EPT2010 global peace index - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Lexpar
1813 Posts
| ||
|
Hier
2391 Posts
| ||
|
Not_A_Notion
Ireland441 Posts
On September 09 2010 05:54 deconduo wrote: #6 Not bad. Probably dropped a bit because of the whole thing in northern ireland. Would be pretty annoying if that was the case seeing as it's a different country. If it was part of the Republic we'd be way down the list alright.Pretty sure the average man on the street would balk at the figures given, electoral process 9.58/10 corruption perceptions 8/10 ^^ Seems reasonably (negatively) correlated with the failed states index and positively with the Human Development Index. | ||
|
CrimsonLotus
Colombia1123 Posts
Well, at least it's an improvement, ten years ago it would have been last place. | ||
|
Ichabod
United States1659 Posts
| ||
|
Hobot
Canada17 Posts
On September 09 2010 06:04 Jibba wrote: Because the people who made the index don't know very much. There's a lot of arbitrary values given, and I'm sure they're simply unaware of the dealings of the powerful countries. These are very sweeping judgments. Just because you don't agree with their conclusions, they're automatically ignorant/retarded? They have a 63 page report on their methodology and results, did you happen to go through any of it? Do you have any specific criticism of their metrics beyond "obviously it's retarded"? I agree that any time you try to rate countries by something as complex and ambiguous as "peace" or the like you're automatically oversimplifying, but it doesn't mean that the information is totally useless or wrong. The US really isn't a very peaceful country, and it shouldn't be surprising to learn that. Starting unprovoked wars in other countries does not make you a peaceful country. When you spend as much on defense as the rest of the world does (or 9 times China's military budget) you're not a peaceful country. When you have 5% of the world's population but 23% of the world's prison population then you're not a peaceful country. When you have one of the highest homicide rates in the industrialized world (5.4 per 100k in the US, 2.36 in China) then you're not a peaceful country. | ||
|
Dreamscythe
Finland273 Posts
| ||
|
Alou
United States3748 Posts
| ||
|
Railz
United States1449 Posts
On September 09 2010 06:43 Hobot wrote: These are very sweeping judgments. Just because you don't agree with their conclusions, they're automatically ignorant/retarded? They have a 63 page report on their methodology and results, did you happen to go through any of it? Do you have any specific criticism of their metrics beyond "obviously it's retarded"? I agree that any time you try to rate countries by something as complex and ambiguous as "peace" or the like you're automatically oversimplifying, but it doesn't mean that the information is totally useless or wrong. The US really isn't a very peaceful country, and it shouldn't be surprising to learn that. Starting unprovoked wars in other countries does not make you a peaceful country. When you spend as much on defense as the rest of the world does (or 9 times China's military budget) you're not a peaceful country. When you have 5% of the world's population but 23% of the world's prison population then you're not a peaceful country. When you have one of the highest homicide rates in the industrialized world (5.4 per 100k in the US, 2.36 in China) then you're not a peaceful country. The amount of women in government didn't seem a bit arbitrary to you (Just as example of what he meant by arbitrary) ? Besides it is all subjective. To someone living inside the US it is peaceful, but we don't try to hide the fact that we'll protect interests abroad. The US is far too large, as is China and India to rate it as such. The list doesn't go into detail if it means peaceful to others or ourselves. It isn't that I don't agree with it, I'm just not sure what the fuck the GPI even means, it has no substance, nothing of value. | ||
|
Sfydjklm
United States9218 Posts
Apparently USA which leads wars non stop is more peaceful then Belarus which hadnt ever engaged in a war on its own authority. | ||
|
Nephrahim
United States38 Posts
Any list like this will be partially subjective. You can't really objectively measure something as vague as "Peacefulness" But they do seem to do a decent job. | ||
|
Alou
United States3748 Posts
On September 09 2010 07:24 Sfydjklm wrote: this is a retarded list. Apparently USA which leads wars non stop is more peaceful then Belarus which hadnt ever engaged in a war on its own authority. Not engaging in war does not necessarily mean a country is peaceful. Plenty of domestic issues that could affect Belarus. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 09 2010 06:43 Hobot wrote: No, because international relations and security is what I specialize in and looking at their criteria and the questionable rankings for certain countries in certain categories, I've judged they don't know what they're talking about. Occasionally people on TL are more than just SC players.These are very sweeping judgments. Just because you don't agree with their conclusions, they're automatically ignorant/retarded? Don't think I made that judgment simply because I'm an American. I understand much of our place in international security and I'm well aware that more death and destruction comes by way of our presence across the globe than anyone else (Russia isn't far behind.) It's still bullshit to take an abstraction such as peace and attain values to figures like prison populations or number members in the armed forces or donations to the UN, as if there is a formula for attaining peace. Following UN protocol, following the wills of every country in 1-10, plenty of horrible, "unpeaceful" things have happened in the world. Would you like to review why the Treaty of Amsterdam took high priority after the mid-90s? Why an economic union suddenly made high priority of democratic rights and human security? Not conducting war is not always conducive to world peace, only to the people who don't have to fight in it. | ||
|
