economy by Putin's government. Putin's inefficient and non-transparent government is seriously hindering Russia's potential.

I understand that you lack the capacity to actually counter any of my points and resort to insults and revisionism.

Because accusing someone of cherry picking is insulting and revisionist? :rolleyes:

The economy would have naturally recovered with the fall of the USSR whether Putin had been presiding there or some other dipshit, all the dipshit has to do is to make sure there would be a semi functional market system in place, hardly a difficult job. Have you ever been to Russia? Most of the residents there will say that life now is only very slightly marginally better than it was under the USSR, thanks to huge income inequality and generally rubbish handling of the economy by Putin's government. Putin's inefficient and non-transparent government is seriously hindering Russia's potential.

Umm, yeah I've been to Russia. Actually both times, under Yeltsin and Putin. All these talks of Russia's potential, i.e. Russia should exploit more of itself, so much bullshit. You reduce supply, price goes up and reserves stay longer. Basic economics there. And I've heard quite a bit pro-Putin stuff, like "we actually have a president we can be proud of!" And after the fall of the USSR, under Yeltsin, Russia's economy plunged into deep shit. Now it's actually fairer to the Russians, then it was under Yeltsin. So epic fail there on your part.

You just revised your argument. Your initial argument was "You're citing a two year old source.... from VCIOM (the source all those newspapers are using)... facepalm.jpg"

I didn't say you were biased in that specific argument, just that your source is crap.


Now apparently I'm not biased for citing thouse sources, such as the Guardian and MSNBC.

They are secondary sources, all using the same source.


Putin is intelligent. He likes power. He is popular. Therefore a Democracy, which makes the most use of a leader's popularity, will give him more power then a dictatorship.

Because Russia's government is highly corrupt - if you put in place a transparent functional democracy, where politicians are held properly accountable by their citizens, the scandalous corrupt activities that Putin's ministry regularly engages in would be revealed clearly to the public, and his power would also be highly limited and he would find it very difficult to be dishonest to the public, all against his interests.

Because accusing someone of cherry picking is insulting and revisionist? :rolleyes:

Still waiting for you to counter a single point of mine comrade. Anyways, I have class.

Umm, yeah I've been to Russia. Actually both times, under Yeltsin and Putin. All these talks of Russia's potential, i.e. Russia should exploit more of itself, so much bullshit.

Nice strawman, I'm not talking about creating growth here, I'm talking about the way resources are distributed.


Yeltsin, Russia's economy plunged into deep shit.

That's because a) Yeltsin was even more of a dipshit and
b) Economies always plunge after immediate major transitional changes.

Ok so I found this sentence:

"Why would anyone believe him... Why did anyone believe the US government during that Crisis?"

Still not sure what you're trying to say here, could you at least elaborate a little? It looks to me like you're trying to dodge the question by citing an equivalent scenario in the US.

How is that 'dodging'?

If the question is basically attacking the premise that 'people will exhibit behaviour x', and I illustrate another, almost identical example of people 'exhibiting behaviour x'...

That's not 'dodging', almost exactly the opposite, in fact. It's like... un-dodging.

The Russian Federations leadership is based around Vladimir Putin, lets all face it after he lost the premiership he had himself appointed as Prime Minister thus securing power.

This kinda shows the wrong image to the world.

And in London everything's just dandy. All of the population agrees with Milliband and the ruling party is very popular. Seriously, do you just ignore facts when they counter your views?

What? Seriously, how does this even remotely contradict anything I say? When have I ever, or for that matter, when has the Economist ever, said that everything's just dandy in London?

How is that 'dodging'?

If the question is basically attacking the premise that 'people will exhibit behaviour x', and I illustrate another, almost identical example of people 'exhibiting behaviour x'...

That's not 'dodging', almost exactly the opposite, in fact. It's like... un-dodging.

Why should we believe Putin is X, you say, because US was X. Not an argument.

What he doesn't realize seems to be alot. Let's check this out, shall we.





And if you'd like a glimpse into just one of many specific terrorist groups supported by the Eastern Block, just take a look at this group and what they did to, what was that Marx quote...hmm, "There is only one way to shorten and ease the convulsions of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new - revolutionary terror"......

http://www.johanneswilm.org/media/1/thumbnail_20070227-RAF.png
Heard of them?
They recieved financial and logistic support from the Stasi, the East German equievant of the KGB, who also reported to the KGB and was extremely loyal to Moscow.

So please, the next time you come into my thread, leave your pro-Soviet revisionist 'history' at the door.

Oh, and the US did not help terrorists in Italy?
Operation Gladio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladio)

Putin is intelligent. He likes power. He is popular. Therefore a Democracy, which makes the most use of a leader's popularity, will give him more power then a dictatorship. Ergo, he would like a Democracy. How's that nonsense? Or Biased?It's nonsense because it isn't even true. No democratically elected leader will ever wield as much power as a dictator.

In what way?

Russian missile bases seems tailor-made as a reaction to the US missile shield.


Or - do you believe there's some kind of scale that international incidents have to follow? "Okay, we can kidnap 3 of their soldiers, but if we kidnap 4 it's not retaliation, it moves up a stage...
There was no preceding step of American antagonism, unless you consider electing a black president an act of antagonism. The Russians reacted to the missile shield by aiming nukes at Europe. What exactly happened for them to react to now?

But I strongly believe the difference is that the missile defense shield is just that, for defense. The missiles in question destined for Kaliningrad are not a cooperative international missile defense shield.
Why does it matter if it is co-operative or international? The shield is for the purpose of Russian Defence - the US shield prevents Russia firing at Europe in defence, this extension of the Russian system allows them to take out the system if it starts firing at Russia.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong but the U.S. orginally asked Russia to include itself in designing the European missile defense shield, to take part in the process, and Russia declined and objected.
As far as I was aware Russia offered co-operation on the basis that the missiles would be based in Central Europe [eg Kazakhstan type area] but America said "No, Eastern Europe" where as well as stopping Iranian missiles they also stop Russian missiles [also there is a possibility of an Iranian nuclear bomb being blown up over Russia causing civilian damage].
Indeed, but that in itself is the very point that I have been making and that the Economist seems to be making, that with every new day, new tensions arise between Russia and the U.S./West which seems to jet our two ever splintering regions into factions, which seems like it could develop into a new Cold War, or simply a new state of "rivalry" between East and West.
Shhh - nothing will happen yet.

Freedom House ranks Estonia quite high, actually fourth I believe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgFGkeC2HDE&NR=1

And yet that scene exist, so if after something like that Estonia's high, I just don't trust freedom house. The Demonstrations I've been to were a lot more peaceful.
Well, one random youtube link totally debunks internationally credible NGO sources on freedom.....
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/searchresults.cfm
According to the Index of Economic Freedom, which is credible, Estonia ranks 5th in Europe in terms of Economic freedom and 12th in the world.

In comparison, Russia ranks 134th for economic freedom.

And they rate that, by the way, like this..so it actually means something:

Business freedom is the ability to create,
operate, and close an enterprise quickly and
easily. Burdensome, redundant regulatory
rules are the most harmful barriers to business
freedom.

• Trade freedom is a composite measure of
the absence of tariff and non-tariff barriers
that affect imports and exports of goods and
services.

• Fiscal freedom is a measure of the burden
of government from the revenue side. It
includes both the tax burden in terms of the
top tax rate on income (individual and corporate
separately) and the overall amount of tax
revenue as a portion of gross domestic product
(GDP).

• Government size is defined to include all
government expenditures, including consumption
and transfers. Ideally, the state will
provide only true public goods, with an absolute
minimum of expenditure.price stability with an assessment of price
controls. Both inflation and price controls
distort market activity. Price stability without
microeconomic intervention is the ideal state
for the free market.

• Investment freedom is an assessment of
the free flow of capital, especially foreign
capital.


• Freedom from corruption is based on quantitative
data that assess the perception of
corruption in the business environment,
including levels of governmental legal, judicial,
and administrative corruption.

• Monetary freedom combines a measure of
price stability with an assessment of price
controls. Both inflation and price controls
distort market activity. Price stability without
microeconomic intervention is the ideal state
for the free market.

• Financial freedom is a measure of banking
security as well as independence from government
control. State ownership of banks
and other financial institutions such as insurer
and capital markets is an inefficient burden,
and political favoritism has no place in a
free capital market.

• Property rights is an assessment of the ability
of individuals to accumulate private property,
secured by clear laws that are fully enforced
by the state.


• Labor freedom is a composite measure of the
ability of workers and businesses to interact
without restriction by the state.

So, averaging all those out, Russia ranks 134th, globally. Not too impressive.

I've actually said that neither CIA nor KGB were angellic, so please don't tell me that I'm try to justify either one's actions. I can tell which actions were better and which were worst, but to justify them, which is what you're trying to do, is quite silly. The Economist should focus on the US Economy and stop telling others to meddle in other countries; instead of predicting the US Recession, the Economist told everyone how bad Russia was.
This is very funny to me, but you seem to think that the Economist is an outlet of American propoganda, when the Economist isn't even American....:wink: Why the hell would the Economist only focus on the American economy and not the international economy, (and international politics) when that what it is, in fact, printed for.

If your economy is bad, divert elsewhere, that's Yellow Journalism 101, and the Economist is stellar at it.
Again, you fail. The Economist is not American. And that's exactly what it's criticizing Medvedev of...."The Russian economy is bad, so we're gonna divert attention away from it and blame our problems on the Americans instead of solve our own problems."

I'm not an apologist for any form of terrorism. But if your bombs fall on my house and I defend against you, I'm not a terrorist. You seem to confuse terrorism and insurgency, and I've already condemned terrorism, Soviet sponsored or not, please don't put lies into my mouth. As for insurgents - that's why you don't become the World's Policemen - duh!
Well that's a bunch of crap that doesn't actually mean anything if I've ever seen it....
Oh, and you took out the word "alledged", well done Comrade, Pravda would be proud.
Are you trying to state that the KGB did not sponsor the PLO? If not then drop it.
Mujahedeen - enabled rise of Taliban - that enabled the rise of Al Qaeda. Can you count? Connect the dots? It's truly ELEMENTARY. If you are blind, find, but don't try to blind others with your ideology.
No. Don't try to get out of this. You claimed the direct connection between Al Qaeda and the U.S. government supporting the Mujahadeem. You should read up on the Afghan Civil War and see how ridiculously simple your version of 'history' is....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War

The USSR lost to the Taliban/Mujahedeen, because Brezhnev was a moron, who like Stalin didn't listend to Red Army Commanders and ordered the Rush to Kabul. If the Red Army was actually allowed to fight that war, without the intervention of Brezhnev and his cronies, it would have been quite different. Note how Putin allowed the Army to fight the Second Chechen War with minimal Government Meddling and won. You are giving yourself way too much credit.
Yes, what if's are very exciting to listen to...but the fact of that matter is that it was the smart thing for the CIA to do, to arm the Mujahedeem to stop the Soviet Empire in its tracks.

Edit: I'd much rather have terrorist hijacking planes then nukes. You on the other hand, are quite different, so I wouldn't know. The best option is to not have terrorism at all - duh! - but if I had to choose....

Except that Al Qaeda doesn't have a nuke...and if they get one..we didn't suppor them in getting one..while the Soviet Union directly supported the plane hijackings.....

If you don't see the difference, you are blind to facts that disagree with your 'reality'.

A little bit of a historical point of order on the Red Army Faction. *SNIP*.
Yes that was a totally predictable far left sympathetic portrayal of state sponsored Communist terrorism....:rolleyes:

Anyway, while your crying about the 'failure of de-nazifaction' of West Germany is typical, it isn't an excuse for anything....

That's... a very, very rosy view of the KPD and RAF. One could go so far as to call it revisionist.
Indeed.

Because Russia's government is highly corrupt - if you put in place a transparent functional democracy, where politicians are held properly accountable by their citizens, the scandalous corrupt activities that Putin's ministry regularly engages in would be revealed clearly to the public, and his power would also be highly limited and he would find it very difficult to be dishonest to the public, all against his interests.

You got a source for this?

Nice strawman, I'm not talking about creating growth here, I'm talking about the way resources are distributed. That's because a) Yeltsin was even more of a dipshit and b) Economies always plunge after immediate major transitional changes.

Creating growth isn't about how sources are distributed? Have you taken Economics 101? Also, immediate? You mean a decade immediate? Cause a decade isn't immediate to me. Even Russia transitioning from Tsarism to Communism took less then a decade to cure, 1914-1921. And that's with a war to boot. Do you really believe what you type?

What? Seriously, how does this even remotely contradict anything I say? When have I ever, or for that matter, when has the Economist ever, said that everything's just dandy in London?

Do I have to spoonfeed you everything?

You: Putin is corrupt, no way he has 70% approval rating, only Russian sources say so!

Me: Nope, here's a source quoted by Guardian and MSNBC, and they agree with it.

You: That's B/S! The Economist says otherwise!

Me: The Economist is trying to make the World hate Russia to cover economic troubles at home.

You: How's that relevant?

I mean really? Seriously? That's your best response?

It's nonsense because it isn't even true. No democratically elected leader will ever wield as much power as a dictator.

Correct. Putin Democratically elected, ergo he's not a dictator. Case closed.

You got a source for this?

