Pepsi Jedi wrote:Killer Cyborg wrote: Pepsi Jedi wrote: I didn't look at the entire list, but no I didn't count the 'No right turn' sign lol so there may be a bit more than 20. I'm betting noone's getting 500 of them though.
Most people wouldn't need to.
Exactly, as you're not trying to replace the people's ability to read with something in it's spot. I.E. a total symbol based society.
That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that recognizing road signs would--by the standard that you have presented--be considered literacy, which is what we're talking about here.
Could your average person learn 100 symbols? Sure. 1000? 10,000? When do you end up with the 'language' where every word is a symbol? There's a cut off point somewhere.
Again, numbers didn't factor anywhere into the standard that you presented, just the ability to understand and interpret symbols.
Killer Cyborg wrote:Are you confusing "CS Grunts" with "CS Society"....?
I'm using it as it's the numbers we have in representation. As a large number of CS citizens either are in the military or where, then it's being used as a subset that represents the whole. yes.
As has been pointed out, that "large number" is 10%.
So when the books tell us that 85% of Grunts are illiterate, that's telling us that of the 10% of the CS population that make up the military, an unknown percentage of them are Grunts, and 85% of those bottom-tier, unskilled soldiers are illiterate.
That's 85% of x% of 10% the overall population.
That is NOT a good number to use to judge the population as a whole.
Killer Cyborg wrote: I don't say that 15% is "lots."
I'm saying that you're wrong about
... yes you did.
Killer Cyborg wrote: there are lots of literates in CS society
Not trying to be nitpicky, but that's exactly what you said.
I said that "there are lots of literates in CS society."
I did not say that "15% of CS society is literate."
Do you understand the differences between those two statements?
Because "there are lots of literates in CS society" is NOT "exactly" "15% of the overall population being literate."
Killer Cyborg wrote: viewtopic.php?p=2876257#p2876257As Nekira pointed out:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:It's also not quite as bad as you think.
According to RUE and CWC, All Coalition Technical officers (AKA, the guys who actually make and maintain all the technical gear) are literate as part of the OCC. Additionally, all EOD Specialists, RCSG Specialists, Military Specialists, and Fly Boy Pilots are all fully literate. All ISS Specters and Officers are Literate. In addition, Both CS Commandos and CS Special Forces get an explicit high bonus to literacy if taken as an OCC Related skill, indicating literacy training for them is provided as needed.
So all of the Technical and Officer corps appear to be literate to some degree. it's only the grunts and shock troopers (SAMAS pilots, cyborgs, juicers, Ect) that don't appear to have the option.
This provides a pretty good veiw as to how civilian life goes. the entire Technical and Political class are probablly literate--it's only banned to the masses.
Yes. quite right. Now pause and look at the break down, as per officers and grunts in the military.
If you know of any specific breakdown that tells us what percent of the CS military each OCC makes up, I'd like to see it.
Meanwhile, yes, there are going to be more grunts than specialists and officers and such.
But that does not render the fact that all such officers and specialists are literate.
Right off the bat, it means that you 15% number isn't even accurate for the CS military, much less the society as a whole.
More importantly, it shows that the CS is perfectly willing and able to encourage (even demand) literacy
for the segments of the population that actually need it.
You're picking the
least literate segment of 10% of the CS population, and trying to use it to represent the entire population, and that just doesn't work.
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Serious question here:
Do you understand that CS Grunts are NOT the entire population of the Coalition States?
I do
Then stop claiming that 15% of the CS population is literate. You, I, and everybody else here knows that claim is incorrect.
The CS military is what we have numbers on and is a huge part of the CS in and of itself,
Do you understand the difference between "The CS Military" and "CS Grunts?"
Killer Cyborg wrote: Letters are a specific kind of symbol, and it is that specific kind of symbol that is required for literacy.
A flag is a symbol, but recognizing flags isn't literacy, because flags aren't letters.
And yet, you're proven later to be wrong.
Also there's plenty of languages that use symbols that aren't letters. Look at the asian languages for one.
Fair enough.
I'll rephrase my claim:
Letters and logograms are specific kinds of symbols, and it is those specific kinds of symbols that are required for literacy.
A flag is a symbol, but recognizing flags isn't literacy, because flags aren't letters.
Killer Cyborg wrote: Understanding symbols is not the same as literacy.
All letters are symbols.
Not all symbols are letters.
Let me know where you're getting confused, and I can guide you through this.
And yet again when you start to lose a debate, you resort to insults.
I'm asking for information about where you're getting confused, and offering to help clarify.
You might find that insulting, but that does not make it an insult.
You indicated that "symbols" and "letters" were the same thing, instead of the latter being a subset of the former. That indication is simply untrue, for the reasons that I pointed out above.
If you understand my point about not all symbols being letters, then feel free to try to adjust your argument accordingly, so that your argument becomes accurate.
If you do not understand my point above, then let me know where you lose comprehension, and I will do my best to assist.
That's how conversations work--if you don't understand what is being said, then you ask for clarification. If you DO understand what is being said, then you either demonstrate that the claim is inaccurate (in this case, demonstrate that all symbols ARE indeed letters), or you agree to the accuracy of the claim and include that claim as part of your on side of the discussion.
Killer Cyborg wrote: Drop the mic all you want... but in the really-real world, try convincing anybody with a brain in their head that recognizing a universal symbol means you're literate.
The mic was dropped because the actual Dictionary which... defines words and what they MEAN, agrees with me
Incorrect.
The dictionary--which describes definitions of words as best as it can in a limited space--provides us with two definitions that you have used to come to an erroneous conclusion.
That is not the same as the Dictionary agreeing with you.
You used the two following definitions:
Literacy- the ability to read and write
Read- to look at and understand the meaning of letters, words, symbols, etc.
And used those definitions to conclude:
understanding symbols is 'reading'Let us examine that conclusion, and its implications.
If understanding symbols is "reading," then...
-Any person who looks at any emoji and understands it is "reading," and therefore necessarily literate.
-Any person who watches the Weather Channel, and see a storm cloud on a map and understands what that means, is reading and is necessarily literate.
-Any person who looks at The Golden Arches, and understands that means there's a McDonalds there, is "reading" and therefore necessarily literate.
-Any person who can look at their own name, and understand it, is reading therefore necessarily literate.
-Any person who can look at the letter A and understand that it's the letter A is necessarily literate.
-Any person watching the movie
Moby Dick, and understanding that The White Whale is symbolic of God, is reading and therefore necessarily literate.
Does any of the above fit with the way that the word "literate" is used in the real world?
When studies tell us that
14% of US Adults are Illiterate, do you believe that the studies are saying that 14% of adults in the US are
unable to understand any symbols?
If reading is "understanding symbols," then who exactly is illiterate? And how?