You don’t need accuracy, you need relevance. 25,000 dead people is as relevant as 25,000 dead children.
In the context of the rest of your comments this sentence is mind blowing to me.
You argue about relevance and that the number really doesn’t matter all that much and can’t see why people criticize your argument about transgender people dying being not as relevant as non-transgender people dying?
Yes. I don’t know if you’ve taken any maths classes recently but 25,000 is a lot more than 1, and 5,000–10,000 (a conservative estimate of how many are children) is also a lot more than 1.
Therefore the point ‘a lot more children are dying from poverty’ is served exactly the same by 25,000 people as by 25,000 children. In exactly the same way as rounding the number up or down doesn’t make any difference to the argument.
I could equally have just said ‘thousands’ and the argument would be identical.
But you already know this. If this newspaper article had an error in the dates, or referred to a child (but the victim turned out to be 19), or mentioned they were from Oregon, when in fact it was Washington, you would not be trying to claim their whole argument is now redundant. So let’s cut the crap shall we?
most of them are in African areas that are considered a war zone (Sudan)
And if you want to make a point, you have to have accuracy or your point is shit and it relects on you as being a shitty communicator
No, you really don’t. The accurate figure is not 25,000 either. I rounded up. Did that matter? No.
You don’t need accuracy, you need relevance. 25,000 dead people is as relevant as 25,000 dead children.
If it were not relevant you’d be arguing that instead of relying on petty nitpicking.
In the context of the rest of your comments this sentence is mind blowing to me.
You argue about relevance and that the number really doesn’t matter all that much and can’t see why people criticize your argument about transgender people dying being not as relevant as non-transgender people dying?
Yes. I don’t know if you’ve taken any maths classes recently but 25,000 is a lot more than 1, and 5,000–10,000 (a conservative estimate of how many are children) is also a lot more than 1.
Therefore the point ‘a lot more children are dying from poverty’ is served exactly the same by 25,000 people as by 25,000 children. In exactly the same way as rounding the number up or down doesn’t make any difference to the argument.
I could equally have just said ‘thousands’ and the argument would be identical.
But you already know this. If this newspaper article had an error in the dates, or referred to a child (but the victim turned out to be 19), or mentioned they were from Oregon, when in fact it was Washington, you would not be trying to claim their whole argument is now redundant. So let’s cut the crap shall we?
“25,000 children”
Name one.