Are you seriously asking for a source, SERIOUSLY, asking for a source that Russia is corrupt. Please, please tell me you aren't.

Are you seriously asking for a source, SERIOUSLY, asking for a source that Russia is corrupt. Please, please tell me you aren't.

Yes I am. Let's see it.

There was no preceding step of American antagonism, unless you consider electing a black president an act of antagonism. The Russians reacted to the missile shield by aiming nukes at Europe. What exactly happened for them to react to now?

Umm, ok you haven't read any of my previous posts, so here's a recap:

Recognition of Kosovo.
Funding to Georgia.
Missiles in Poland.

All were acts that didn't help the US security in any way/shape or form, but provoked Russia. All happened before Kaliningrad. The US doesn't get off the hook by electing a new leader.

Why should we believe Putin is X, you say, because US was X. Not an argument.

The question wasn't whether Putin was X - it was whether people were getting their knickers in a twist about him creating some big spectre of an evil empire with guns aimed at them.

I'll leave the rest for you to work out...

Correct. Putin Democratically elected, ergo he's not a dictator. Case closed.Says who? Oh, yeah. Putin.

Yes that was a totally predictable far left sympathetic portrayal of state sponsored Communist terrorism....:rolleyes:

Anyway, while your crying about the 'failure of de-nazifaction' of West Germany is typical, it isn't an excuse for anything....

And you sympathize with Nazis being elected. You know if an ex-Nazi party member became a Chancellor or President of the US, you can be damn sure that most people would be a lot more sympathetic to Communism. The guy has a legitimate point - you elect an ex-Nazi, you pay the price.

Creating growth isn't about how sources are distributed?

No, but the two can be linked, since distribution of resources can effect the markets, however I'm not talking about meddling with the supply of anything. In fact, what the hell was your original point about Russia 'exploiting itself further' then? It has no need to, it's producing huge amounts of resources, it's just being distributed inefficiently.

Also, immediate? You mean a decade immediate? Cause a decade isn't immediate to me. Even Russia transitioning from Tsarism to Communism took less then a decade to cure, 1914-1921. And that's with a war to boot. Do you really believe what you type?

Utter bullshit, Russia was fucked well into the end of the 20's, the NEP took a very long time to actually restore the economy.

Says who? Oh, yeah. Putin.

Source that he wasn't Democratically elected in 2004. And then tell me who could've beaten him. 2004 election. Not 2000, but the 2004 one. Please do tell. If you Neocons haven't figured it out yet, people voted with the economy, and under Putin it was going up. I realize it's tough when hope trumps fear, but try to understand.

Yes I am. Let's see it.

Taa-daa! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index)

Russia is number 143.

Yes I am. Let's see it.

Whenever anyone cites a source, you claim that the source is biased and just trying to make Russia look bad.

Umm, ok you haven't read any of my previous posts, so here's a recap: I have, but I could spend my time doing more important things than answering them
Recognition of Kosovo.
Funding to Georgia.
Missiles in Poland.

All were acts that didn't help the US security in any way/shape or form, but provoked Russia. All happened before Kaliningrad. The US doesn't get off the hook by electing a new leader.You do know that Russia has reacted to all of these already, no?

Recognition of Kosovo countered by Russians moving into regions of Kosovo dominated by Serbs.
Funding to Georgia countered by support for the South Ossetians and Abkhazians.
Missiles in Poland countered by aiming nukes at Europe.

The US didn't do anything to provoke this particular step.

There was no preceding step of American antagonism, unless you consider electing a black president an act of antagonism. The Russians reacted to the missile shield by aiming nukes at Europe. What exactly happened for them to react to now?

Didn't you read the source? The source says: "...He also offered a response to the expansion of NATO and the construction of missile defences in Poland and the Czech Republic..."

Do I have to spoonfeed you everything?

You: Putin is corrupt, no way he has 70% approval rating, only Russian sources say so!

Me: Nope, here's a source quoted by Guardian and MSNBC, and they agree with it.

You: That's B/S! The Economist says otherwise!

Me: The Economist is trying to make the World hate Russia to cover economic troubles at home.

You: How's that relevant?

I mean really? Seriously? That's your best response?

Mega, mega bullshit and lies. I never, ever cited an economist article for anything, that's TAI, a completely different poster. Not only that, but I was asking how the fact that whether London is not all 'fine and dandy' has any actual relevance to whether the Economist is trying to cover up that fact and focus on Russia.

Yes I am. Let's see it.

Try every independent corruption surveyor that exists.

Taa-daa! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index)

Russia is number 143.

Have to point out: 'perceptions of corruption' are not the same as actually recording corruption.

Also - check out the pretty damning criticisms on the page you cited.

So, averaging all those out, Russia ranks 134th, globally. Not too impressive.

This is very funny to me, but you seem to think that the Economist is an outlet of American propoganda, when the Economist isn't even American....:wink: Why the hell would the Economist only focus on the American economy and not the international economy, (and international politics) when that what it is, in fact, printed for.

Again, you fail. The Economist is not American. And that's exactly what it's criticizing Medvedev of...."The Russian economy is bad, so we're gonna divert attention away from it and blame our problems on the Americans instead of solve our own problems."

If you don't see the difference, you are blind to facts that disagree with your 'reality'.

My, my, my you can copy-paste. Although even those rankings are bullshit. Let's consider the first one:

"Business freedom is the ability to create,
operate, and close an enterprise quickly and
easily."

Well if my country, starts flicking off other countries, wouldn't that be bad for business in a globalized society? So if Estonia removes the Red Army Soldier Statute (not Stalin or Beria) but the Red Army Soldier Statute and receives a World-wide boycott as a result, isn't that harmful to business?

The Economist is British, and the UK is like the American Lapdog. No offense, but to quote Jon Stewart: "Today Bush spoke with the coalition of the willing, or as everyone else calls them Britain and Spain". And Spain dropped out. BTW - ever seen the Economist bash Chevron, or any American or British oil corporations? Nope, those they love. They're in essence the view of the oil companies in print.

Also, I'm not calling the KGB angellic, I am calling you a failure at reading comprehension. I said let's learn from our mistakes, you interpreted that as KGB is better then CIA. Ergo, you fail.

Try every independent corruption surveyor that exists.

Do post some. Please do post some.

Whenever anyone cites a source, you claim that the source is biased and just trying to make Russia look bad.

Whenever? So I've done this multiple times right? More then 3? Let's see 'em?

Have to point out: 'perceptions of corruption' are not the same as actually recording corruption.

Also - check out the pretty damning criticisms on the page you cited.

That doesn't mean anything, almost everything on wikipedia have a strong criticism section, including things like evolution etc... Transparency international are actually a very highly respected source and are very often cited throughout academic circles.

Have to point out: 'perceptions of corruption' are not the same as actually recording corruption.

Also - check out the pretty damning criticisms on the page you cited.

True enough, but have you got anything better? Or any source to the contary?

Do post some. Please do post some.

One has already been posted by someone, but I shall post it again- http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2008/cpi2008/cpi_2008_table

Whenever? So I've done this multiple times right? More then 3? Let's see 'em?

Instead of responding to the facts in the Freedom House analysis about Russia, you posted a video of cops in Estonia and claimed it proved something about Freedom House. And you keep making unsubstantiated claims about The Economist's bias, as if that disproves everything The Economist says.

It's called ad hominem, and it's not actually a valid form of argument.

True enough, but have you got anything better?

No, but then it's not an argument I'm trying to make. I think most governments are corrupt, throughout most of their levels, and I think most governments are equally committed to minimising transparency as much as possible.

Which is why your 'perceptions of corruption' map falls down so hard, in my eyes. All it means is that some nations are SEEN AS more corrupt than others.

Is Russia really as corrupt as the Gambia? Or do Gambians hide their corruption better or come under less scrutiny? See what I mean?

From the data in that source - for all we can tell, the US and Russia are exactly equal in corruption, but one is viewed with more suspicion.

That doesn't mean anything, almost everything on wikipedia have a strong criticism section, including things like evolution etc...


And?

I didn't say 'oh, ignore it, it has criticisms'. I said 'check out the criticisms'. I assumed you would evaluate them based on their merits.


Transparency international are actually a very highly respected source and are very often cited throughout academic circles.

Which is lovely, but irrelevent.

Measuring 'perception' is not the same as measuring 'corruption'. Not even close.

Didn't you read the source? The source says: "...He also offered a response to the expansion of NATO and the construction of missile defences in Poland and the Czech Republic..."They've already reacted to that. Putin and his puppets can't acknowledge mistakes. It's always someone elses fault, never them doing the first push.

No, but then it's not an argument I'm trying to make. I think most governments are corrupt, throughout most of their levels, and I think most governments are equally committed to minimising transparency as much as possible.

Which is why your 'perceptions of corruption' map falls down so hard, in my eyes. All it means is that some nations are SEEN AS more corrupt than others.


It's not just determined by opinion surveys, but also expert assessment, it's not that difficult to actually measure transparency. There have been very in depth studies into this area, it is in fact an essay topic I'm considering doing for my degree. There is no reason to assume all countries are equally corrupt.

Measuring 'perception' is not the same as measuring 'corruption'. Not even close.

See below, it's not just perceptions, but based on expert assessment:
from transparency international - as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys.

No, but then it's not an argument I'm trying to make. I think most governments are corrupt, throughout most of their levels, and I think most governments are equally committed to minimising transparency as much as possible.

Which is why your 'perceptions of corruption' map falls down so hard, in my eyes. All it means is that some nations are SEEN AS more corrupt than others.

Is Russia really as corrupt as the Gambia? Or do Gambians hide their corruption better or come under less scrutiny? See what I mean?

From the data in that source - for all we can tell, the US and Russia are exactly equal in corruption, but one is viewed with more suspicion.
It means they're regarded as more corrupt by the analysts and thinktanks that Transparency International surveyed. The epistemological problems you cite could apply to any sort of fact that's not subject to experimentation in a lab.

Also, I meant to say NOT that difficult to measure corruption, in case you don't see the edit.

Which is why your 'perceptions of corruption' map falls down so hard, in my eyes. All it means is that some nations are SEEN AS more corrupt than others.

Is Russia really as corrupt as the Gambia? Or do Gambians hide their corruption better or come under less scrutiny? See what I mean?There's ways to measure it. For instance, we need to teach some of the foreign students here that you can trust cops.

They've already reacted to that. Putin and his puppets can't acknowledge mistakes. It's always someone elses fault, never them doing the first push.

I know people that are still 'reacting' to slavery.

There is no statute of limitations of 'reacting'.

I know people that are still 'reacting' to slavery.

There is no statute of limitations of 'reacting'.

There's a limit to being justified about it, though.

Also, a personal reaction is not comparable to a reaction on the international geopolitical stage.

Just googling Russian corruption provides plenty sources:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4701633.stm
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/seminar/2000/invest/pdf/roaf.pdf
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5061669

It's not just determined by opinion surveys, but also expert assessment, it's not that difficult to actually measure transparency. There have been very in depth studies into this area, it is in fact an essay topic I'm considering doing for my degree. There is no reason to assume all countries are equally corrupt.

What a crock.

You missed the fundamental clue - and it's in the TITLE. It's not about corruption, it's about 'perception of corruption'. I don't know what you think you're arguing, but THIS source does not deal with the actual statistics of corruption.

Read the source itself - not even the criticism - it's explained in the methodology:

"year-to-year changes in a country's score result not only from a changing perception of a country's performance but also from a changing sample and methodology."

"Thus, the poll results must be understood quite specifically as measuring a poorly defined public perception, rather than being an objective measure of corruption. More direct corruption-survey data, such as bribe-payer surveys, don't track closely with corruption perceptions data."

and, most importantly, given the subject matter:

"In former Soviet states, the term "corruption" itself has become a proxy for the broader frustration with all changes since the breakup of the USSR."

I know people that are still 'reacting' to slavery.

There is no statute of limitations of 'reacting'.
Then there's nothing wrong with saying all of this is Russia's fault and the US is only reacting. Since there's no statute of limitations.

No statute of limitations. Kind of a stupid argument is that? There damn well is a difference between using something as an excuse and actually reacting.

There's ways to measure it. For instance, we need to teach some of the foreign students here that you can trust cops.

You can't trust the cops.

Then there's nothing wrong with saying all of this is Russia's fault and the US is only reacting. Since there's no statute of limitations.

And... what is the US 'reacting' to?

There's the clincher - the US has CLAIMED that they aren't reacting. They said that their missile shield project was designed to prevent attacks from the Middle East.

There's a limit to being justified about it, though.

Really? What's that limit?

If someone plans to build weapons platforms on your border, you're only 'justified' in one response?

So - in the event of the Cuba Crisis, if the brinkmanship hadn't worked, that was it? No more 'justified' responses?

See below, it's not just perceptions, but based on expert assessment:
from transparency international -

This was already addressed in another post, where I showed that even the source presented says you are talking crap.

You can't trust the cops.Over here you generally can. For one, they're not as likely to steal the ransom money as they are in some other places. Also, the amount of money in your wallet isn't necessarily the deciding factor as to how long they'll help you, or if they'll help you at all.
And... what is the US 'reacting' to?

There's the clincher - the US has CLAIMED that they aren't reacting. They said that their missile shield project was designed to prevent attacks from the Middle East.Gee, funny how you can find an administration less honest than the one still in the white house, huh?

