3rd world countries trying to communicate with 1st world countries:
@Factory BOY, those are very antiquated terms, that has generally been changed to developed and developing countries.
@Zorb, "Are you saying a developing country is not developed?!?! Are you presuming my nation is lesser than yours because of a Western viewpoint of success?!?!" Lol
Id argue some countries are stagnant, whilst others are developing, and others are regressing.
No matter what you say though, calling the fat kid out is gonna sound offensive to some people, fat as he may be
@Zorb, what if they aren't developed and aren't developing?
I guess someone got offended so the terms changed.
@Factory BOY, I don't know why your making such a big deal of this. Its not some PC gone mad thing.
We use these new terms in geography because they make more logical sense. 1st to 3rd world as a description doesn't really apply anymore and also gets confusing as when people use 1st-3rd in historical terms it is used to describe 1st world being Nato etc, USSR and their allys 2nd and non allianged as 3rd, which has nothing to do with development. So for more clarity we use the terms developed and developing in geography.
Also developing or developed leaves more ambiguity which is a good thing. the nations as you rightly point out are all very different so giving a stagnent descriptor again doesn't really work. developed and developing still has this issue but its far better for example what makes more sense:
this nation is a more developing nation, or this nation is a more 3rd world.
@RogueKnight, not why it changed see my above reply
@bonja, I was joking about being offended, hence the 'lol'.
If you call a nation developed, that makes it first world, if you call it developing, that makes it third world - same definition, so I dont see your point there.
Some countries have changed position, like Japan, this is correct, but historical changes does not therefore mean we need new terminology for the same differentiation.
How about: 'This nation is part of the 3rd World' - honestly, your use of grammar to make your point should have been left out.
To clarify; I have no problem using the terms 'developed' and 'developing', I have also heard sociologists talk of 'underdeveloped', but I cannot see why they are more valid, I think it depends on the situation.
If you want, you can also talk of a low to middle income country. All these definitions have a place when you start getting academically technical.
Who gets resources first? Who gets media attention first? Who has more political sway? 1st Worlders.
eg. Enough money in most developing nations can afford you a 1st world quality of life.
@Factory BOY, the f you on about. Like so much of that is extra fluff that is completely irrelevant to what I'm saying.
Ok first my grammar nulifies my point? I thought we were discussing geography terminology not english grammar.
Second, once again the reason its changed is 1st-3rd world is used to describe a completely different type of countries and the two often get very mixed up and causes confusion hence the need to change it.
We also don't use terms like LEDC and MEDC as it is pretty misleading and doesn't make a lot of sense.
Giving my own personal experience as a geogeaphy teacher It is much easier to teach this issues when using the new terms.
Let me give an example poland an 2nd world nation (as defined by being part of the warsaw pact) is today often classified as 1st world or 2nd world... can you see why thats confusing? Describing it as both 2nd world as communist "side" during the cold war and saying its also potentially 1st world or 2nd world in development.
@bonja, you used grammar to try claim the term 1st world doesnt work, I said you should have left that bit out of your argument, NOT that it nullifies your argument.
Let me quote the part you should have left out:
"... what makes more sense:
This nation is a more developing country, or this nation is a more 3rd world"
The answer is: your bad grammar does not make sense. I could say 'this nation is more 3rd world' - drop the 'a'.
@bonja, The term 2nd world country is now largely obsolete, we dont use it anymore because the gap between the first world and the rest of us has grown.
I am glad you teach geography, and using new terms is perfectly fine.
You keep calling my terms irrelevant because you wouldnt teach it. These terms are still used in academic circles, stop presuming your preferred terminology nullifies other terminology.
It makes sense to look at LEDCs and MEDCs if you are comparing average income of two nations (for example), because we look at very particular aspects of countries when using those definitions.
I dont want to hate on you being a teacher, so please dont do the standard teacher thing of presuming you know more and should teach the world your wisdom. Go look at how academic fields (that arent geography) still use these terms.
@Factory BOY, "go look at how academic fields (that arent geography)"
That right there, is where an the issue is. In the academic circles of geography the terms developed and developing are by far the more used terms in modern academia. Of which I absolutely keep myself up to date on.
Also read a scientific paper or textbook on development. When you say my grammar is bad... well thats exactly how we describe a country in academia at all levels.
Correct, 2nd world is obsolete... as we don't use those terms unless your either
A they are not using modern scientific terms
B trying to appeal to an specific auidence.
C describing a nation that was in history on the soviet side of the cold war
@Factory BOY, your part about persumtion is a wild leap.
What you teach is standardised because we don't want to be teaching out of date incorrect information because things do change.
Honestly its ironic as all hell what you said "don't do the standard teacher..." which in itself is such a huge persumtion without any background info and clear bias.
Regardless 1st,2nd and 3rd world are not taught as the correct terminology. In the curriculum in my country we have a whole section of humam geography dedicated to development. Which in parts goes over these old, innaccurate, confusing terms and other outdated science related things such as the brandt line.
@bonja, the teacher thing I was talking about goes hand in hand with your belief that Geography's terminology is the most used in 'modern academia'. Every academic likes to think their field is more important than other fields, but every field is so multidisciplinary that any such claim is idolizing the influence of your individual field, as though the other fields did not influence you equally as much.
