So...show me facts? Or some sort of reasoning? I mean, throw me a bone here. You walked into a conversation where we're talking about gun deaths and said "gun deaths are irrelevant!! talk about deaths overall!" Well, no, because we're specifically talking about gun deaths. (Hey, if it makes you uncomfortable, maybe you could hit the range and blow off some steam with a little target practice!)
"You're rather presumptuous, provincial and frankly borderline racist".
We were talking about developed nations. A few different groups put together lists of developed nations, based on various criteria (income, health, whatever). Maybe you didn't actually know this, but that phrase is a, what do you call it, a term of art among economists and social scientists?
So I found one list that included Lithuania, and one that included Argentina. Didn't find one that included Turkey (and I'm not surprised, based on their economy, government, quality of life, etc). This, of course, isn't about race at all, but about the ways mainstream economists and social scientists talk about various countries.
If you think there's a racial component to "developed nations," by all means, take it up with the UN or the CIA or whoever. Hey, you can tell them it's irrelevant, too!
I've done nothing but that everywhere in this thread; and I'm the only one doing it, too. Maybe Wikipedia isn't serious enough for you; sorry that I didn't copy and paste the references at the bottom of the Wikipedia page as more 'authoritative'. But maybe Wikipedia is in on it, of course; it's well known to be a bastion of nut cases who are in bed with the Big Weapons lobby (/s, just to be sure). But feel free to point out any factual inaccuracies you find.
"We were talking about developed nations."
Sure, a criterion which you are reducing to 'GDP', because otherwise you can't end up with Western Europe only (OK, plus Australia). Which is a silly criterion, as evidenced by those economists and social scientists making different metrics, such as the human development index. And let that be exactly what I've referenced above! I seem to know much better than you what this term means, whereas you conveniently ignore half of what I'm writing.
"take it up with the UN or the CIA or whoever"
Many government organizations use 'developed nation' in a very specific, economic way; which essentially boils down to 'per capita income > some cutoff'. And as a metric for some economic behaviors or classification for regression analysis, this makes sense. But this is not the sort of 'developed' that matters in this discussion.
"If you think there's a racial component to "developed nations,""
OK, I've conceded before that that was a poor choice of words and I've replaced 'racist' with 'xenophobic'; it was not the objective to make this into a debate on how exactly to define racism in this context. That being said, I still don't see how you can explain your peculiar definition of 'developed' as anything else than 'racist'. I mean, having minimum sentences for crack (a 'black' drug) three times higher than those for cocaine (a 'white' drug) is racist; how is cherry picking a bunch of countries so that they're all conveniently predominantly white and then saying that all 'those others' are such a bunch of barbaric sub humans that they can't even be expected to not murder each other all day every day be construed as anything but 'racist'?
I know that you didn't use those words, and I don't even think you actually think that way (I mean, no sane person could think that way). That's why I said 'borderline' - because the underlying correlation there is clear, even if there any many ways to rationalize it away (because, surely, crack is more dangerous than powder cocaine, and redlining is not racist because hey our data shows that neighborhoods x, y and z have higher default rates - again, /s just to be sure).
So...show me facts? Or some sort of reasoning? I mean, throw me a bone here. You walked into a conversation where we're talking about gun deaths and said "gun deaths are irrelevant!! talk about deaths overall!" Well, no, because we're specifically talking about gun deaths. (Hey, if it makes you uncomfortable, maybe you could hit the range and blow off some steam with a little target practice!)
"You're rather presumptuous, provincial and frankly borderline racist".
We were talking about developed nations. A few different groups put together lists of developed nations, based on various criteria (income, health, whatever). Maybe you didn't actually know this, but that phrase is a, what do you call it, a term of art among economists and social scientists?
So I found one list that included Lithuania, and one that included Argentina. Didn't find one that included Turkey (and I'm not surprised, based on their economy, government, quality of life, etc). This, of course, isn't about race at all, but about the ways mainstream economists and social scientists talk about various countries.
If you think there's a racial component to "developed nations," by all means, take it up with the UN or the CIA or whoever. Hey, you can tell them it's irrelevant, too!