It means they're regarded as more corrupt by the analysts and thinktanks that Transparency International surveyed. The epistemological problems you cite could apply to any sort of fact that's not subject to experimentation in a lab.

You are right. This type of data IS fundamentally flawed. Especially for what it is being twisted to, here.

What a crock.

You missed the fundamental clue - and it's in the TITLE. It's not about corruption, it's about 'perception of corruption'. I don't know what you think you're arguing, but THIS source does not deal with the actual statistics of corruption.

Read the source itself - not even the criticism - it's explained in the methodology:

"year-to-year changes in a country's score result not only from a changing perception of a country's performance but also from a changing sample and methodology."

"Thus, the poll results must be understood quite specifically as measuring a poorly defined public perception, rather than being an objective measure of corruption. More direct corruption-survey data, such as bribe-payer surveys, don't track closely with corruption perceptions data."

and, most importantly, given the subject matter:

"In former Soviet states, the term "corruption" itself has become a proxy for the broader frustration with all changes since the breakup of the USSR."

Well I really don't agree with this wikipedia article, I don't know where they're pulling this crap about it not being consistent with other more direct surveys (which, for that matter, also tend to rank Russia very low). I think the perceptions index is actually a very good indicator, especially given that only experts in each country, with at least three sources are used, which means this the survey is based upon a consensus from experts in corruption. That sounds pretty reliable to me, perhaps more reliable than a source from a single set of experts.

What a crock.

You missed the fundamental clue - and it's in the TITLE. It's not about corruption, it's about 'perception of corruption'. I don't know what you think you're arguing, but THIS source does not deal with the actual statistics of corruption.

Then read the IMF source. Or the Bribe Payers Index, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribe_Payers_Index) where Russia is ranked 28 out of 30 countries.

Also I'm not trying to say that the CPI is perfectly precise, no one is arguing that, just a very good indicator.

Over here you generally can. For one, they're not as likely to steal the ransom money as they are in some other places. Also, the amount of money in your wallet isn't necessarily the deciding factor as to how long they'll help you, or if they'll help you at all.


And, 'over here', I've encountered - time and again - stories of being violently assaulted by cops who were basically 'bored' and caught someone doing something 'a bit naughty', and stories of cops basically letting a drug bust 'go', by the simple expedient of swiping all the shit for themselves.

Don't trust cops unless you've come to have a good reason to do so. Trusting cops as a get-go is insane.


Gee, funny how you can find an administration less honest than the one still in the white house, huh?

Errr... sure. Who did what, now?

You are right. This type of data IS fundamentally flawed. Especially for what it is being twisted to, here.

Just like how you like to twist not objectively precise to fundamentally flawed.

Actually, I cannot find a single independent source that disputes the idea that Russia is corrupt, can anyone provide one?

Well I really don't agree with this wikipedia article,


Knock yourself out. But, you seemed to be agreeing with it pretty good when you were defending it a minute ago.


I don't know where they're pulling this crap about it not being consistent with other more direct surveys (which, for that matter, also tend to rank Russia very low).


They are 'pulling this crap about not being consistent' from the fact that it's not consistent.


I think the perceptions index is actually a very good indicator,


Again, knock yourself out. In an argument a little while back, Vault 10 tried to convince me that statistics of reported crime have an intrinsic link to actual incidence of crime. I'm more than used to dealing with people who don't know how to handle data.


...especially given that only experts in each country, with at least three sources are used,


I don't think it says what you think it says.


...which means this the survey is based upon a consensus from experts in corruption. That sounds pretty reliable to me, perhaps more reliable than a source from a single set of experts.

No - 'reliable' is evidence. Statistics is just statistics.

Just like how you like to twist not objectively precise to fundamentally flawed.

It rather depends on what you want the data to do.

If this data is used for the purpose for which it is intended - measuring 'PERCEPTION of corruption', and nothing more - then it is prone to weaknesses anyway, like the sampling, the weaknesses in the methodology, the lack of objectivity, and the fact that it is dealing with a value which is ALWAYS going to be under-represented in honest responses. If it is NOT used for that express purpose, it isn't just 'prone to weakness', it IS fundamentally flawed for that job.

Actually, I cannot find a single independent source that disputes the idea that Russia is corrupt, can anyone provide one?

And while we're at it, can someone prove the non-existence of god...

Shifting the burden isn't going to work.

Knock yourself out. But, you seemed to be agreeing with it pretty good when you were defending it a minute ago.



They are 'pulling this crap about not being consistent' from the fact that it's not consistent.



Again, knock yourself out. In an argument a little while back, Vault 10 tried to convince me that statistics of reported crime have an intrinsic link to actual incidence of crime. I'm more than used to dealing with people who don't know how to handle data.



I don't think it says what you think it says.



No - 'reliable' is evidence. Statistics is just statistics.
What's your point? Are you trying to argue that Russia is not corrupt? You keep attacking that particular source, when we have indicated that there are plenty of other sources that also indicate a high level of corruption in Russia.

Knock yourself out. But, you seemed to be agreeing with it pretty good when you were defending it a minute ago.


When?


They are 'pulling this crap about not being consistent' from the fact that it's not consistent.


With what?


I don't think it says what you think it says.


It says that, public opinion polls are not used any more. Only expert opinion is counted, if the consensus amongst experts on corruption is not reliable, then what the hell is?


No - 'reliable' is evidence. Statistics is just statistics.

So please tell me, what do you count as evidence? Interestingly the only evidence I ever see you use is anecdotal, which is not only far less compelling than statistics, but actually not evidence of anything in the slightest.

It rather depends on what you want the data to do.

If this data is used for the purpose for which it is intended - measuring 'PERCEPTION of corruption', and nothing more

No, this is completely wrong. Measuring perception (amongst experts) of corruption is what they do, but the goal is to produce a reliable measure of actual corruption, they're not doing this for absolutely no reason.

then it is prone to weaknesses anyway

Of course it is, but these weaknesses just mean the results are not absolutely precise, but a general indicator, not completely wrong and should be completely discarded.

And while we're at it, can someone prove the non-existence of god...

Shifting the burden isn't going to work.

I've provided sources (not just the CPI), pretty much every independent think tank ranks Russia as very corrupt, those that reject this reject all of these independent studies, the burden of proof is overwhelmingly on them.

Still irrelevant, just like it was when Anda started it, though.

Okay, let's say Putin is bad. Horrible, in fact. He always forgets birthdays and anniversaries, he hates christmas, kicks puppies and watches Chevy Chase movies. He's all the evil possible to roll into such a small space.

So?

That's the thing, though. It's not that he hates Christmas, watches Chevy Chase movies or any of that crap. It's that he uses his agents to murder dissidents on foreign soil and journalists, to put his cronies above the law, to obliterate cities with massive artillery bombardments and to invade sovereign countries.

That's why it's relevant. Stop trying to discount relevant facts because they are inconvenient to you.

No - because character is irrelevant to this matter. As is the way you treat people in your own country. MAYBE - there might be some leeway for international issues - you could argue that whoever is more visibly violent on the world stage is creating an atmosphere that might cause fear of old hostilities.

No, no it isn't. How you treat your own citizens, and the citizens of your neighbors, is indeed quite relevant to how you treat the rest of the world, and your willingness to engender hostility abroad. It's indicative of the respect you have for others at home, as well as abroad.

I can't 'pretend' it, but I don't have to pretend. Our actions towards EVERYONE were more hostile after 2000. France aren't an enemy - they're an ally, and look how we treated them?
That's entirely not the case. Since 2000 the Bush administration has actually actively sought to form new partnerships around the world. The obvious examples being the former east bloc states of Eastern Europe, as well as India, and, increasingly, China. The US has drawn closer to all of these states, with a special focus on India.

Russia, as we can see from the initial attitudes and actions of the Bush administration, was greatly desired to be included in this group of future partners for the United States. But, because Putin was provided with high energy costs, and the need to create an external bogeyman in the form of NATO to distract from increasing inequality, corruption and injustice at home, he was the one who is to blame for the bulk of the conflict.

As for France, the US has had a long, close and antagonistic relationship with France. You should know that quite well. Our countries are natural allies who are tied at the hip, and like an old married couple, we bicker constantly. The independent deterrent, DeGaulle's withdrawal from NATO, and the rest are all evidence of the weird relationship between our two countries. That Bush antagonized a Gaullist like Chirac should not surprise you at all--especially since Bush and Chirac were closer together than most any other European political leader in policy and situation.

What's your point? Are you trying to argue that Russia is not corrupt?

No. I've said I think governments - in general - tend towards corruption.


I'm saying that the source presented doesn't say Russia is corrupt.

It allows to an even lesser extent... for us to work out how corrupt.

No. I've said I think governments - in general - tend towards corruption.


I'm saying that the source presented doesn't say Russia is corrupt.

It allows to an even lesser extent... for us to work out how corrupt.

It provides a good enough measure for us to determine how corrupt the Russian government is, especially in comparison to other countries.

It says that, public opinion polls are not used any more. Only expert opinion is counted...


Which wasn't what you argued.


So please tell me, what do you count as evidence?


I'm quite a fan of material evidence. Documentary evidence, etc.

Interestingly the only evidence I ever see you use is anecdotal...

For... what?

It provides a good enough measure for us to determine how corrupt the Russian government is, especially in comparison to other countries.

No, it doesn't.

It provides a good measure for us to determine how corrupt people THINK the Russian government is. Nothing more.

No, this is completely wrong. Measuring perception (amongst experts) of corruption is what they do, but the goal is to produce a reliable measure of actual corruption,


No, it isn't.


...they're not doing this for absolutely no reason.


No, they're doing it because that's their agenda.


Of course it is, but these weaknesses just mean the results are not absolutely precise, but a general indicator, not completely wrong and should be completely discarded.

As I said, it depends what you want to use it for.

You want to use it for something that it IS competely wrong for, and SHOULD be completely discarded for.

No, it doesn't.

It provides a good measure for us to determine how corrupt people THINK the Russian government is. Nothing more.

Which is good enough. We have limited information, and we have to use the information that is available, and this information is the best that is available, and it is related to what is at hand.

The world is not so neatly compartmentalized as you seem to argue it as being.

You are simply wrong.

Russia is corupt. theres no need to look at polls, just examin how the "shift in power" went, all that happend was Putin became Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister suddenly had all the power... and its run by the Russian Mafia

I'm quite a fan of material evidence. Documentary evidence, etc.


And what do you think the experts use when measuring corruption? Seriously, if you don't accept expert consensus on things, then there is probably huge amounts of things you don't accept, for instance perhaps the idea of evolution or global warming etc... since you can't be an extremely good scientist in all fields of science to the extent where you can have an authoritative opinion on each matter.


For... what?

Most of the stuff you argue.

That's the thing, though. It's not that he hates Christmas, watches Chevy Chase movies or any of that crap. It's that he uses his agents to murder dissidents on foreign soil and journalists, to put his cronies above the law, to obliterate cities with massive artillery bombardments and to invade sovereign countries.

That's why it's relevant. Stop trying to discount relevant facts because they are inconvenient to you.


I'm not discounting 'facts' because they're inconvenient - I'm discounting your opinion, because it's irrelevant.

If the question is 'are Russia escalating', it doesn't matter if Putin pops kitten's heads before breakfast, it doesn't even pretend to answer the question.

No, it isn't.


Yes it is.


No, they're doing it because that's their agenda.


They're agenda is and has always been highlighting corruption and studying it's effects and extent in different countries, they're agenda has never been making random polls for the sake of it.


As I said, it depends what you want to use it for.

You want to use it for something that it IS competely wrong for, and SHOULD be completely discarded for.

No, it was completely designed for the very purpose to indicate and to give a good idea of levels of corruption in different countries, expert consensus is just one of their means of doing so.

I'm not discounting 'facts' because they're inconvenient - I'm discounting your opinion, because it's irrelevant.

It's only irrelevant to you because you want to ignore it, because it's inconvenient to you.

Just like the facts and indicators in which my opinion is rooted. My opinion is rooted in facts. It's derived from an analysis of facts. You just want to ignore those facts.

If the question is 'are Russia escalating', it doesn't matter if Putin pops kitten's heads before breakfast, it doesn't even pretend to answer the question.

No, no, no. If he popped kitten's heads, it would be irrelevant, but that's not what he's doing. There are relationships between how he treats his citizens, how he treats his governance and how he treats the rest of the world. It's that simple.

Which is good enough. We have limited information, and we have to use the information that is available, and this information is the best that is available, and it is related to what is at hand.

The world is not so neatly compartmentalized as you seem to argue it as being.


This is horseshit.

Yes - we have limited information. Of course - the whole point is SUPPOSED to be that we're talking about something that is not transparent.

It's not a matter of me thinking the world is neatly compartmentalised - it's a matter of data for x not being equal to data for y.


Thought exercise:

If thirty percent of the population thinks the Mormon church is corrupt, and seventy percent thinks the Catholic church is corrupt - which church is ACTUALLY more corrupt?



You are simply wrong.

No, I'm not. I'm apparently the only person who ever learned how to interpret data.

