Women. Religion’s longest running victims.

It's the same here. Ask the next homeless person you see how safe and healthy their environment is. Since you ask:

quote:

---

The 2010 edition of the Central Intelligence Agency's World Factbook estimated that non-nationals represented 5,576,076 out of a population of 25,731,776 in Saudi Arabia. However, official 2010 census figures stated that there were 8,429,401 expatriates out of a total population of 27,136,977 or roughly 31 per cent of the total. link

---

Not at all. I contend that your idea of prosperity is useles when applied to this thread.

Sure we have our homelessness. However there are numerous government programs as well many non-governmental programs.Read this account of homelessness in Saudi and tell me where you would rather be homeless.Erreur 404 - Page non trouve - Les Observateurs - France 24 WE have a friend with severe MS. She has a caregiver from the Philippines who worked in Saudi before coming here. She went there as a nanny to make money temporarily. She mover here because she wants to take up permanent residence. I view prosperity as being more than just about money but if you like then use quality of life.

The point is that "prosperity" is highly subjective.You said in Message 4 that, "The countries that have prospered are the countries that have educated their women," which seemed to suggest a cause-and-effect relationship. I'm saying that, since "prosperity" is not an absolute or objective quantity, it would be dificult to establish a correlation between "prosperity" and education for women - much less a cause-and-effect.

Fair enough. Can we agree then that the societies that educate their women enjoy a higher "quality of life" on average. (Subjectively I would add by a considerable amount.) And yes I am suggesting a cause-and-effect.

Yes, of course you're right. Any suggestion otherwise is just being argumentative for the sake of it.

Enjoyment is subjective. Quality of life is subjective.For various reasons, our society (eventually, reluctantly) decided to educate women. We didn't reason, "Hey, if we educate our women we'll become more prosperous." We were already pretty prosperous before that, so I don't see how a cause-and-effect can be established. I might suggest instead that education of women and other minorities is something that prosperos societies can afford.

Note that there is an argument for the "otherwise" - while you have provided none for the "of course".

If societies can afford to educate men they can afford to educate women. Regardless of how reluctant the change was the cause and effect was that the quality of life improved for our society.

If you educate only group A, you can give them "more education" than if you educate both group A and group B - same amount of money spent, same "amount" of education, different dilution. Is a society full of waitresses with sociology degrees necessarily "more prosperous"? Pro hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Argue it if you like but IMHO a society that is more educated regardless of their occupation has a higher quality of life than one that is less educated.

I've never suggested that that isn't your opinion, only that your opinion is parochial.

This is one of those arguments that are really silly. We both know that it's qualitatively better to have a higher quality of life than a lower one and that societies that educate women are more prosperous than those that don't.If you wished to argue that educating women isn't the dependent variable and instead is a marker for a correlation I'd agree. The causal effect is treating women equally in society. And that is worth doing simply because it is right to do it.

So you're saying your opinion is that my opinion is wrong.

Yes, we both know that good things are better than bad things. What we don't "know" - we only have opinions - is what is "good" and what is "better". BING-fucking-GO! Give the man a cigar!We treat women equally because it's the right thing to do. It's not about "prosperity" at all. We would (or should) treat women equally even if it landed us in the poorhouse.

No. I'm saying that your opinion is not founded in fact - at least it has not been established as founded in fact.