A strange Invention

Submitted by Amin Riaz (United Kingdom), Jan 10, 2012 at 22:30

You couldn't even argue without lying, name calling, stereotyping, prejudice and petty personal insults. That is illogical.

Clearly a lie ... Amin, I have provide many links and facts. I also helped you with your lack of punctuation. I argured quite successfully that not only do you have poor English, but have absolutely no facts to refute my claims. Which is inherently logical. Your answer repeated often, actually to a point of tedium, is that I am lying. If my facts are wrong, why not provide facts that show you are correct then?. I have also taught you the meaning of what adjectives are, and what a lie is, what a s means at the end of a word, and many other things Taqiyya Amin. I have been very logical, supporting my views with numerous references. What have you taught us ?

Then why is that EVERY single response from you is filled with personal attack... just read the above...

I have twice/thrice pointed out that it is a logical fallacy....

----------------------------------

So where is that formula .... by which you proclaimed Arab countries had literacy levels of 10%. Whilst that is not what the figures show.

Pathetic ... Amin, Where did I say Arab literacy was10%?? Do I really have to explain every thing to you 3 or 4 times? ... I used your figure of 70% of Arabs are literate. That was your figure not mine. I stated no figure for Arabic literacy.

And where is that you have given evidence for your "UN" formula - 3 or 4 time? I have repeatedly asked.

"So are you proud only 10% of Arabic speakers would be considered educated?"

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/192207

No ... you pasted link to old figures. Which I took to be true... but was wrong myself. Later when I came across 2011 figures.

However, now take your time Amin, remember your mistakes about the print runs of 10,000 copies, so you have proved you have trouble following simple concepts. Concentrate!

That was your mistake. I had to get you to correct your self in being exact. And I was right.

I said that one method used to estimate the level of the population that is literate but consider uneducated, was to double the percentage of illiterate, to arrive at a figure. For the purposes of this definition it is defined as those with less than 4 years of formal education, hence uneducated but literate.

And I am SIMPLY asking whose METHOD is it ...... THAT IS ALL. DONT GIVE ME THE METHOD AGAIN. WHERE DID YOU GET IT?

This was your previous response:

"

However, did you realize that if 30% of Arabic speakers cannot read or write at all, this means that 60% of those that can read or write can do so only barely? Educators, as a rule of thumb, double the illiteracy rate to calculate the uneducated rate of less than 4 years of formal education as an estimate.

So are you proud only 10% of Arabic speakers would be considered educated?

Australia, for example, has 99% literacy, and therefore an estimated 2% of the population with less than 4 years of education.

"

And which educators..... where is the rule of thumb... who is it by...? I dont know it. That is what I have been asking for.

So what I said was that using this formula, 100% less 70% equals 30%. Arab illiteracy. Multiply 30% x 2 equals 60% estimated literate but uneducated.

How does multiplying the illiteracy rated by 2 come to 60% literate? We already know that 70% are literate according to the figures.....

Being literate means basic education ... able to read and write. And what are you taking as being educated?

-----------

Therefore 60% of the Arabic population would be estimated to have less than 4 years of formal education but be literate.

But we already know the literacy rate is at 70% - so why are you doubling the illiteracy rate - and then calling it 60% literate?

So how does one become literate without having less than 4 years of education. The UN would have set the bar at somewhere to differentiate between literate and illiterate. Or do they estimate using sample data.... hmm needs investigation.

----------

Therefore if 60% are literate but uneducated, and 30% are illiterate(your figures not mine) then only 10% would be estimated as educated. I cannot explain it a manner any more basic.

Wow - what a confused mess....

why would doubling the number of illiterates then subtracting from number of literates - show how many people are educated?

Who uses this ... and where has it come from - that is what I want to know.

Also what is your difference between educated and literate. Doesn't one need basic education to be literate in the first place.

-----------------

I think you invented this.... unless proven.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".