Putin HATES America, he hates that he depends on us, and he hates are allies, we should be worried because hes pointing missles at us hes the kind of person who would start a nuclear holocaust for revenge

Putin HATES America, he hates that he depends on us, and he hates are allies, we should be worried because hes pointing missles at us hes the kind of person who would start a nuclear holocaust for revenge

I'd like to see where you get that he hates America from. As a Russian leader he's hardly likely to say that sort of thing.

No, I'm not. I'm apparently the only person who ever learned how to interpret data.

If all different kinds of academic journals and publications cite the CPI as a general indicator of corruption, and everyone here seems to agree that it is, then perhaps it is you who doesn't know how to properly interpret data. Incidentally, you do understand the concept of extrapolation, don't you?

And what do you think the experts use when measuring corruption? Seriously, if you don't accept expert consensus on things, then there is probably huge amounts of things you don't accept, for instance perhaps the idea of evolution or global warming etc...


I accept evidence on evolution and global warming - as I've explained before in threads about those topics.

I do NOT accept the consensus, which is why I've spoken out against concepts like Dark Matter.


...since you can't be an extremely good scientist in all fields of science to the extent where you can have an authoritative opinion on each matter.


I am a scientist, though. Mainly environmental and chemical (by training and vocation), but quite broad in spectrum.


Most of the stuff you argue.

Most of the stuff I argue is religion, philosophy or 'morality'.

If all different kinds of academic journals and publications cite the CPI as a general indicator of corruption, and everyone here seems to agree that it is, then perhaps it is you who doesn't know how to properly interpret data. Incidentally, you do understand the concept of extrapolation, don't you?

An appeal to popularity is a fallacy.

This is horseshit.

It's awfully nice of you to give such an accurate description of your own argument beforehand.

Yes - we have limited information. Of course - the whole point is SUPPOSED to be that we're talking about something that is not transparent.

So then

It's not a matter of me thinking the world is neatly compartmentalised - it's a matter of data for x not being equal to data for y.[/QUOTE]

In laboratory chemistry that's all fine and dandy, but in the real world that's useless horseshit.

It's a matter of data for x being closely related to data for y. you have to be able to analyze the data and recognize the relationship.

If thirty percent of the population thinks the Mormon church is corrupt, and seventy percent thinks the Catholic church is corrupt - which church is ACTUALLY more corrupt?

If thirty percent of the general population viewed it as such, then it would be irrelevant. But, if seventy percent of experts on matters pertaining to corruption agreed, then it would be relevant.




No, I'm not. I'm apparently the only person who ever learned how to interpret data.

You've learned how to interpret data in the irrelevant and esoteric world of scientific analysis. This isn't scientific analysis, and any statistics prof whose experience is in social sciencies, politics or economics says that there are ways to understand and utilize looser data. You need to learn how to use the data you have in the real world. Because it doesn't say exactly x, doesn't mean that it is irrelevant to x.

are you kidding? he thretens our allies and has even gone so far as to attack one, he is very traditional, and like most traditional russian politicians dislikes how they rely on america to feed their population, whenever he is in meetings with americans he is described as barely containing his contempt

An appeal to popularity is a fallacy.

That is horseshit.

It's not an appeal to popularity, it's an appeal to authority.

I accept evidence on evolution and global warming - as I've explained before in threads about those topics.


Right, but there is such huge amounts of data on this subject, literally huge, that takes massive supercomputers to digest, not something one human mind can process. You have to trust the scientific researchers and their simulations on this matter, one person cannot evaluate all the evidence alone.


I do NOT accept the consensus, which is why I've spoken out against concepts like Dark Matter.


Ok, but if you were presented with a field that you are not familiar with, but where huge amounts of research has been applied to it, and the consensus amongst the experts was proposition A, are you seriously telling me that this doesn't make proposition A more compelling? That it doesn't make it more likely?

Gotta split, gravy. You can go eat some grapes, or potatoes or something.

are you kidding? he thretens our allies and has even gone so far as to attack one, he is very traditional, and like most traditional russian politicians dislikes how they rely on america to feed their population, whenever he is in meetings with americans he is described as barely containing his contempt

Georgia did silly things and showed a lack of tact when Russia was involved. Whilst it can be said Russia overreacted the Geogians did bring it upon their own head to an extent.

Relying on foreign countries to feed your own population is a bad idea period.

I would like a source for this quotation
he is described as barely containing his contempt

It's a matter of data for x being closely related to data for y. you have to be able to analyze the data and recognize the relationship.


It is a matter of data for x MAYBE being related ('closely' is wishful thinking) to data for y.


If thirty percent of the general population viewed it as such, then it would be irrelevant. But, if seventy percent of experts on matters pertaining to corruption agreed, then it would be relevant.


Didn't want to answer the question, huh?


Because it doesn't say exactly x, doesn't mean that it is irrelevant to x.

No, it doesn't mean that it is irrelevant. It also doesn't mean it's relevant.

Unless you can PROVE the link, there is only speculation. And speculation isn't evidence.

Gotta split, gravy. You can go eat some grapes, or potatoes or something.

Probably not, since I'm at work. Maybe later, though...

Weird sort of fare-thee-well.

Didn't want to answer the question, huh?


It's not dodging it, your question was loaded and based on a flawed premise, because the CPI does not survey any general population, it surveys experts.

Probably not, since I'm at work. Maybe later, though...

Weird sort of fare-thee-well.

He's been saying this sort of thing a lot lately.

Right, but there is such huge amounts of data on this subject, literally huge, that takes massive supercomputers to digest, not something one human mind can process. You have to trust the scientific researchers and their simulations on this matter, one person cannot evaluate all the evidence alone.


I don't always have to see the raw data. If you agree with the methodology, and you understand the contributing factors and the interferences... and you work through the theory, you can come to some sort of agreement or disagreement with the conclusions of the study.

Which is why - for example - I reject the 'science' that says milk helps you lose weight. Work through the methodology, and analyse the interference, and it's 'bad science' to arrive at the conclusion those studies arrived at.


Ok, but if you were presented with a field that you are not familiar with, but where huge amounts of research has been applied to it, and the consensus amongst the experts was proposition A, are you seriously telling me that this doesn't make proposition A more compelling? That it doesn't make it more likely?

If there is a field I am entirely unfamiliar with, I have no opinion.

That is horseshit.

It's not an appeal to popularity, it's an appeal to authority.

Consensus? That's popularity.

If you've nothing to bring to the table, feel free to absent yourself.

And while we're at it, can someone prove the non-existence of god...

Shifting the burden isn't going to work.
It's in the nature of corruption that there are no clear figures available, but that people have to estimate it. The USSR was a very corrupt country, and the personnel in many ministries didn't change significantly when it collapsed. The culture within these would therefore not have suddenly reformed itself. Yeltsin didn't exactly pursue this either.

The leadership within such ministries went and got themselves privatised assets for cheap and became the oligarchs. They did it by knowing people, and through bribes. Contrary to the stories Putin likes to tell, the oligarchs haven't disappeared, he just removed those that were on someone else's friends list rather than his. And that's not even covering the private corruption of business being awared contracts based on kickbacks and personal gifts to management.

So we have the logic behind suggesting that Russia is a corrupt country, and we have any number of sources which try to estimate things like corruption suggesting that it is in fact a corrupt country. There really isn't anything more anyone can do to further strengthen the argument, so I think it's quite valid to then ask: if you don't think all of this is true, why? That's not so much shifting the burden of proof as it is "I made my point, now make yours".

It's not dodging it, your question was loaded and based on a flawed premise, because the CPI does not survey any general population, it surveys experts.

That's a dodge.

'Expert' is a relative term. You're using it like it actually means something.

What would an 'expert on corruption' even be? Someone who had done a lot of it? Or someone who was entirely uninvolved in corruption, and was thus an 'expert' on it ONLY in as much as they were talking about what they had SEEN?

Regardless - you evaded.

It's in the nature of corruption that there are no clear figures available


In nutshell.

/discussion.


So we have the logic behind suggesting that Russia is a corrupt country,


Suggesting, yes.


...and we have any number of sources which try to estimate things like corruption


The source provided didn't try to estimate that. Indeed, the qualifying text stated that it didn't.


There really isn't anything more anyone can do to further strengthen the argument, so I think it's quite valid to then ask: if you don't think all of this is true, why?

Why don't I think that source can be relied upon to be an accurate, realistic... or even reliably inaccurate source on the question?

Simple - that source doesn't actually provide any evidence to answer that question.

I haven't read this whole thread so forgive me if I cover anything already mentioned but for me Russia is simply looking after her own interests which if I was a Russian citizen would keep me pretty happy.

A lot of this is sabre rattling but you can hardly blame them for being wary of the West. NATO is expanding, almost on it's doorstep and then you have the missile shield.

Jesus H. Christ, WW3 nearly erupted over something similar in Cuba.

I don't always have to see the raw data. If you agree with the methodology, and you understand the contributing factors and the interferences... and you work through the theory, you can come to some sort of agreement or disagreement with the conclusions of the study.


I doubt you're a computer programmer also, to understand the methodology, you have to understand extremely complex computer coding.


If there is a field I am entirely unfamiliar with, I have no opinion.

Alright let me rephrase, you're familiar with it, you just don't have the expertise to form an authoritative opinion.

That's a dodge.

'Expert' is a relative term. You're using it like it actually means something.


I hate the fact that with you if something is relative, it is therefore completely meaningless and does not tell us anything. If you truly believe this is the case, then you utterly fail at epistemology.


What would an 'expert on corruption' even be? Someone who had done a lot of it? Or someone who was entirely uninvolved in corruption, and was thus an 'expert' on it ONLY in as much as they were talking about what they had SEEN?

Someone who has done extensive research into the matter in an academically rigorous way.


Regardless - you evaded.

It wasn't me, and the question was completely irrelevant to everything, so even if he did evade it, that doesn't matter.

The source provided didn't try to estimate that. Indeed, the qualifying text stated that it didn't.


This is almost an absolute outright lie. The whole... purpose... of that organisation, is to estimate levels of corruption.


Simple - that source doesn't actually provide any evidence to answer that question.

It does, because the idea that all of these experts would lie about what they see, is extremely unlikely.

And you sympathize with Nazis being elected. You know if an ex-Nazi party member became a Chancellor or President of the US, you can be damn sure that most people would be a lot more sympathetic to Communism. The guy has a legitimate point - you elect an ex-Nazi, you pay the price.
No. Instead I realistically understand that it wasn't that statistically common for elder statesmen and/or business men to have no connection with Nazi Germany, as that was the country they lived in and did business in, and in that government, you more or less had to be a member of the party to conduct business and work in politics......

There process of denazification worked, so I didn't mind that people who were once party of the Nazi party (but not head Nazi officials) functioned as a part of West Germany. It was in the interest of having that state succeed to the level it did.

And your analogy is awful, because the Nazi party did not rule American and did not run an authoritarian dictatorship which all but required nazi party membership to be a functioning member of society.

He doesn't have a point and neither do you and your false comparisons. He is spouting the same typical leftist tripe that the RAF used to justify their killings and that the DDR used to justify their walling of their citizens; "We're doing it to protect to people against the Fascists and to fight West-Germany, which is more or less a continuation of Fascist Germany.":rolleyes:

My, my, my you can copy-paste. Although even those rankings are bullshit. Let's consider the first one:
No they are not. And if you're gonna call every source you disagree with bullshit, you're gonna find that nobody is going to take you seriously, except Grave n Idle, who seems to have posted his defense of Russia drunk and now is in such a hole, refusing that he could possibly be wrong, that he is saying that there is no proof Russia is corrupt and that all NGO's who work to survey international corruption are lying to us. Well, somebody has to entertain us, I suppose.:p

"Business freedom is the ability to create,
operate, and close an enterprise quickly and
easily."

Well if my country, starts flicking off other countries, wouldn't that be bad for business in a globalized society? So if Estonia removes the Red Army Soldier Statute (not Stalin or Beria) but the Red Army Soldier Statute and receives a World-wide boycott as a result, isn't that harmful to business?
That bullshit you wrote has nothing to do with the quote you quoted, not to mention you said "your source is bullshit...let's consider the first one"...and then ignored the rest of the reasons why Russia is ranked so low when it comes to Economic Freedom and ranked very high when it comes to corruption.

The Economist is British,
About time you figured that out. Good job.

and the UK is like the American Lapdog. No offense, but to quote Jon Stewart: "Today Bush spoke with the coalition of the willing, or as everyone else calls them Britain and Spain". And Spain dropped out.
So you can source Jon Stewart, who does a comedy show, as an expert on international relations, but we can't source Index of Economic Freedom, Transparency International and the Fraser Institute, all internationall credible NGO's who are credible and show Russia as high in corruption and low in economic freedom, because they are, in your words "bullshit", without actually explaining how so.....

Wow, just think about that for a minute....

BTW - ever seen the Economist bash Chevron, or any American or British oil corporations? Nope, those they love. They're in essence the view of the oil companies in print.
Of course they have, but that is neither here nor there, and not the point at all.
Also, I'm not calling the KGB angellic, I am calling you a failure at reading comprehension. I said let's learn from our mistakes, you interpreted that as KGB is better then CIA. Ergo, you fail.
I don't care what you call the KGB and the CIA.

CIA supporting Mujahedeem against (at the time) much greater foe, the Red Army = Strategically Intelligent.

