I had to stop when he showed a pie chart that said 4-8% but the sliver in the chart represented close to 2%.

I'm a supporter of an accelerated move to low carbon emission energy sources. However, this video used too many manipulative tactics and I couldn't even figure out the thesis. Is it, "company promoting itself is bad?" If you're consuming corporate promotions as if it's hard news, then you're failing a basic test of critical thinking skills.

At a life expectancy of 44 heart-disease for the Masaai is the least of their concerns.... but the it's also a myth that they have perfect health on beef https://nutritionstudies.org/masai-and-inuit-high-protein-diets-a-closer-look/

Traditional Okinawan's eat very little fish - less than 4% of their calories is from animal products.
https://www.superfoodly.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/pie-chart.png

These are the people who we now see living to well over 100 years old. Where as modern Okinawa's have a far worse life expectancy now that they have more animal foods in their diet.

Both of these cultures are further examples of how fewer animal foods in the diet always has better health outcomes.

And thanks to the vegan 7th Day Adventists in Loma Linda, we know that zero animal products has the best health outcomes.

This is a very strong indication that animal products are obsolete in the human diet.

>> ^sepatown:

i don't think he makes good points at all. without comparing those pie-charts to the pie-charts of other aid organizations, those percentage splits are meaningless. how does the layman watching the video know if 37% is a lot or not much? is 27% for awareness programs good or bad? who knows? how much of that 27% is essential for boosting their income?
also his problem with the Legacy Scholarship Fun is strange as well, he recognizes that it's a good program but has a problem with $1.1million being spent on 'only' 700-800 kids. once again, without context how do we know if that is bad? 1.1million by 800 kids is like $1400 bucks per kid, per year. that doesn't jump out at me as some insanely unjustifiable figure UNLESS YOU PROVIDE ME WITH CONTEXT which he fails to do, which is interesting because he spends some time attacking the fund for that exact thing.
the only thing more annoying than the people jumping to support this KONY thing by clicking 'like' and then feeling good about themselves are the people jumping just as quickly to the contrarian position and the demonizing this charity because they wanna be in that group that thinks that they're somehow smarter than everyone else because they've read on Reddit or a blog somewhere that Invisible Children's Accountability & Transparency only scored 2/4 on Charity Navigator and therefore must be a scam.


In a 12 minute video he's made some good points but it's clearly a starting point for a debate. He doesn't strike me as a contrarian but someone who's choosing to be reasonably sceptical.

Charities throughout the world too often get a free ride and I would not be surprised if the next big financial scandals are charity-related.

I haven't actually made it through the Kony video. I saw a twitter link with a breathless gushing exhortation to watch it and the first five minutes seemed to follow in that vein. I'd rather a more clear-headed appraisal rather than rushing to frame the subject emotionally.

i don't think he makes good points at all. without comparing those pie-charts to the pie-charts of other aid organizations, those percentage splits are meaningless. how does the layman watching the video know if 37% is a lot or not much? is 27% for awareness programs good or bad? who knows? how much of that 27% is essential for boosting their income?

also his problem with the Legacy Scholarship Fun is strange as well, he recognizes that it's a good program but has a problem with $1.1million being spent on 'only' 700-800 kids. once again, without context how do we know if that is bad? 1.1million by 800 kids is like $1400 bucks per kid, per year. that doesn't jump out at me as some insanely unjustifiable figure UNLESS YOU PROVIDE ME WITH CONTEXT which he fails to do, which is interesting because he spends some time attacking the fund for that exact thing.

the only thing more annoying than the people jumping to support this KONY thing by clicking 'like' and then feeling good about themselves are the people jumping just as quickly to the contrarian position and then demonizing this charity because they wanna be in that group that thinks that they're somehow smarter than everyone else because they've read on Reddit or a blog somewhere that Invisible Children's Accountability & Transparency only scored 2/4 on Charity Navigator and therefore must be a scam.

Did anyone else notice the pie-chart?

Well if that quote is where I think it is from, Mycrofthomlz has a solid case. This is just girls topless, different story is there might of been a pie chart or two in the back ground.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
One thing that's never mentioned in these cases is that the majority of our taxes goes to militarism, nation-building, corporate welfare and wars.
I haven't actually read all the comments on this thread yet, but I already see you've repeated this line twice here, and recently aimed it at me elsewhere, so let me just step in and point out that it's "never mentioned" because it's utterly and completely false.
Here's a breakdown of what our taxes go to. You'll notice that the slice of the pie for defense (including the wars) is 20%. That's not a "majority".
If you add together Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and other safety net programs, you get 55%. That happens to actually be a majority.
Also keep in mind that the Republicans don't want the defense budget cut at all, while the Democrats are putting most of their proposed cuts in defense.

The great thing about statistics is they change depending on where you get them. Here's one that claims defense spending is 25%.
But then there's this piechart which not only accounts what they claim to be 36% current defense spending budget (based on 2009), but also the past military expenses plus interest on that debt. That brings the percentage up to a majority of money spent on militarism. As I said.


That's why you have to pay attention to what you're looking at. My link and your first link are pretty much doing the same thing -- looking at the actual budget, and rolling things up into broad categories, while still telling you how the categories are comprised. Both show military spending to be sizable, but far less than a "majority" of spending. They both show a majority of spending going to social saftety net programs, too.

Your second link does claim military spending is a majority of government spending, but to do that they have to really twist the numbers. For example, they refuse to count outlays from "Trust Fund" programs as spending. That means they don't include Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid in their pie chart at all. Add that back in, and even their doubled figure for military spending still falls short of 50% of all spending.

The majority of our taxes go towards social safety net programs, not the military.

*quality pie chart in your link, @berticus!

of course, the working class knew which pie chart was the best reflection of the wealth disparity in the U.S.

So much for socioeconomic classes corresponding with intelligence!


The ongoing reports (and lack of action) about the catastrophe which has become the American economy are becoming the cause for tremendous disgust and indignation -- not least of which my own!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'chop, wood' to 'chop, wood, pie chart' - edited by ponceleon

so, i'm not sure how many states don't require/allow you to register to vote along certain party lines. i know texas doesn't. i'm sure there are more, but i have no idea how many. i doubt the pie chart would look like this if all registered votes were forced to claim party affiliation when they registered.

in my experience, the people i know who use the label "independent" are people who are mostly apolitical and maybe they vote, but only because they were told it's their right/civic duty. they also tend to vote to trivial things. and not trivial things like "that mans a goddman muslim" but trivial things like "this man feels more presidential".

i don't subscribe to party affiliation, if someone asks me i just tell them "i hate them all equally" or "none of the above" but i'm certainly not apolitical, and i certainly wouldn't use the word "independent"... if talking to someone who i actually want to have a political discussion with i'd probably identify more "anarcha-syndicalist".. or something. that's where the political compass puts me at least.... i really need to hang out more with my local wobblies... but i feel weird going there because i don't have a boss.

I noticed that they're only using asia as a single indicator. While I suppose that's good for pie charts and happy graphs. A single country(US) is still around 1/4 of the worlds GDP, dominating the entire AP region.

Yes!

Pie charts as well.

Here are a few more links relating to the poll if you want to look over the numbers yourself.

Nice pie charts - LiveScience

Official Harris Interactive site (most detail)


Text of the LiveScience article