Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jimbob
I've always been good at logic and analysis so I'll analyze that. First, you misquote him. He didn't refer to the citizens of any nation except to say that they thought their governments should do more: "People say we should give what we give now or more"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1309924/posts |
Umm, at the most, I will agree that I paraphrased his statement. He did not refer to citizens, as I did in my statement. Look at this direct quote of Egelund, as per your reference site and mine: "Christmastime should remind
many Western countries how rich we have become, and
if actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income, I think that is stingy, really." Egelund refers to "Western countries", so not just the US qualifies - but it DOES qualify. Foreign assistance could mean governmentally-provided foreign aid, I suppose, as well as charitable donations. However, who is the ultimate source for the monies provided by the US government for foreign aid - yep - US citizens. How about for charitable aid originating from the US? I'm guessing that it is primarily from US citizens. Hence my inclusion of citizens. But, he very well may NOT have meant the US, since he did not specifically mention any country.
Quote:
Second, you put words in his mouth that he never even tried to say. Perhaps you should put 'FACT:' before the 0.017% bit, as without that it suggests those are Egeland's words. He didn't single out any country.
So what can we deduce about his views on the citizens of the United States from his statement? Well all he says is that they want the government to give at least as much as they do now. If 0.017% is true then the word 'stingy' can be used to describe Egeland's view of the US government in this case, following the logic you describe.
|
Oops! You are right - I left out the FACT qualifier in my logic. It can be read as if I'm saying that Egelund said that, and he absolutely did not. So, given what I've covered so far, let's change that "logic" statement I wrote to the following:
STATEMENT #1: Many Western countries have become rich. STATEMENT #2: If actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income, I (Jan Egeland) think that is stingy. FACT: The United States gives a total of 0.017% of GDP to foreign assistance. THEREFORE: The United States is stingy.
Quote:
|
So to demonise the UN as much as possible the article could have had Egeland asserting "Americans want their government to be less stingy". (I still wouldn't be happy with that as it implies that Egeland thinks his view of stinginess is shared by those Americans who tell him their government should give more, and he's not suggested that in his statement. It also suggests he thinks there is a consensus when he may percieve those views as belonging only to a majority.) This could be twisted into a report on how a UN official is out of touch (I suspect) with the bulk of US public opinion but as such I'm sure it's unlikely to have been published.
|
Well, Mr. Egeland clearly DOES believe that, and to quote "all the populations, in the United States, in the European Union, in Norway which is number one in the world, we want to give more as...as voters as taxpayers." He preceded this statement with one that showed that he believes that politicians do not understand voter positions on the issue. It appears to me that he feels that he knows the charitable intents of the citizens of the US, the EU, and his homeland better than their own politicians do. Without any backup (and I would hardly expect him to be producing any in that setting) I find that to be rather arrogant. If the US media had picked up on that, they may very well have published.