KGB supporting PLO and RAF against civilians = Awful...regardles of if one of Germany's post war Chancellors was a former member of the nazi party.

I doubt you're a computer programmer also, to understand the methodology, you have to understand extremely complex computer coding.


No, I'm not a computer programmer. I know a little data handling stuff, but I couldn't program weather satellite imaging, for example.

But that doesn't suggest I don't get the methodology... I'm one of those people that is comfortable driving a car, whilst having almost no idea about how they work.

But - you don't have to understand the programming, to analyse the data, or how it is being processed.


Alright let me rephrase, you're familiar with it, you just don't have the expertise to form an authoritative opinion.

Which is it? I don't have the expertise? Then - I don't have an opinion. Or, I'm familiar? In which case, I have an opinion based on the data.

This is almost an absolute outright lie. The whole... purpose... of that organisation, is to estimate levels of corruption.

It does, because the idea that all of these experts would lie about what they see, is extremely unlikely.

I'm not arguing about it any more. I don't even recall who posted the source any more, but I already copy-and-pasted the part of the text that SAID (explicitly) that that source did not say anything about the actual incidence or extent of corruption.

You're trying to make the data stretch to meet the request someone posted for evidence to support a claim that Russia was corrupt. It doesn't function as evidence for that.

I hate the fact that with you if something is relative, it is therefore completely meaningless and does not tell us anything. If you truly believe this is the case, then you utterly fail at epistemology.


Hey, it's your strawman. Knock yourself out.


Someone who has done extensive research into the matter in an academically rigorous way.


Which 'matter'? Did you look at the different organisations they consider 'expert'?

Anecdotal: I worked on building sites, and every so often you'll get a new 'appointed' foreman. This appointed foreman will be someone picked up by the company, who is all kinds of qualified in terms of 'academically rigourous ways'. What you quickly find, in the real world, is that those people are extremely academically qualified... but have absolutely NO idea about the real world.

Like I said... 'expert' is a relative term.


It wasn't me, and the question was completely irrelevant to everything, so even if he did evade it, that doesn't matter.

No, the question was tied directly to the matter. You have basically said that 'perception of corruption' and 'corruption' are equal.

The reason you avoid answering the question is because, when you redcue it to simple terms, it's painfully obvious that's a crock of shit.

Grave n Idle, you're just trying to evade everything by talking your way out of it, but it doesn't work, atleast not here.

Frankly I don't know Hydesland hasn't given up on you already, but you simply can't conduct a reasonable debate on international issues if you won't accept International credible NGO's research as a source, when the rest of the world does.

Index of Economic Freedom:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/searchresults.cfm
Russia is 134th in economic freedom.

Russia is 117th in terms of Freedom from Corruption:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/searchresults.cfm

Transparency International lists Russia as 128th corrupt:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/11/05/business/20061105_GIFFEN2_GRAPHIC.gif

And FreedomHouse shows that Russia is not free:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World_(report)

--------------------------------------------
Now, if you keep denying that Russia is free of corruption, then you have lost the debate, simply because your word is not a source against credible international NGO's....but if you admit that you were wrong, you will still have lost the debate but atleast with a bit of honor.

Your choice.

Grave n Idle, you're just trying to evade everything by talking your way out of it, but it doesn't work, atleast not here.



I haven't tried to talk my way out of anything.

I've explained why the source cited didn't say what it was being presented as saying.

I've shown where THAT SOURCE said it didn't say what it was being presented as saying.

That's not 'trying to talk my way out' of anything.


Frankly I don't know Hydesland hasn't given up on you already, but you simply can't conduct a reasonable debate on international issues if you won't accept International credible NGO's research as a source, when the rest of the world does.


An appeal to popularity is still a fallacy.

If your idea of a 'reasonable debate on internation issues' is - to ignore being rigourous about the evidence and it's interpretation, I don't WANT to conduct that kind of debate.

That's an opinion exchange, and - while you may feel enormously satisfied by the closure you have at the end of it - it doesn't prove anything.


Now, if you keep denying that Russia is free of corruption...

I haven't done that even one time.

That's the problem with blustering into me filled with sound and fury. You haven't even taken the time to deal with my actual comments.

But that doesn't suggest I don't get the methodology...

Actually, it does.


But - you don't have to understand the programming, to analyse the data, or how it is being processed.


Yes, you do.


Which is it? I don't have the expertise? Then - I don't have an opinion. Or, I'm familiar? In which case, I have an opinion based on the data.

As in, you know about the issue and have read about it, but not at the level to analyse all the data to formulate your own hypothesis. And remember I'm not asking if you have an opinion, I'm asking if the fact that proposition a is the consensus amongst scientists is more compelling.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle;14195809] but I already copy-and-pasted the part of the text that SAID (explicitly) that that source did not say anything about the actual incidence or extent of corruption.[/QUOTE[

No it didn't, not in the slightest, it merely highlighted its weaknesses. It didn't say that this study is not used to assess corruption in different countries, because that is the absolute definitive purpose of the index.

Which 'matter'? Did you look at the different organisations they consider 'expert'?


If you doubt their credibilities, YOU DO IT, if you think the source is unreliable, show how the experts are not being rigorous, I will not accept you merely saying so, or regurgitating some bullshit from wikipedia.


No, the question was tied directly to the matter. You have basically said that 'perception of corruption' and 'corruption' are equal.


Strawman. I'm not saying that at all. I said that perception of corruption amongst EXPERTS, is A GOOD INDICATOR of levels of corruption. Not that they're equal.


The reason you avoid answering the question is because, when you redcue it to simple terms, it's painfully obvious that's a crock of shit.

No actually it isn't, not only is what you're saying analytically incorrect, but it's also extremely counter-intuitive.

Actually, it does.


A matter of opinion, perhaps.

In your opinion - I need to understand how to program the code itself, to see how the data is being handled.

In my opinion - which, in this case, can also be called 'reality' - I don't need to.

If you make a program that (for example) multiplies matrices, it doesn't matter a whit that I couldn't program that accessory, I could still use it, and have an idea about the quality of it's conclusions.


As in, you know about the issue and have read about it, but not at the level to analyse all the data to formulate your own hypothesis. And remember I'm not asking if you have an opinion, I'm asking if the fact that proposition a is the consensus amongst scientists is more compelling.

So - I am only passingly familiar?

Then, I have no opinion, and the consensus is no more or less compelling than otherwise. If I'm interested by the field... or even just by the proposition I'm encountering... then I'll get more acquainted with it, and form my own opinions based on the evidence.

If you doubt their credibilities, YOU DO IT, if you think the source is unreliable, show how the experts are not being rigorous...


They're answering the questions they were asked, in fields connected to what they do. To the best of their abilities, they are being as rigourous as they can, I'm sure.

But, you seem to be missing the simple truth that corruption is usually hidden. ANd what they're reporting on, is perception.


I will not accept you merely saying so, or regurgitating some bullshit from wikipedia.


Laughable. I didn't cite the source.

I'm taking text directly from the source cited, to show the weakness of the source, and you're attacking me for the flaws in the source that I AM attacking.


Strawman. I'm not saying that at all. I said that perception of corruption amongst EXPERTS, is A GOOD INDICATOR of levels of corruption. Not that they're equal.


Quibble. Semantic difference.


No actually it isn't, not only is what you're saying analytically incorrect, but it's also extremely counter-intuitive.

I don't care if you find it counter-intuitive. That's not a good 'logic' argument.

As to what I'm saying being 'analytically incorrect', it's really not that hard - perception of corruption is not corruption. It doesn't even have to be CLOSE, because perception is remote and subjective.

and have an idea about the quality of it's conclusions.


You would have absolutely no idea in regards to global warming, since there is nothing else to compare its conclusions with.


Then, I have no opinion, and the consensus is no more or less compelling than otherwise. If I'm interested by the field... or even just by the proposition I'm encountering... then I'll get more acquainted with it, and form my own opinions based on the evidence.

Seriously? By saying that, you're saying it's equally likely for the scientific consensus on a matter that has had in depth study to be wrong as it is to be right? Are you seriously saying that?

They're answering the questions they were asked, in fields connected to what they do. To the best of their abilities, they are being as rigourous as they can, I'm sure.


No, I'm saying if you doubt their answers to their questions, which comes about through rigorous analysis, then show me why there is a reason to doubt their answers.


But, you seem to be missing the simple truth that corruption is usually hidden.

But very often not hidden well, and corruption can exist as a form inherent in the government structure, which is very easy to recognize.


Laughable. I didn't cite the source.

I'm taking text directly from the source cited

No, you took the text from wikipedia, wikipedia was not the source on this.


, to show the weakness of the source, and you're attacking me for the flaws in the source that I AM attacking.


You made an extremely absurd assertion that because the index was measuring perceptions amongst experts, and because there can be a few drawbacks tied to this (though I feel that wikipedia greatly overstates this), it therefore does not tell us anything about actual corruption, and even more bizarrely, you assert that it wasn't even designed for this (which suggests that you have no idea what transparency international is).


Quibble. Semantic difference.


No, not at all, it's an extremely significant difference, and suggests to me that you have a very poor grasp if that is what you equate my argument to.

You would have absolutely no idea in regards to global warming, since there is nothing else to compare its conclusions with.


This doesn't even make sense.

You think the ONLY way to analyse global warming data is through computer models?


Seriously? By saying that, you're saying it's equally likely for the scientific consensus on a matter that has had in depth study to be wrong as it is to be right? Are you seriously saying that?

That's not QUITE what I'm saying - me not rushing to judgment, and not immediately accepting the mainstream answer... doesn't mean that the consensus has a 50/50 chance of being right.

Dark Matter for example - might be 'right', might be 'wrong', or might end up sharing some characteristics with each. At the moment - it's a placeholder for a theory.

This doesn't even make sense.

You think the ONLY way to analyse global warming data is through computer models?


Yes.


That's not QUITE what I'm saying - me not rushing to judgment, and not immediately accepting the mainstream answer... doesn't mean that the consensus has a 50/50 chance of being right.


If you think it has any more than a 50/50 chance of being right, then you find it more compelling than any other proposition.

No, I'm saying if you doubt their answers to their questions, which comes about through rigorous analysis, then show me why there is a reason to doubt their answers.


Not worth responding to again.


But very often not hidden well, and corruption can exist as a form inherent in the government structure, which is very easy to recognize.


Icebergs only exist above water.


No, you took the text from wikipedia, wikipedia was not the source on this.


I suggest you go back and check the link, my friend.


You made an extremely absurd assertion that because the index was measuring perceptions amongst experts, and because there can be a few drawbacks tied to this (though I feel that wikipedia greatly overstates this), it therefore does not tell us anything about actual corruption, and even more bizarrely, you assert that it wasn't even designed for this (which suggests that you have no idea what transparency international is).


It suggests you didn't even read the source material you were defending.

What you should have done is said "You're right, that citation was weak - here's something better"... but no, you're STILL defending a weak, self-defeating source.


No, not at all, it's an extremely significant difference, and suggests to me that you have a very poor grasp if that is what you equate my argument to.

It's really not a significant detail, and the ease with which you genuflect at the mere utterance of the word 'expert' scares me.

Yes.


I guess I can no longer accuse you of being clueless on just one topic, then.


If you think it has any more than a 50/50 chance of being right, then you find it more compelling than any other proposition.

If you're going to make up my responses, you can make me say anything you want. At least try for something fun. Pretend I was quoting from the movie "Tron", or something.

you're STILL defending a weak, self-defeating source.


Nothing you have presented in this thread has even begun to show that.


It's really not a significant detail

Yes, it really is. Since if I was to say corruption perception is the same as corruption, it would be wrong, and none of the arguments I have made would be the least bit relevant in anyway, which indicates that you may just be flat out ignoring what I'm saying.

I guess I can no longer accuse you of being clueless on just one topic, then.


Hilarious, since global warming evidence relies on computers, for instance to calculate the temperature of the Earth before humans were doing so.


If you're going to make up my responses, you can make me say anything you want. At least try for something fun. Pretend I was quoting from the movie "Tron", or something.

Seriously? If that wasn't the point of your post, then that is perhaps the most ambiguous post I have ever seen. Do you think it changes the likelihood of being correct or not?

Nothing you have presented in this thread has even begun to show that.


Did you go back and check the source?

The SOURCE 'shows that'. I'm just the messenger.


Yes, it really is. Since if I was to say corruption perception is the same as corruption, it would be wrong, and none of the arguments I have made would be the least bit relevant in anyway, which indicates that you may just be flat out ignoring what I'm saying.

I'm beginning to get the feeling that - of the two of us, I'm the only one paying attention to what YOU are writing.

You have been arguing that there is some distinct, significant link netween the perception of corruption, and the actual extent of corruption.

That's pure speculation - there's no reason to believe it. You take it on faith... and 'faith' is not a logical argument.

I'm beginning to get the feeling that - of the two of us, I'm the only one paying attention to what YOU are writing.

You have been arguing that there is some distinct, significant link netween the perception of corruption, and the actual extent of corruption.


I'm saying it's a good indicator, I'm not saying there is an inherent scientific link, I'm saying it's reasonable to extrapolate from it.


That's pure speculation - there's no reason to believe it. You take it on faith... and 'faith' is not a logical argument.

