Well here is the problem with your example, you are not using "evidence", because the person has only presented you with the problem, but has not provided you with any evidence. You are just identifying the problem, and then jumping to your own conclusion. You are forming a hypothesis of the possible reasons. Hypothesis do not require evidence, because they are hypothetical.
If the person had presented you with evidence, for example, mentioning that the previous day he had taken a walk while it was raining, that would then constitute data to backup a conclusion, thus forming a theory.
And if this person had taken a walk while it was raining, AS WELL AS being exposed to a sick person the previous day? So how come the two of us still arrived at different conclusions?
Your example situation is just bad, and the example exemplifying your example makes even less sense.
If you think my example is bad, come up with your own. I want to see whether you can illustrate your point that my example makes no sense.
Because you used skin color as an argument for belonging into the same category (1st, 2nd, 3rd world) as one of the only 2 connections you could provide, but said connection renders the point moot because people from Europe have similar skin tones as people from South America (both white and brown). It is a contradiction within itself.
I never said that it's possible to categorize people into 1st, 2nd...etc worlds just by skin colour. My main point is that there is commonality among third-worlders. If you think skin colour is not a good criterion, I can come up with other things. For example, all third-worlders come from countries that are h*ll-holes. They are all less developed economically. There are probably more. My point is, "third-worlders" is a term that works. People know what you mean when you say it. It is not outdated, it is not invalid. It is a useful term, because it concisely denotes one group of humans.
Sure they do, I just pointed out earlier that the term does not have anything to do with skin color, something you used to link together countries in order to place them on the same category.
I never said the third-worlders are determined solely be skin colour. I also did not say I could link countries together by skin colour. I was just trying to find examples of commonality. Speaking of which, why do you have no problems with calling Americans Americans (when there are also many differences among them), but you object to calling people third-worlders? Both terms encompass huge swaths of people that are very different in many ways.
I just pointed out it was wrong, and you asked me for me to explain to you what was the origin of such terminology. I provided the explanation because you requested it.
How does explaining the origin of a terminology prove that it's wrong?
Sure you did, your claim is the second post on this thread. You haven't provided evidence because you don't seem to be able to come up with something backing your point, otherwise you would have by now and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Then you could have asked me to back up my claim. But just because I haven't done so, it does not mean you don't have to back up your claims, either. And you most certainly should not be relying on someone else' work to prove your point. You don't seem to get this. You wont even acknowledge it, despite the fact I have brought it to your attention numerous times. I really think you are intellectually dishonest.
I have provided you with data that shows the conditions in which different migrant groups live in the aformentioned countries,
Data only show facts. They don't give you conclusions. And they most certainly do not prove causal relationships. If I say, the Japanese have a GDP of 1 trilliion USD annually, and they have the world's largest share of people over 100 years old, these are facts and data, however they do not tell me things like, "Japan is successful because of its education system".
Similarly, the stuff you linked to only tells us about facts. I did not read much of it at all, but I imagine it says things like, the Sikhs and Hindus have fewer children, they have low crime rates, and they are this and that. These are all facts, which I do not dispute. However, these things alone do not tell me that these people are successful
because of it. This is the causal relationship that your links fail to provide, and is what I have issues with.
revealing some groups are at large much more succesful than others and are perfectly capable of adapting and respecting the laws of the country they settle in, regardless of a massive diference in cultural or ethnical similarity with the "host" population. Thus disproving your point.
I don't understand why you seem to think respecting the laws of the host country is some sort of achievement. People do not want to go to jail, so they obey the laws. It's not because they respect the spirit of the law, or that they are fully in tune with the values of the host country. It's because they dont want to go to jail.
I mean, I also obey the laws of my host country, but I can honestly say I have done pretty much nothing to advance my country, or improve the lot of the people who received me. I imagine this is the case with the vast majority of these immigrant groups in UK.
This leaves us with finding another reasons as to why other migrant groups seem to fail to adapt, and thats when I presented evidence regarding education and income and factors that would influence a group's chance of succes or not. At that point you began complaining about "posting data" and we stopped having that discussion, to instead discuss your missgivings for being unable to read facts.
I already told you I did not read much of what you posted, and it was due to unwillingness, not inability to read facts. Why do you keep lying? Did you even read what I wrote? Do you think if you repeat a lie many times, you will appear to be less of a loser?