Are you saying when you describe a country at all levels, you cannot drop a single 'a' to use a term correctly? Please just admit, even if you disagree on terminology that we should use, the piece I quoted you on was a poor line of argument (which I treat as seperate from the rest of your argument, as it is based on grammar).
@bonja, are you claiming that because your teaching is standardised, it is not out of date? I, personally, have been taught some pretty out-of-date bullshjt that was standardised, so I cannot see your logic there. This is irrelevant to whether or not my terms are acceptable though.
You are welcome to help bring about a change in terminology, this is natural in the course of language. However, this does not mean you have to reject old terms, either. Your students may misinterpret some modern literature if you dont explain the modern use of this terminology to them.
@Factory BOY, No... but teaching does change or at least should change. If your being taught out of date things then that is a problem. I also made very clear that current academia is what this is based of.
Ofc we reject old terms when they are superceded why on earth would we accept old inaccurate terms. We adopted new terms because the old ones were not suffecient. They were misleading and confusing and often misinterperated. So the scientific community created new ones which are far better. Again it is taught what the old terms are so if people read historic literature they understand it but at the same time we preface that knowledge with the information that if you for example use those terms in a professional setting you'll get a few raised eyebrows as they are not used anymore.
@Factory BOY, I also find it baffaling that your cruxing your argument on the grammar of an extra "a" included like the point is still absolutely valid. I can't understand how you can't see the point made despite the grammar that or your deliberatly ignoring the point.
Also economics uses developed/developing as does history and modern studies. aka the main subjects that cover development
@bonja, You believe these new terms supercede the old terms, but the new terms also have issues that I tried pointing out, another one that I have is that 'developed' nations are generally developing faster than third world nations, who merely try keep up with the first world - and most 3rd world countries cannot develop as fast.
This is just one example where getting technical requires these so called "antiquated terms" that you believe we should reject.
So what you choose to get confused by seems like a cherry-pick, to me
@bonja, I find it baffling that you cannot admit your one point was redundant because what you presented as evidence was the fact that you couldn't fit the word nicely into a sentence .
All the social sciences cover development, you missed politics amongst others.
@Factory BOY, I stated something in scientific language used... I can't change the grammar used by academics.
Also modern studies includes politics I taught this as well. Also taught international tourism which uses the terms stated.
@bonja, depending on what you are referring to, scientific language allows you to drop an 'a' for proper grammar.
Having said that, because terminology changes, you are allowed to challenge the terms used, otherwise they would never change.
You are correct that you cant change grammar rules, if thats what you meant.
Are Modern Studies the same field as Political Sciences or a different one? Either way, what you said has little to do with your limited grouping of the fields of social sciences, that all include development.
@Factory BOY, the feck you on about. Modern studies absolutely covers politics. Limited grouping??? I've literally covered the 3 main social sciences, geography, history & modern studies. RMPS is sometimes included but not always.
Also those 3 groups encompass a huge variety and range of subjects within them such as developement, international relations, even like agriculture to name a few. So its not limited haha I'm speaking on behalf of essentially all modern social sciences
@bonja, Geography also covers politics, yet, Geography is not the same field as Politics. As an actual question, is Modern Studies the same field as Politics?
@bonja, Just because you touch other subjects in your little group of social sciences, does not mean you are representing all the social sciences, that is very wrong. This is a small side note though, and did not warrant this much explanation, and I dont mean to be that nitpicky that we need go through all this explanation.
@Factory BOY, politics is the same field yes... for the 3rd time yes it covers politics.
once again those 3 cover the vast majority of social science
@bonja, I use the term field and subject interchangeably, do you understand that? Sociology of Politics is in the field of Sociology, not in the field Politics, even though it covers political science, it is not the same field, different department than politics.
I keep asking because my limited knowledge of Modern Studies is that its a small, specialised field of its own, not that it is a subfield under politics.
@Factory BOY, no modern studies is the general coverage before more specfication at university. My bsc is in environmental geography, however i took optional units at university including international politics, and scottish politics which allow me to teach all 3 of the main social subjects.
@bonja, Alright, well after all that disagreement, good day!
@Factory BOY, Lord did this spark a conversation. A simple “oh, cool, didn’t know that” would have saved a lot of effort.
It’s amazing that plane got off the ground with his massive balls of steel on board
Depending how many engines they have and what their weight is one engine inoperable (oei) may not be an emergency for an aircraft. Planes are designed to be super redundant in safety features. Source: I'm a former AF pilot
@Frodrevo, If I remember correctly, commercial jets have to be able to cruise with only 1 engine. The other engines are for takeoff and better fuel efficiency.
@intelliDude, not 100% certain about commercial airliners but I wouldn't be surprised if you were right
“”Are you on fire?!”
“Don’t worry about it.”
“We’ll get emergency personnel over there immediately!”
“We don’t want to be a bother.”
Sounds like in Flight Simulator
is this that guy who flew the jet through ukraine during the first week of the war?
@Z0IDBERG, other airlines: "There's a war, go around."
Air India: "LEEEEROOOY JENKINS!"
Remember, these are the same pilots that flew over an active war zone not too long ago. So engine failure is not an emergency to these people. Neither is an active war zone/hostile airspace.
@MeatStick, if only I was half the man they are
@MeatStick, Sam guy who’s been driving his car for six years with the check engine light on
Pan-pan, pan-pan, pan-pan
The Cost of Concordia (2021)