Of course there is, it's reasonable to assume that the experts are much more likely to be correct than incorrect, especially given that TI is a world wide respected source, which means they are very rigorous with what their sources of perception are. I'm willing to accept a possibility that it's wrong, albeit a small one, but you have to show me how these peoples opinions are not reliable first.

Edit: and by experts, I mean the experts perceptions who was surveyed by the TI.

Hilarious, since global warming evidence relies on computers, for instance to calculate the temperature of the Earth before humans were doing so.


When I first started researching global warming, I was at University, which would put it in the early 90's. At that point it was still considered crackpot science in the mainstream, and most of the material was in the form of things like trend data, and theoretical constructs based on established physical factors like heat capacity.

So - the 'science' of global warming doesn't need computers or computer models. Although they are handy things to have, and they have been instrumental in bringing the science to the masses.

But, and again we conflict - I don't have to understand what the programmer typed... to understand what the program DOES, how it handles the data.


Seriously? If that wasn't the point of your post, then that is perhaps the most ambiguous post I have ever seen. Do you think it changes the likelihood of being correct or not?

The whole 'likelihood of being correct' is your argument, not mine. The reason why 'appeals to popularity' are fallacies, is because the majority can be wrong. Personally, I don't think: "...me not rushing to judgment, and not immediately accepting the mainstream answer... doesn't mean that the consensus has a 50/50 chance of being right..." is ambiguous at all.

I'm saying it's a good indicator, I'm not saying there is an inherent scientific link, I'm saying it's reasonable to extrapolate from it.


Reasonable, yes. Meaningful? Not so much.


Of course there is, it's reasonable to assume that the experts are much more likely to be correct than incorrect,


Why?

The 'experts' thought the sun moved around the earth, for centuries.


...especially given that TI is a world wide respected source,


An appeal to authority?


...which means they are very rigorous with what their sources of perception are. I'm willing to accept a possibility that it's wrong,


It doesn't have to be wrong. They aren't saying what you are saying.


...albeit a small one, but you have to show me how these peoples opinions are not reliable first.


Their opinions are not reliable because you can't directly measure corruption.

When I first started researching global warming, I was at University, which would put it in the early 90's. At that point it was still considered crackpot science in the mainstream, and most of the material was in the form of things like trend data, and theoretical constructs based on established physical factors like heat capacity.

So - the 'science' of global warming doesn't need computers or computer models. Although they are handy things to have, and they have been instrumental in bringing the science to the masses.


Trend data that relied upon computers.


But, and again we conflict - I don't have to understand what the programmer typed... to understand what the program DOES, how it handles the data.


Ugh, can we just drop this global warming stuff, it's a hijack I'm not actually interested in anyway.


The whole 'likelihood of being correct' is your argument, not mine. The reason why 'appeals to popularity' are fallacies, is because the majority can be wrong. Personally, I don't think: "...me not rushing to judgment, and not immediately accepting the mainstream answer... doesn't mean that the consensus has a 50/50 chance of being right..." is ambiguous at all.

Please answer my question. Also, if expert consensus and research is not evidence for anything, then 99.99% of all sources posted on NSG are rubbish, since raw data is very rarely used, and even then NSG would still demand that the raw data comes from respected expert communities.

Reasonable, yes. Meaningful? Not so much.


What's the difference? And if you can make reasonable extrapolations from a source, then the source is not useless, and it does tell us something.


Their opinions are not reliable because you can't directly measure corruption.

The research conducted on each country is available on the website, if you think their methods do not accurately measure corruption, then show how they don't. Don't make blanket generalisations stating that you simply can't measure corruption.

Trend data that relied upon computers.


More likely, on thermometers...


Ugh, can we just drop this global warming stuff, it's a hijack I'm not actually interested in anyway.


Sure, it's your hijack, not mine.


Please answer my question.


I've answered it twice.

Are you just going to keep asking it till I give you the answer you want?

Isn't that a symptom of something? Keep asking the same question, hoping for a different answer...?


Also, if expert consensus and research is not evidence for anything, then 99.99% of all sources posted on NSG are rubbish, since raw data is very rarely used,


Since most of the data is used as this source was used - i.e. incorrectly - I agree. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the data, but there is with the things people try to make it say.


...and even then NSG would still demand that the raw data comes from respected expert communities.

Which would be poisoning the well, and would be a fallacy.

I've answered it twice.


I'm talking specifically here on the question of if you think it makes proposition A have more than a 50/50 chance of being right. Because I'm pretty sure you haven't answered that in the slightest.


Which would be poisoning the well, and would be a fallacy.

Utter bullshit. Are you saying it's a fallacy for me to say that the bar charts drawn by your next door neighbour Bob do not come from a reliable source and thus not useful a fallacy?

In fact, seriously, I would like you to present a single source you think is reliable for anything, I guarantee, using your pedantry, that I can make it completely useless by your standards.

I'm talking specifically here on the question of if you think it makes proposition A have more than a 50/50 chance of being right. Because I'm pretty sure you haven't answered that in the slightest.



Utter bullshit. Are you saying it's a fallacy for me to say that the bar charts drawn by your next door neighbour Bob do not come from a reliable source and thus not useful a fallacy?

In fact, seriously, I would like you to present a single source you think is reliable for anything, I guarantee, using your pedantry, that I can make it completely useless by your standards.

Said the person who doesn't believe that Putin has 70% approval ratings. I'm done with this thread.

Just a quick recap before I go to bed:

GnI, I don't have a problem with the idea that the CPI does not allow for an objective scientific hypothesis on whether Russia is corrupt or not. I have a problem with the idea that the measure does not tell us ANYTHING AT ALL.

I have a problem with the idea that the fact that data from Columbia University, Economist Intelligence Unit, Freedom House, Information International, International Institute for Management Development, Merchant International Group, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, World Economic Forum and World Markets Research Centre (all of which CPI uses) show that Russia is highly corrupt, does not tell us ANYTHING AT ALL about corruption in Russia.

I have a problem with the idea that when you also look at Bribe Payers Index, which wikipedia claims that the CPI is inconsistent with (although it seemingly isn't) Russia STILL ranks low on that also, yet you still maintain that this tells us nothing.

I have a problem with the idea that Transparency International does not set out to assess corruption, and is not producing these index's for a specific purpose, even though reading their stated aims clearly contradict this.

What's the difference? And if you can make reasonable extrapolations from a source, then the source is not useless, and it does tell us something.


It could tell you green monkeys are going to fly out of your arse, but it wouldn't necessarily make it true.

You keep conflating different arguments.

I've not said the source was useless - I've said it was useless for what you want to claim it says.

I haven't said it doesn't tell us anything, I've said it doesn't tell us what you think it tells us.

I haven't said you can't make extrapolations from it - indeed, it IS an extrapolation, or at least, it pretends to be.



The research conducted on each country is available on the website, if you think their methods do not accurately measure corruption, then show how they don't. Don't make blanket generalisations stating that you simply can't measure corruption.

The Internet Center for Corruption Research says (and this is taken straight from TI's FAQ, I have found):

"It is difficult to assess the levels of corruption in different countries based on hard empirical data, e.g. by comparing the number of prosecutions or court cases. Such cross-country data does not reflect actual levels of corruption; rather it highlights the quality of prosecutors, courts and/or the media in exposing corruption. The only method of compiling comparative data is therefore to draw on the experience and perceptions of those who are most directly confronted with the realities of corruption in a country."

and:

"In terms of perceptions of corruption, the CPI is a solid measurement tool. The reliability differs, however, between countries. Countries with a low number of sources and large differences in the evaluations provided by the sources (indicated by a wider confidence range) convey less reliability as to their score and ranking."

http://www.icgg.org/corruption.cpi_2005_faq.html#3


TI's own site further clarifies:


"Is the country with the lowest score the world's most corrupt country?

No. The country with the lowest score is the one where corruption is perceived to be greatest among those included in the list. There are more than 200 sovereign nations in the world, and the latest CPI 2008 ranks 180 of them. The CPI provides no information about countries that are not included."

and:

"Example: What is implied by Somalia’s ranking in the CPI 2008?

Corruption in Somalia has been perceived to be the highest in the CPI 2008. This does not, however, indicate that Somalia is the ‘world’s most corrupt country’ or that Somalians are the ‘most corrupt people’. While corruption is indeed one of the most formidable challenges to good governance, development and poverty reduction in Somalia, the vast majority of the people are victims of corruption. Corruption by powerful individuals, and failure of leaders and institutions to control or prevent corruption, does not imply that a country or its people are most corrupt."

http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2008/faq#general3


Quite simply, as I've been saying all along - the source does NOT provide the answers you claim it does.

Quite simply, as I've been saying all along - the source does NOT provide the answers you claim it does.

OK, I refuse to believe that you've even read anything I've said now. This is really pissing me off, you are clearly not grasping very simple concepts, and your evidence in that post only disproves a giant strawman, that doesn't reflect my views. I do not have time to show you why you fail, you'll have to wait for tomorrow night.

GnI, I don't have a problem with the idea that the CPI does not allow for an objective scientific hypothesis on whether Russia is corrupt or not. I have a problem with the idea that the measure does not tell us ANYTHING AT ALL.


Me too.

Which is why I haven't said that.

It tells us lots and lots about perceptions.


I have a problem with the idea that the fact that data from Columbia University, Economist Intelligence Unit, Freedom House, Information International, International Institute for Management Development, Merchant International Group, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, World Economic Forum and World Markets Research Centre (all of which CPI uses) show that Russia is highly corrupt, does not tell us ANYTHING AT ALL about corruption in Russia.


The data shows that Russia is PRECEIVED to be highly corrupt.


I have a problem with the idea that when you also look at Bribe Payers Index, which wikipedia claims that the CPI is inconsistent with (although it seemingly isn't) Russia STILL ranks low on that also, yet you still maintain that this tells us nothing.


I haven't addressed the Bribe Payers Index, or how it connects. The original source (wiki) article says they conflict.


I have a problem with the idea that Transparency International does not set out to assess corruption, and is not producing these index's for a specific purpose, even though reading their stated aims clearly contradict this.

I aim to be the greatest lover ever to live. Whether I have achieved my aims will probably not be decided by me.

Aims, are not results.

You can't measure corruption directly, not with any belief that your data will be reliable. If you analyse prosecutions - you're only getting reported crime. If you analyse bribe payers, you're only getting a sampling of those who thought it worth complaining.

So what they've done... is what you CAN do... they have created a resource of how it APPEARS things are. It's not useless, it's very useful, if perception is your interest... but it has no intrinsic link to real incidence or extent of corrupt activities.

OK, I refuse to believe that you've even read anything I've said now. This is really pissing me off, you are clearly not grasping very simple concepts, and your evidence in that post only disproves a giant strawman, that doesn't reflect my views. I do not have time to show you why you fail, you'll have to wait for tomorrow night.

Awesome.

The body that is responsible for the data, says that the data doesn't say what you want it to... and that's my failure.

On the topic of not grasping simple concepts...

I'm talking specifically here on the question of if you think it makes proposition A have more than a 50/50 chance of being right. Because I'm pretty sure you haven't answered that in the slightest.


I've answered it twice. I don't think the consensus automatically makes the right answer. They could be right, they might not... I'd have to base my side in that debate, on the evidence. Whichever debate it is we're talking about.


Utter bullshit. Are you saying it's a fallacy for me to say that the bar charts drawn by your next door neighbour Bob do not come from a reliable source and thus not useful a fallacy?


Yes.

Bob could be right. You have to show he's not. (In totally logical terms).


In fact, seriously, I would like you to present a single source you think is reliable for anything, I guarantee, using your pedantry, that I can make it completely useless by your standards.

How about this source:

http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2008/cpi2008/cpi_2008_table

I think it's very useful for demonstrating how the corruption levels in various countries were PERCEIVED to appear, during 2008.

And you sympathize with Nazis being elected. You know if an ex-Nazi party member became a Chancellor or President of the US, you can be damn sure that most people would be a lot more sympathetic to Communism. The guy has a legitimate point - you elect an ex-Nazi, you pay the price.
No. Instead I realistically understand that it wasn't that statistically common for elder statesmen and/or business men to have no connection with Nazi Germany, as that was the country they lived in and did business in, and in that government, you more or less had to be a member of the party to conduct business and work in politics......

The process of denazification worked, so I didn't mind that people who were once party of the Nazi party (but not head Nazi officials) functioned as a part of West Germany. It was in the interest of having that state succeed to the level it did.

And your analogy is awful, because the Nazi party did not rule American and did not run an authoritarian dictatorship which all but required nazi party membership to be a functioning member of society.

He doesn't have a point and neither do you and your false comparisons. He is spouting the same typical leftist tripe that the RAF used to justify their killings and that the DDR used to justify their walling off of their citizens; "We're doing it to protect to people against the Fascists and to fight West-Germany, which is more or less a continuation of Fascist Germany.":rolleyes:

My, my, my you can copy-paste. Although even those rankings are bullshit. Let's consider the first one:
No they are not. And if you're gonna call every source you disagree with bullshit, you're gonna find that nobody is going to take you seriously, except Grave n Idle, who seems to have posted his defense of Russia drunk and now is in such a hole, refusing that he could possibly be wrong, that he is saying that there is no proof Russia is corrupt and that all NGO's who work to survey international corruption are lying to us. Well, somebody has to entertain us, I suppose.:p

"Business freedom is the ability to create,
operate, and close an enterprise quickly and
easily."