Sfydjklm
United States9218 Posts
On September 09 2010 07:28 Alou wrote: Not engaging in war does not necessarily mean a country is peaceful. Plenty of domestic issues that could affect Belarus. which means that the list is purposefully mislable to create sensationalism spin and hence makes it's credibility questionable. Also, again, US has a lot more internal issues then just about any other country out there with exceptions of the "hot spots" which are basically war zones. | ||
|
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
On September 09 2010 07:17 Railz wrote: the list is plenty clear on that. the answer is obviously both, as no norrowing down was outlined and the factors taken into account work towards both ends.The list doesn't go into detail if it means peaceful to others or ourselves. On September 09 2010 07:17 Railz wrote: how is that so? how does the size have anything to do with peacefulness or tendency towards peace, as you might want to paraphrase it? the gpi is as "arbitrary" as any other rating you can possibly come up with. the only substance it has are the criteria it is made up from, and from what i can see these are mostly sensible in this case.The US is far too large, as is China and India to rate it as such. | ||
|
Alou
United States3748 Posts
On September 09 2010 07:33 Sfydjklm wrote: which means that the list is purposefully mislable to create sensationalism spin and hence makes it's credibility questionable. Also, again, US has a lot more internal issues then just about any other country out there with exceptions of the "hot spots" which are basically war zones. I'm not saying the list is entirely accurate. I haven't spent the time looking at all the factors and what went into it for them to make a list. Usually lists are stupid. I'm just saying your first statement was rather ridiculous. | ||
|
Sfydjklm
United States9218 Posts
On September 09 2010 07:34 Alou wrote: I'm not saying the list is entirely accurate. I haven't spent the time looking at all the factors and what went into it for them to make a list. Usually lists are stupid. I'm just saying your first statement was rather ridiculous. when i wrote it i was under assumption that by peace they actually meant peace | ||
|
Hobot
Canada17 Posts
On September 09 2010 07:17 Railz wrote: The amount of women in government didn't seem a bit arbitrary to you (Just as example of what he meant by arbitrary) ? Besides it is all subjective. To someone living inside the US it is peaceful, but we don't try to hide the fact that we'll protect interests abroad. The US is far too large, as is China and India to rate it as such. The list doesn't go into detail if it means peaceful to others or ourselves. Did you read the report? It'll answer a lot of your questions. No, the number of women in government does not seem entirely arbitrary to me. An equal and egalitarian society tends to be peaceful, women in government is an indication of that (a small indication yes, but it doesn't have a large impact on the rating anyway). A country that respects women and treats them as equals is more peaceful for women. Maybe you remember the Taliban and how they treated women? And I don't know if I agree that someone living in the US will find it more peaceful than someone living in New Zealand for example. There is a lot more crime in the US, you're more likely to be murdered in the US than in New Zealand. The US government also doesn't respect its citizens' rights as much as in a country like New Zealand. Warrantless wiretapping ring a bell? How about selling out your Social Security? On September 09 2010 07:17 Railz wrote: It isn't that I don't agree with it, I'm just not sure what the fuck the GPI even means, it has no substance, nothing of value. Perhaps you could read the report. Your ignorance does not mean it has "no substance" or is of no value. | ||
|
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
On September 09 2010 07:36 Sfydjklm wrote: when i wrote it i was under assumption that by peace they actually meant peace they do, and factors like tendency towards violence (crimes, protests, etc), prison population, ... are an indicator for the peacefulness of a nation/society. i dont see where you are pulling a contradiction from here. | ||
|
Hobot
Canada17 Posts
On September 09 2010 07:32 Jibba wrote:No, because international relations and security is what I specialize in and looking at their criteria and the questionable rankings for certain countries in certain categories, I've judged they don't know what they're talking about. Occasionally people on TL are more than just SC players. Don't think I made that judgment simply because I'm an American. I understand much of our place in international security and I'm well aware that more death and destruction comes by way of our presence across the globe than anyone else (Russia isn't far behind.) It's still bullshit to take an abstraction such as peace and attain values to figures like prison populations or number members in the armed forces or donations to the UN, as if there is a formula for attaining peace. Following UN protocol, following the wills of every country in 1-10, plenty of horrible, "unpeaceful" things have happened in the world. I understand people here are more than just SC players, but I can't tell why you made a judgement or what intellectual background you have. You didn't back up your assertion with any kind of reason except to accuse them of being ignorant. You still haven't definitively shown that the study's authors don't know what they're talking about. I don't think you can even do that since any judgement about what country is more peaceful will be somewhat subjective. How can you say what pieces of data are more important or what should be included and what shouldn't? Anyway you look at it, something will seem arbitrary, but that doesn't totally invalidate everything else. Your concern about ranking countries according to a rather nebulous concept like peace is addressed in the report itself. They explain their motives and attempts to quantify a qualitative assessment. | ||
| ||
