[011011100]

"See already you're off base. Someone's individual expectation is not at all necessarily a "reasonable expectation". There are lots of gamblers in Vegas who expect to win big tonight... doesn't mean their expectations are reasonable."

How should people make decisions if they can't trust their own judgment? You're going to one extreme and saying "lots of people are unreasonable". Ok, great. Lots of people are also very reasonable.

"See already you're off base."

That's just a fancy way of starting off the conversation by saying "you're wrong". No, he probably just doesn't agree with you. You should stop trying to frame everything in this objective manner. It's actually really obnoxious.

[crusso]

That's just a fancy way of starting off the conversation by saying "you're wrong"

Not pointing out when someone is demonstrably wrong in a discussion is as useless and futile as pretending to want to solve poverty and hunger but not addressing the core issue.

Discussing topics like this on the Internet is already fairly useless. No sense in making it worse with a bunch of disingenuous and logically incorrect validation of opinions.

[DanBC]

> demonstrably wrong

Your inability to demonstrate it has been noted.

[crusso]

Your insistence that this is even a discussion about statistics and proof or based on an article that isn't almost purely an opinion piece without statistics or proof is noted.

[DanBC]

Hey, I'm giving you the opportunity to change my mind. I'm listening to you, and asking you to provide information that will change my mind.

You haven't done so.

That leads me to think that your first comment was a knee-jerk opinion with nothing to support it, and that you're continuing to defend that position because you "feel" it's correct, even though it could well be wrong.

Your weird insistence that it's right, even though you're unable to provide any evidence to support it, is odd.

I freely accept that the article I submitted is opinion - but it's informed opinion from people who work in this field. The article has links to other organisations who've published research on hunger, and the website for WFP contains a lot of their published research.

So, I'm faced with a multi-national multi-government agency with a lot of published research and many years of expertise saying one thing. And I have some random Internet commenter saying something else, and getting defensive when asked to supply any kind of citation for their claims.

At the moment I'm dismissing what you say.

But, like I said, I'm open to persuasion.

[crusso]

So, I'm faced with a multi-national multi-government agency with a lot of published research

Riiiiight... like that means anything. Should it mean something that healthcare.gov is backed by the biggest government in the world yet is a piece of crap that many developers on HN could have done better on in their spare time over the last few years?

Should it mean something that these multi-national multi-government agencies have been talking about and spending huge amounts of money on "hunger" for many many decades and haven't made any progress? At what point does their extraordinary lack of success dissuade you from being such a big fan? My guess is never.

At the moment I'm dismissing what you say. But, like I said, I'm open to persuasion.

I'm sure you tell yourself that, but your credulity of a report because it's "multi-government" tells me that you're a believer in the mechanisms of the State regardless of common sense, their abject failures, and information contrary to that ideology.

If you were open to persuasion you'd be tremendously critical of the weak article this thread is based upon - regardless of whether or not you buy into my point of view.