Well if my country, starts flicking off other countries, wouldn't that be bad for business in a globalized society? So if Estonia removes the Red Army Soldier Statute (not Stalin or Beria) but the Red Army Soldier Statute and receives a World-wide boycott as a result, isn't that harmful to business?
That bullshit you wrote has nothing to do with the quote you quoted, not to mention you said "your source is bullshit...let's consider the first one"...and then ignored the rest of the reasons why Russia is ranked so low when it comes to Economic Freedom and ranked very high when it comes to corruption.

The Economist is British,
About time you figured that out. Good job.

and the UK is like the American Lapdog. No offense, but to quote Jon Stewart: "Today Bush spoke with the coalition of the willing, or as everyone else calls them Britain and Spain". And Spain dropped out.
So you can source Jon Stewart, who does a comedy show, as an expert on international relations, but we can't source Index of Economic Freedom, Transparency International and the Fraser Institute, all internationall credible NGO's who are credible and show Russia as high in corruption and low in economic freedom, because they are, in your words "bullshit", without actually explaining how so.....

Wow, just think about that for a minute....

BTW - ever seen the Economist bash Chevron, or any American or British oil corporations? Nope, those they love. They're in essence the view of the oil companies in print.
Of course they have, but that is neither here nor there, and not the point at all.
Also, I'm not calling the KGB angellic, I am calling you a failure at reading comprehension. I said let's learn from our mistakes, you interpreted that as KGB is better then CIA. Ergo, you fail.
I don't care what you call the KGB and the CIA.

CIA supporting Mujahedeem against (at the time) much greater foe, the Red Army = Strategically Intelligent.

KGB supporting PLO and RAF against civilians = Awful...regardles of if one of Germany's post war Chancellors was a former member of the nazi party.

That bullshit you wrote has nothing to do with the quote you quoted,

Something that you're certainly no stranger to.....

Shofercia, my little outlet of Russian propoganda...did you leave because you realized that using Jon Stewart as a source against internationally credible NGO's is a no-no?? :D

1. Russia is deploying missiles in what seems to be a direct intention of military threat against the West, notably Central Europe/Eastern Europe and its electronic jammer of a military defense system that sovereign nations agreed upon in territory that does not belong to Russia. I believe that that could constitute electronic warfare...if they go through with it.

Actually, since the SDI (or whatever it's called now) will scan and would eventually be able to intercept targets in Russian airspace and above Russian territory, jamming it would be a legitimate action. Also, the SDI radars could constitute electronic spying, so...

Also: have you noticed that Russia borders (or is near) to ALMOST EVERYTHING? Central Europe, Western Europe, the Balkans, USA (Alaska!), Japan, China, India, the Middle East... could it be because it's the frickin' largest country on the planet? Whenever Russia has a missile with just 1000 km range (a normal cruise missile), it can hit about one fourth of the world's capitals from a base WITHIN its mainland territory... and that's discounting strategical missiles on subs. Btw, the US, France, and Britain also have a fleet of strategically-capable subs and cruise missiles... so what? Is that the proof that Her Most Granny-Like Majesty is willing to attack Belgium? Or that Sarko wants to invade Brazil (yes, Brazil is NEAR France... French Guyana, mon cher!).



2. Medvedev, Putin and the Russian government. What do you guys think about their authoritarianism, their centralization of power, the lack of power that the Russian parliament has (it's still called the Duma, right?), Medvedev's wish to lengthen political terms and the possibility of Putin eventually running again??

Putin + Medvedev = a good approximation of Stalin + Berja. Well, with a bit more of good looks and fashion, and a lot less of socialism.


3. Medvedev basically avoided Russia's domestic economic situation. To put it bluntly, shit sucks there. He chose instead to blame everything on America and talk about the crisis in the States, but not the awful economic climate that exists in his country, nor what they would do to combat it. I find that super interesting.

The crisis is going to hit Russia less than other G8 countries. For one reason: EU, North America and Japan IMPORT oil and natural gas. Russia EXPORTS oil and natural gas.
And, of course, it's always the right time for maskirovka.

That's the thing, though. It's not that he hates Christmas, watches Chevy Chase movies or any of that crap. It's that he uses his agents to murder dissidents on foreign soil and journalists, to put his cronies above the law, to obliterate cities with massive artillery bombardments and to invade sovereign countries.

That's why it's relevant. Stop trying to discount relevant facts because they are inconvenient to you.

No, no it isn't. How you treat your own citizens, and the citizens of your neighbors, is indeed quite relevant to how you treat the rest of the world, and your willingness to engender hostility abroad. It's indicative of the respect you have for others at home, as well as abroad.

sarcasm
You talking about Putin or Bush?

Mhhh... Iraq... Irve Lewis "Scooter" Libby... Guantanamo... Yeah, you are definitively speaking of G.W. Bush.
/sarcasm

Maybe US Americans should look at their "democratically" elected President before criticising others?
You know Matthew 7:3-5?

I doubt you're a computer programmer also, to understand the methodology, you have to understand extremely complex computer coding.

Wrong.
Being a computer programmer (or a mathematician) could just help you understand if the computerization of the model was done poorly. The methodology is independent from the code, the code depends on the methodology.

sarcasm
You talking about Putin or Bush?

Mhhh... Iraq... Irve Lewis "Scooter" Libby... Guantanamo... Yeah, you are definitively speaking of G.W. Bush.
/sarcasm

Maybe US Americans should look at their "democratically" elected President before criticising others?

Mere obfuscation.


You know Matthew 7:3-5?

And if I'm not Christian?

Consensus? That's popularity.

Consensus amongst experts is more than merely an appeal to popularity. It's an appeal to authority, because, as it seems to make sense, experts have significant amounts of expertise.

If you've nothing to bring to the table, feel free to absent yourself.

Or, maybe, it might be because some people have responsibilities that aren't NSG. What a frickin' shocker.

Me too.

Which is why I haven't said that.

It tells us lots and lots about perceptions.

Which, in turn, tells us about corruption in Russia, because humans are fairly good perceivers of reality, especially when they are experts.



The data shows that Russia is PRECEIVED to be highly corrupt.

Given that everything--even your precious science--is based in perception, I'm not very perturbed.




You can't measure corruption directly, not with any belief that your data will be reliable. If you analyse prosecutions - you're only getting reported crime. If you analyse bribe payers, you're only getting a sampling of those who thought it worth complaining.

So what they've done... is what you CAN do... they have created a resource of how it APPEARS things are. It's not useless, it's very useful, if perception is your interest... but it has no intrinsic link to real incidence or extent of corrupt activities.

Actually, it does, if you accept that experts are capable of accurate perceiving reality. If you don't, then you might as well trash all--and I do mean all--collected data, ever.

And if I'm not Christian?

I'm not, either, but I can still make sense of the reference...

I'm not, either, but I can still make sense of the reference...

In this case, I'm pretty sure it's America that has the mote and Russia that has the beam. No democracy is perfect, but to say that Russia's is as good as America's is to reject all objective reality.

Consensus amongst experts is more than merely an appeal to popularity. It's an appeal to authority, because, as it seems to make sense, experts have significant amounts of expertise.


Taking your pointers from an expert might be an appeal to authority. Saying 'all the experts say' is more of an appeal to consensus.


Or, maybe, it might be because some people have responsibilities that aren't NSG. What a frickin' shocker.

And this... makes my point for me?

Which, in turn, tells us about corruption in Russia, because humans are fairly good perceivers of reality,


I'd like to see you source that claim.

I'd say humans are notoriously easy to confuse, and notably poor perceivers of reality.


...especially when they are experts.


Which simply shows you haven't actually checked even the website FAQ of the people who processed the data, and presented several paragraphs of explanations of why the perception data is fundamentally flawed.


Given that everything--even your precious science--is based in perception, I'm not very perturbed.


My 'precious science'? Okay - that made me laugh.

What's with the anti-science-elitism, all of a sudden? Just because pure application of the methodology disagrees with your opinion?


Actually, it does, if you accept that experts are capable of accurate perceiving reality. If you don't, then you might as well trash all--and I do mean all--collected data, ever.

Ah - it's not anti-science-elitism, it's attacking what you don't understand.

Those who 'expert-ly' process data, do so with the udnerstanding of the limitations of their data. That it is always subject to perception doesn't make it useless, it just lets you know what your parameters are, and what you can reasonably use that data for.

I'd like to see you source that claim.

I'd say humans are notoriously easy to confuse, and notably poor perceivers of reality.
Totally different issue, though. Humans are easy to confuse, but humans specially trained as perceivers--experts--are generally fairly good perceivers of reality.



Which simply shows you haven't actually checked even the website FAQ of the people who processed the data, and presented several paragraphs of explanations of why the perception data is fundamentally flawed.

They did not say that their perception is fundamentally flawed, though. What they are admitting are the limitations of what they're measuring, but that doesn't make it irrelevant to what's at hand, that doesn't make it useless.

Any reasonable mind can make the association.



My 'precious science'? Okay - that made me laugh.

What's with the anti-science-elitism, all of a sudden? Just because pure application of the methodology disagrees with your opinion?

You clearly aren't understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that science is fundamentally limited by our ability, as human beings, by perception. That doesn't mean it doesn't reflect reality, it's just that it reflects, largely, our perception of reality.



Ah - it's not anti-science-elitism, it's attacking what you don't understand.

Those who 'expert-ly' process data, do so with the udnerstanding of the limitations of their data. That it is always subject to perception doesn't make it useless, it just lets you know what your parameters are, and what you can reasonably use that data for.

And, as has been said, it's reasonable to use this data to indirectly measure how corrupt the Russian government is.

Taking your pointers from an expert might be an appeal to authority. Saying 'all the experts say' is more of an appeal to consensus.

It's a hybrid appeal, that has greater value than an appeal to consensus, of course, but it also has a greater value than a mere appeal to authority, because it is an appeal to collective authority.



And this... makes my point for me?

Oh, trust me, I have plenty to add to the conversation, never mind that you'll ignore it, but I do.

Like my response to you "The US has alienated everybody since 2000" comment. The US has not alienated everyone, and when you were presented with evidence of this, you just simply let it slide.

I'm not, either, but I can still make sense of the reference...

I can too, but what moral imperative does it carry to me?

I can too, but what moral imperative does it carry to me?

I don't know?

Why does it have to have a moral imperative?

It's a hybrid appeal, that has greater value than an appeal to consensus, of course, but it also has a greater value than a mere appeal to authority, because it is an appeal to collective authority.


You're right. A combination of two fallacies, and it has a greater value as a fallacy because of it.


Oh, trust me, I have plenty to add to the conversation, never mind that you'll ignore it, but I do.


I think you misunderstand by 'not bringing anything'. I'm not saying you're silent. Quite the opposite.


Like my response to you "The US has alienated everybody since 2000" comment. The US has not alienated everyone, and when you were presented with evidence of this, you just simply let it slide.

It was a generalisation, and - as such - deserved to have holes shot in it. What, you want maybe I should put up resistance for something I had said that was obviously not universally true... just because I said it? I used a mode of speaking that invited the presentation of exceptions - I'd be a fool to continue in that mode.

They did not say that their perception is fundamentally flawed, though. What they are admitting are the limitations of what they're measuring, but that doesn't make it irrelevant to what's at hand, that doesn't make it useless.


Again, you clearly didn't read the source.


Any reasonable mind can make the association.


What is this? Logical fallacy week?


And, as has been said, it's reasonable to use this data to indirectly measure how corrupt the Russian government is.

Only if your dictionary defines 'reasonable' as 'wrong'.

I don't know?

Why does it have to have a moral imperative?

If he wants it to mean anything at all, then it needs it. Otherwise, it's just him sounding inverse-preachy.

Again, you clearly didn't read the source.
I clearly read it, and I read what they said. You read it and read what you wanted it to say.



What is this? Logical fallacy week?



Only if your dictionary defines 'reasonable' as 'wrong'.

It is reasonable to assert that if an overwhelming majority of experts on the matter of corruption are able to evaluate a state as being corrupt, then it is reasonable to use their authoritative opinions to argue as such.

You're right. A combination of two fallacies, and it has a greater value as a fallacy because of it.

In this case, the authorities opinions on how corrupt they view a state as being has value. This isn't Philosophy 162--this is the real world. Certain fallacies are of a lesser value than others.



I think you misunderstand by 'not bringing anything'. I'm not saying you're silent. Quite the opposite.

I am bringing something. I am bringing a voice of reason, not so esoteric a point of view as to make virtually any data that we can collect on the matter totally useless.



It was a generalisation, and - as such - deserved to have holes shot in it. What, you want maybe I should put up resistance for something I had said that was obviously not universally true... just because I said it? I used a mode of speaking that invited the presentation of exceptions - I'd be a fool to continue in that mode.

I used it as part of my argument that the US was actively seeking to develop new global partnerships, and that Russia fit quite closely with the other states who were desired as partners. Unfortunately for both parties, Russia wanted to grow its own relative well being, rather than its net well being.

That's why I even bothered to respond to the generalization.

If he wants it to mean anything at all, then it needs it. Otherwise, it's just him sounding inverse-preachy.

It can 'mean something', without having to have a 'moral imperative'... no?

