You're viewing part of a thread.
Americans couldn't find Iraq and Afghanistan on maps during those wars despite the latter lasting 20 Years and Americans being involved in them.
https://media.nationalgeographic.org/assets/file/Roper-Poll-2006-Highlights.pdf
Why is it different today?
There was those great videos of a presenter asking people on the street to point out various countries on a world map that didn't have the country names.
Answers were.... interesting, to say the least.
Like I said: “I’d suspect the numbers would still be worse than they should be”
But also, you’re doing it again. You’re saying “despite the latter [Afghanistan] lasting 20 years,” but dude you linked images from 2006. It hadn’t been 20 years yet. In fact, that data is from nearly 20 years ago!
That is, again, extremely misleading data to support the argument you’re making.
I literally asked why it is different today from 2006.
How is that misleading?
I made no attempt to hide it was from 2006.
It's also a question you didn't answer. So it's pretty rich to suggest I'm the one being dishonest here.
How would I know if it is or isn’t different today based on your comment? How am I supposed to answer that question? By asking that, you are asserting that it is different today. Yet you have given no numbers for what it is today for the same countries on that image.
You know that, and you are trying to sidestep me now while accusing me of sidestepping. Why is that? You said in the beginning of your comment:
Americans couldn't find Iraq and Afghanistan on maps during those wars despite the latter lasting 20 Years and Americans being involved in them.
You are saying here that those wars lasted a long time, and one lasted 20 years, and despite that, Americans couldn’t find those countries on maps during those wars. But the data is from the beginning of that time period. So after 20 years yes obviously the numbers would change. But that data doesn’t say that. That data is the starting point. A lazy reader might very easily think that data supported your point. Same as your previous comment I took issue with.
That's one way to pretend you never said I was being misleading about the year when I wasn't, I suppose.
Do you have a specific rebuke for something I said where you can logically point out where I’m wrong or are you just hand-waving?
Yes, my specific rebuke is that I was not misleading when I showed what were clearly charts from 2006 since they said they were from 2006 at the bottom and then asking what is different today.
I know you think we can move past that lie, but I'm not going to.