In the more tedious parts of this internet this would be called a “red herring” argument.
Yes it’s an interesting idea, but it has little bearing on you having used a study with a clearly defined scope to support a claim that is outside of that scope.
No, sorry; I meant what in the terms of the study makes you think your interpretation is valid? You do have access to it, after all it’s publicly available data, so can you please show me where in the explanation of scope from the study that your interpretation is somehow valid?
The data represents how people feel about their systems, and I believe that’s good evidence for how comprehensively democratic a system is, as democracy is will be the majority.
Kinda. Still, I pretty clearly believe that people’s perceptions are the most important for seeing how democratic a system is.
In the more tedious parts of this internet this would be called a “red herring” argument.
Yes it’s an interesting idea, but it has little bearing on you having used a study with a clearly defined scope to support a claim that is outside of that scope.
I disagree that it’s outside the scope.
Why? It’s quite explicit.
I have been explicit already.
No, sorry; I meant what in the terms of the study makes you think your interpretation is valid? You do have access to it, after all it’s publicly available data, so can you please show me where in the explanation of scope from the study that your interpretation is somehow valid?
The data represents how people feel about their systems, and I believe that’s good evidence for how comprehensively democratic a system is, as democracy is will be the majority.
No, I didn’t really expect you’d be able to.
It seems you care more about what those gathering the data believe than the data itself, unless I am mistaking your point.