I clearly read it, and I read what they said. You read it and read what you wanted it to say.


Since the source clearly identifies itself as something other than you keep arguing, and it's accompanying documents consistently point out that it doesn't say what you keep arguing...

I'd say you've probably got those two situations about as mis-attributed as is possible.


It is reasonable to assert that if an overwhelming majority of experts on the matter of corruption are able to evaluate a state as being corrupt, then it is reasonable to use their authoritative opinions to argue as such.

While I don't really want to get involved in the rather speculative argument about whether the 'experts' in question are actually 'experts on the matter of corruption', it is entirely secondary (in any case) to the fact that those 'experts' don't claim to have evaluated a state as being corrupt.

In this case, the authorities opinions on how corrupt they view a state as being has value. This isn't Philosophy 162--this is the real world. Certain fallacies are of a lesser value than others.


It's not the first time you've suggested this, I'm pretty sure. I think I've seen you present this precise argument before.

I don't buy it. I don't accept that there is a dress-down version of logic, and I'm not going to (not able to, perhaps) accept illogical leaps of faith, just because this isn't a rigourous enough environment, in your estimation.

I realise this is a problem for you, since it means that your arguments based on a false assumption aren't even accepted... but I'm strangely disinclined to consider that a failing.


I am bringing something. I am bringing a voice of reason,


Again, a world of peculiar definitions. In your lexicon, a 'voice of reason' is apparently synonymous with 'lower standards for debate'.


...not so esoteric a point of view as to make virtually any data that we can collect on the matter totally useless.


I'm still confused as to how you can consider 'accepting data as representative of what they ARE, rather than as something else'... as 'esoteric'.

It's not the first time you've suggested this, I'm pretty sure. I think I've seen you present this precise argument before.

I don't buy it. I don't accept that there is a dress-down version of logic, and I'm not going to (not able to, perhaps) accept illogical leaps of faith, just because this isn't a rigourous enough environment, in your estimation.

I realise this is a problem for you, since it means that your arguments based on a false assumption aren't even accepted... but I'm strangely disinclined to consider that a failing.

I'd also argue that the application of philosophical logic is imperfect, a fact that can be evidenced by the lack of philosophy majors, masters and PhD's in virtually any environment outside of academia. Further, it's quite true that while their import should be kept in mind, the more esoteric fallacies are close to useless in daily life, because their import is negligible.

And I realize that the standard to which you hold evidence is near paralyzing when it comes to making a decision.

Again, a world of peculiar definitions. In your lexicon, a 'voice of reason' is apparently synonymous with 'lower standards for debate'.

More specifically, an argument that we need not discard evidence because it is imperfect. We can reasonably extrapolate conclusions from otherwise useless data, because of the characteristics of the population. That the data says more than just the most rigid interpretation says.

And when we are dealing with something that's as opaque from direct, broad-based inspection as corruption, we can sythesize the opinions of experts on the topic who study the matter on a more micro level to get an acceptably accurate broader picture.

I'm still confused as to how you can consider 'accepting data as representative of what they ARE, rather than as something else'... as 'esoteric'.

Fundamentally, I'm willing to make a reasonable extrapolation from the data, whereas you are only willing to compartmentalize data to the point that it's useless.

Professionally, I'm a public administrator. My post-graduate degree is in that field, and even on the academic level, we've come to the realization that we have to make policy decisions based on imperfect and incomplete data, sometimes from non-direct sources. It's a fact of the social sciences. We aren't as easy to deal with as chemistry.

Since the source clearly identifies itself as something other than you keep arguing, and it's accompanying documents consistently point out that it doesn't say what you keep arguing...

I'd say you've probably got those two situations about as mis-attributed as is possible.
I'm saying that we can reasonably extrapolate from what it does say, what I am saying.



While I don't really want to get involved in the rather speculative argument about whether the 'experts' in question are actually 'experts on the matter of corruption', it is entirely secondary (in any case) to the fact that those 'experts' don't claim to have evaluated a state as being corrupt.
Are we now talking about two different sources, or something?

It can 'mean something', without having to have a 'moral imperative'... no?

No, not really.

No, not really.

So, "I am wearing a hat" has a moral imperative?

I'm saying that we can reasonably extrapolate from what it does say, what I am saying.


And, I'm saying that the source material makes it clear that that is not what the data represents, or is 'for'.


Are we now talking about two different sources, or something?

Only in as much as you seem to be envisioning the evidence - as given - as being a different source to that which it is.

So, "I am wearing a hat" has a moral imperative?

I am wearing a hat is a statement of fact. It does not indicate how I should live at least part of my life.

The passage from Matthew, while good advice, does.

And, I'm saying that the source material makes it clear that that is not what the data represents, or is 'for'.



Only in as much as you seem to be envisioning the evidence - as given - as being a different source to that which it is.

No, I'm seriously wondering if we're talking about the same data source. What are you talking about? I'm thinking there's a disconnect between what we're referencing.

I'd also argue that the application of philosophical logic is imperfect, a fact that can be evidenced by the lack of philosophy majors, masters and PhD's in virtually any environment outside of academia. Further, it's quite true that while their import should be kept in mind, the more esoteric fallacies are close to useless in daily life, because their import is negligible.


'Esoteric fallacies' like 'your data isn't what you say it is'?


And I realize that the standard to which you hold evidence is near paralyzing when it comes to making a decision.


Not at all. I have no problems with it.


More specifically, an argument that we need not discard evidence because it is imperfect. We can reasonably extrapolate conclusions from otherwise useless data, because of the characteristics of the population. That the data says more than just the most rigid interpretation says.


The data, in this case, is not 'imperfect' - it's just not what YOU want it to be.

It's an interesting way you have with the language... 'otherwise useless' data. If it doesn't mean what YOU want it to mean, you have no use for it. But you'll CLAIM an extrapolation from it, and claim it as valid.


And when we are dealing with something that's as opaque from direct, broad-based inspection as corruption, we can sythesize the opinions of experts on the topic who study the matter on a more micro level to get an acceptably accurate broader picture.


The point here, I think, is that we ARE talking about something that is opaque. All you can EVER get, is a guess. And, in this case, we haven't even got a 'guess', we've got an estimation of appearances.

"It looks like a car" doesn't tell me anything about the motive power or the means by which the object moves.


Fundamentally, I'm willing to make a reasonable extrapolation from the data, whereas you are only willing to compartmentalize data to the point that it's useless.


On the contrary, I am willing to compartmentalise data to the point that it is useful, based on what it is.


Professionally, I'm a public administrator. My post-graduate degree is in that field, and even on the academic level, we've come to the realization that we have to make policy decisions based on imperfect and incomplete data, sometimes from non-direct sources. It's a fact of the social sciences. We aren't as easy to deal with as chemistry.

Ah, there is the ipse dixit. Come in, we've been waiting for you.

Making decisions on incomplete or obtuse data may well be better than making no decisions at all.... but then again, your decisions could be wrong. I don't think you're standing here telling us that public administrators slash social scientists are always right, now, are you? That's one of the inherent risks in making judgements on indirect information... you can end up band-aiding non existant boo-boos.

I find it a little amusing that you assume that, because you know I'm a chemist, you infer I can be ONLY a chemist.

No, I'm seriously wondering if we're talking about the same data source. What are you talking about? I'm thinking there's a disconnect between what we're referencing.

There is.

I'm referencing actual data, and you're pretending it is something else.

I am wearing a hat is a statement of fact. It does not indicate how I should live at least part of my life.

The passage from Matthew, while good advice, does.

Because of who wrote it?

What if it was a quote from Harry Potter, instead?

Because of who wrote it?

What if it was a quote from Harry Potter, instead?

The fact that it's from a religious text is irrelevant. You can recognize that particular scripture as good advice without recognizing the overall moral authority of the Bible.

However, the fact remains that the flaws in the USian system are not comparable to those in the RUian.

Mere obfuscation.

You say so.
Yet your position is that US policy is good and Russia's policy is bad based on the personality Russia's leader.
I'm just pointing out that the reverse could be true.

And if I'm not Christian?


I'm not cristian either, but i did read the Bible, Apochripous Gospels, Kuran, Book of Mormon and the Upanishad for my personal culture.
The bible is not a hard book to get by so you could look up the maxim. It is quite a good maxim to live by.
Ignorance is never an excuse.

I can too, but what moral imperative does it carry to me?

Whatever you wish.
It was not intended as a moral imperative, it was intended to point out that you are judging things by double standards.
Both the US and URSS have strongly meddled in the affairs of both my countryes of origin so I don't personally have much love for either of them.
I'm quite tired though of this the USA may do it because they are good and Russia cannot because they are evil tirade since it is plainly not true.

However, the fact remains that the flaws in the USian system are not comparable to those in the RUian.

Oh, really?
Bush 2000 election... Putin whatever...
Gazprom affair... Halliburton affair...
US supporting Kosovo indipendence... RU supporting Suth Ossetia indipendence...
Iraq... Well no such a thing (preemptive aggression of an oversea country) from the RU of late...
Patriot act and official support of torture (IRC a no brainer according to Cheney)...
"Scooter" Libby...
Guantanamo...
Abu Ghraib...
KGB founding terrorists in Italy in the '70... CIA founding terrorists in Italy in the '70...

I don't think they are so much different. But that is my PERCEPTION...

Russia will place short-range Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad

Nothing wrong with that, its their territory after all, obviously NATO could reply by adding more missiles on its side but whatever.

and also install a radio-electronic device to scramble America’s missile-defence system

Would mean that its okay for NATO to jam any russian electronic assets anywhere in the world. If Medvedev thinks that its acceptable then its all fine.

Oh, really?
Bush 2000 election... Putin whatever...
Gazprom affair... Halliburton affair...
US supporting Kosovo indipendence... RU supporting Suth Ossetia indipendence...
Iraq... Well no such a thing (preemptive aggression of an oversea country) from the RU of late...
Patriot act and official support of torture (IRC a no brainer according to Cheney)...
"Scooter" Libby...
Guantanamo...
Abu Ghraib...
KGB founding terrorists in Italy in the '70... CIA founding terrorists in Italy in the '70...

I don't think they are so much different. But that is my PERCEPTION...

Maybe if Bush had marked the end of his term in power by becoming Speaker of the House, appointing his lawyer as the Republican party candidate in the next election and shifting political responsibility to his new role. While ensuring that the Democratic party are not functional and its members harrassed. Of course, every major media outlet would announce support for Bush and his lawyer as well. Then we can consider the two to be moving along the same lines.

Maybe if Bush had marked the end of his term in power by becoming Speaker of the House, appointing his lawyer as the Republican party candidate in the next election and shifting political responsibility to his new role. While ensuring that the Democratic party are not functional and its members harrassed. Of course, every major media outlet would announce support for Bush and his lawyer as well. Then we can consider the two to be moving along the same lines.

Bush hasn't actually ended his term, yet...

Part of an exchange between Sarkozy and Putin today: (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5147422.ece)

"I am going to hang Saakashvili by the balls," Mr Putin replied.

Mr Sarkozy responded: "Hang him?"

"Why not? The Americans hanged Saddam Hussein," said Mr Putin.

Mr Sarkozy replied, using the familiar "tu": "Yes but do you want to end up like (President) Bush?"

Mr Putin was briefly lost for words, then said: "Ah, you have scored a point there." Heh.

Part of an exchange between Sarkozy and Putin today: (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5147422.ece)

Heh.
Interesting indeed....and I'd like to see the Putin defenders defend him on that one.

What's even more interesting though...is that Putin speaks French??

Because Sarko doesn't speak Russian.

Important:

President Mikhail Saakashvili, who was in Paris to meet Mr Sarkozy today, laughed nervously when a French radio station read him the exchange. "I knew about this scene, but not all the details. It's funny, all the same," said the Georgian President.

Mr Putin's reported remarks appear to confirm that he was calling the shots in Moscow and not President Medvedev, who was Mr Sarkozy's host at the Kremlin meeting.

Saakashvili probably shit his pants...and so much for Russia's free, democratic transparent government.... ;)

Saakashvili probably shit his pants...and so much for Russia's free, democratic transparent government.... ;)
Back in January in a thread people had to bet two people who were going to die this year. Saakashvili was one of mine...I'm still somewhat confident. In free and democratic Russia, people who piss off the government have a high incidence of dying of strange causes.

Part of an exchange between Sarkozy and Putin today: (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5147422.ece)

Heh.

Braaainsss meet figurative language, figurative language meet Braaainsss...

Russians are fond of this kind of speeches, so? Notice when he is reported of making this remark...

Bush hasn't actually ended his term, yet...

If you consider him to have the political clout to pull that off then you certainly hold him in higher esteem than most people.

Back in January in a thread people had to bet two people who were going to die this year. Saakashvili was one of mine...I'm still somewhat confident. In free and democratic Russia, people who piss off the government have a high incidence of dying of free and democartic deaths.
Changed, even though it doesn't exactly make sense.:p

If you consider him to have the political clout to pull that off then you certainly hold him in higher esteem than most people.

I think he managed to get away with a number of things during two terms that were either very dubious, or actually un-Constitutional. I don't EXPECT him to make any big impact this late in the second term, but it's not impossible - just improbable. I'll think his chapter is about done, once a new President is in the White House.