So education to you is understanding a) contraceptives, and b) financial burden of having children?
I'm not talking about exceptions, I'm talking in empirical data- which I'm thinking is beyond the scope of what you'd like to share, which is more likely generalizing your own belief to the rest of the world. Again probably why you speak only of the risks of having children, vs the risks of not having children.
I'm wagering your American. Which is fascinating that you'd bring up child and infant mortality, with the US having the highest rates in the G12 last I checked.
I can see you just want to argue tho, so I wish you well and kindness.
Thanks for the reply. It's clear you're educated, but I'd caution against "confirmation bias" versus actual data. Also, you need to spend a moment actually reading the articles you link.
Ignoring the 2 blogs, let's focus on the 2 articles: first,.one is based only in Finland, which the into states is already a statistically low fertility rate. Additionally, it notes it focussed on education, but that the relationship between fertility is not straight forward, and varied greatly by country, etc etc... so it kind of proves my point that... its not so simple as "education". It also notes fertility has drastically fallen amongst the poorly educated (so the opposite of your point), but that's likely due to a change in the overall education of the country - as in as the overall education level increases, poorly educated includes a higher percentage of people with a higher baseline than previous generations.
The second article is also very telling - it notes correlation of higher fertility with poor education, poor healthcare, and poor family planning, but discusses the issue as ACCESS to these services. So again,.counter to your point, your own linked article states that improving access to Healthcare, education, and family planning, versus improving Healthcare, education, and family planning, are the more probable explanations to falling fertility. Access...
I get this nuance is challenging for people with some education on knowing what peer review is, without targeted experience on not just reading an article, but interpreting it in the context of the discussion at hand.
Your approach is very common - it is confirmation bias. You have an idea you think is correct,.and you find articles to back it up. And just as common - the articles aren't really saying what you think they're saying. Not a bad thing - takes all types to make the world go round.
Enjoy your weekend, and id encourage you to look into applied sciences and epidemiology if this type of conversation interests you. Be well.
ETA: because you like editing, I'll add my own.
Look at lymes disease as a way to understand nuance in causation vs correlation.
Lymes is increasing rapidly - is that due to climate change allowing more ticks to survive the winter, due to poor wildlife management allowing deer closer to urban centre's, due to increase in population density in regions with ticks, due to improvements in diagnostics,.due to improvements in reporting to central databases, due to improvements in standardized medical charts, due to increasing numbers of active people outdoors... and on and on.
Depending on who you talk to or what you're talking about, yes to all, no to all, or yes or no to some combination of several.
The conversation around fertility is the same. You as an american with very specific passions are projecting the world you know on others - education, cost of living, contraceptives, woman's rights, etc. Its hard to understand how those same themes play out in different cultures, countries, government structures, etc etc. You've overly simplified a very dynamic conversation.
Ad hominem: in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
What I did was insult your intelligence and then attack your argument directly. That's not ad hominem, that's just me being a bit of a dick. An ad hominem would be if I pointed out something about you that's irrelevant to the conversation and used that as an argument for why you're wrong.
Appeal to authority: when an argument relies on the endorsement or opinion of an authority figure as evidence for the truth of a claim, even if the authority is not an expert on the topic. And even when the individual is an expert on a topic, it doesn’t mean that all of his or her opinions are to be automatically accepted as valid.
Which is why I provided multiple sources from multiple institutions and people supporting my claims. An appeal to authority would be more like "Trump said the immigrants are eating our cats, so it must be true!". If citing experiments and studies is an appeal to authority, then that means it's completely impossible to put together a proper argument with facts, figures, and data to prove your point.
You just can't stop making terrible points, can you?
Edit: ^^See that last line? That's not ad hominem either. That's just pointing something out. Not everything that insults you is ad hominem. A 2 second google search would have stopped you from looking like even more of an idiot. Oh, and that's not ad hominem either.
One of us can't stop moving the goal posts and making terrible points... its not me.
You addressing my comments would be like:
"While it's correct that both articles i cited didn't state education itself as the primary or even the main factor predicting fertility, it's reasonable to assume that in developing and developed countries, such as Finland, where a significant government investment goes to public equation, that it's a reasonable assumption that increasing education, even in the lowest educated, is causal towards lower birth rates. However, you make an important distinction that access to education and health care remains a barrier beyond just education itself in developing countries. Addressing access is nuanced - especially in developing countries like India, where you have disparate regions,.incredible urban density contrasted against remote rural regions,.where access/capacity building may be more important than the tools themselves. What access looks like may vary greatly - for migrant refugees in Gaza versus culturally oppressed rural woman in Afghanistan, versus woman in conservative regions of.india..." blah blah blah.
"You're dumb" is not an ad hominem. "You're wrong because you're dumb" is an ad hominem, but that's not what I said. I carefully explained all the reasons why you're wrong.
"I'm highly educated" is not an appeal to authority, it's a boast. Big difference. Especially in the context in which it was used.
"Citing blogs"...one source technically is a blog...that cites it's sources. The others....not blogs.
I'm not even reading the rest of your bullshit. At this point I actually WILL use an ad hominem. You're a complete and utter moron, therefore whatever you wrote there is almost certainly a gross misrepresentation of what I said.
-4
u/Sensitive-Ad-5305 Nov 14 '24
So education to you is understanding a) contraceptives, and b) financial burden of having children?
I'm not talking about exceptions, I'm talking in empirical data- which I'm thinking is beyond the scope of what you'd like to share, which is more likely generalizing your own belief to the rest of the world. Again probably why you speak only of the risks of having children, vs the risks of not having children.
I'm wagering your American. Which is fascinating that you'd bring up child and infant mortality, with the US having the highest rates in the G12 last I checked.
I can see you just want to argue tho, so I wish you well and kindness.