Again, the coming out of a dictatorship mentality and uber hard access to superior education in Chily makes me frown. They are far from being a miserable country or anything like that, but I'm honestly surprised on what elements they managed to keep such a great ranking.
In France, the political comentators -which are french, so they aren't exent from bias-, say that one of the issues with these rankings is that they accumulate characteristics that describe nordic countries quite well, so nordic countries always tend to rank high.
In a much more serious note, there is no way that ranking takes into account the sheer awesomeness of local food.
Edit: Ah, I just noticed they include divorce rates. Then I guess I understand why France is screwed.
Originally posted by Bardock42
But we all agree that it is quite arbitrary and if one chose different factors, or chose to weigh them differently, one would arrive at a very different list which is just as meaningful...yes?
Then again I doubt the Economist Intelligence Unit had a hidden agenda to promote preselected countries, especially considering Britain's ranking.
Originally posted by BentleyAnother way to interpret divorce rates is through a positive perspective.
Edit: Ah, I just noticed they include divorce rates. Then I guess I understand why France is screwed.
A country that has higher divorce rates could indicate the ease of the divorce process, cultural acceptability of the divorce process, and the freedom it presents for women.
So a higher divorce rate could be seen as a benefit.
Dare I say that "measure" has the divorce issue wrong?
That is just one of many different, subjective, ways to approach the topic of "best." 🙂
This is why those indices are shite: they are quite subjective.
As I said in another thread, Australia has no business being in the top 10 with their fascist censorship of the internet and other oppressive laws.
Originally posted by Astner
If they were to conduct the research in a different way they'd probably end up with a different, yes.Then again I doubt the Economist Intelligence Unit had a hidden agenda to promote preselected countries, especially considering Britain's ranking.
You don't need to have an agenda for your "findings" to be meaningless.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Divorce is good but censorship is bad? What are you? American?!
Divorce can be good if it is viewed from the perspective of "women are oppressed in most of the world and, therefore, do not have fair access to divorces: socially, legally, and financially."
Divorce can be bad if viewed from the perspective of "children are measurably suffering* from the amount of single parents homes who are headed, overwhelmingly, by single mothers."
*Abuse, poverty, hunger, lack of education, lack of discipline: the whole deal. Basically, it puts a bad burden on a single mother to raise children in this modern world. At least, that is what the research has lead me to believe. You may not agree but I would much rather see two moms or two dads raise children than only 1 mom or only 1 dad…based solely on the facts about the conditions for children in homes (the research shows 2 moms or 2 dads do a much better job, on average, than a single parents...).
Edit - Edited for spelling, grammar, and punctuation. I have to use IE at work so I have to rely only on my eyes for proofreading. 😠
Originally posted by dadudemon
Divorce can be good if it is viewed from the perspective of "women are oppressed in most of the world and, therefore, do not have fair access to divorces: socially, legally, and financially."