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.
And yet you still have not stopped deflecting. I hate to hammer in on this, but I’ll just go ahead and ask: can you actually access the study? In truth it’s not publicly accessible per se, you do need to apply (or be affiliated with an organization that gives you access (academia, whee!)) It’s quite interesting overall and I’m of the opinion that you should always actually read your sources lest they be devastating to your argument, but if you cannot read the sections I’m referring to and which lay out what’s being discussed here, it would explain why you’re defending your position with quite so much unjustified vehemence.
It shouldn’t be terribly difficult to demonstrate if so (and establishing that was the real goal behind my comment six replies up in the chain, I confess I should probably not have attempted to be subtle about it).
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.
Please stop trying to deflect.
I’m not deflecting, I disagree with you.
And yet you still have not stopped deflecting. I hate to hammer in on this, but I’ll just go ahead and ask: can you actually access the study? In truth it’s not publicly accessible per se, you do need to apply (or be affiliated with an organization that gives you access (academia, whee!)) It’s quite interesting overall and I’m of the opinion that you should always actually read your sources lest they be devastating to your argument, but if you cannot read the sections I’m referring to and which lay out what’s being discussed here, it would explain why you’re defending your position with quite so much unjustified vehemence.
It shouldn’t be terribly difficult to demonstrate if so (and establishing that was the real goal behind my comment six replies up in the chain, I confess I should probably not have attempted to be subtle about it).
I don’t see what you’re getting at.