Yanis Varoufakis, in 'Talking to My Daughter About the Economy', asks why the Australians, when the British invaders came to pillage their resources, destroy their culture, and murder their people, did not retaliate by invading Britain. Why did they not build an ocean-going fleet, load it with soldiers, arms and ammunition, sail it up the Thames, and lay waste to Sussex, Suffolk and the rest of the Home Counties? The answer, of course, is that the Australians were many marbles short of the technology that would enable them to do this. So that means that it was all right for the Brits to do what they did, doesn't it? As a second example of something similar, I recently had a conversation with a Scottish opponent of independence who had run for the hills after the close shave of the 2014 referendum, emigrated to Maine in the USA, and set up her own business designing and marketing household utensils. Ninety-five percent (or some similar and improbably high figure) of Scottish...
"Scottish people"
ReplyDelete*Some* Scottish people?
*Many* Scottish people?
*Most* Scottish people?
The *average* Scottish person?
Paul, this is chop-logic. You know perfectly well what it means, and it means all of them. Take the proposition that Dutch people are taller than Chinese. This means that the Dutch person of average Dutch height (that is, the sum of the heights of all Netherlanders divided by the number of Netherlanders) is taller than his counterpart, the Chinese person af average Chinese height; the tallest Dutchman is taller than the tallest Chinese person; the shortest Dutch person is taller than the shortest Chinese person; and for each percentile (top 10percent, second 10percent etc.) the Dutch person at that boundary is taller than the Chinese person at the corresponding Chinese boundary. So it's true for everybody, and you know that - think curves of normal distribution. Similarly, Scottish people have stronger egalitarian aspirations than English people.
ReplyDelete