Here is what I said initially:

>We are usually behind Canada, New Zealand, the Scandinavian countries, and a few other European countries depending on the specific criteria being evaluated.

The countries we are behind on all 4 lists and therefore unanimously behind:

    - New Zealand
    - Switzerland

The countries we are behind on 3 of the 4 lists and therefore countries we are "usually behind":

    - Canada
    - Australia
    - Ireland 
    - Denmark
    - Finland
    - Netherlands

The countries we are behind on 2 of the 4 lists and therefore countries we are on par with:

    - Germany
    - Norway  
    - Sweden 
    - Iceland
    - Belgium
    - Austria
    - Portugal
    - Czech Republic
    - Lithuania
    - Slovenia
    - Andorra
    - Liechtenstein
    - Luxembourg
    - Estonia
    - Cyprus
    - Jamaica
    - Costa Rica

So that is a yes on "Canada, New Zealand... and a few other European countries". I don't know why you and the other poster are pretending that naming countries that we are ranked higher than disproves this statement. The only thing that isn't backed up by those rankings is that I said "the Scandinavian countries" when it is only Denmark and Finland ahead of us while we are on par with Norway, Sweden, and Iceland.

You also said this:

> And the fact that the US is lacking in those two latter categories compared to many of our peer nations

Which is still bullshit.

As I said before, whether or not there are countries who have better ratings, any honest reading of the list sees that the US ratings are similar to peers.

Is your enter point through these several posts that my definition of "peer" is too broad? It should have been obvious in context that I was referring to something along the lines of "western democracies" since I listed countries before ever using the word "peer". It honestly seems like you are arguing just for the sake of argument at this point.

> It should have been obvious in context that I was referring to something along the lines of "western democracies" since I listed countries before ever using the word "peer".

I already dealt with that in this response:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28560646

> It honestly seems like you are arguing just for the sake of argument at this point.

That doesn’t seem honest to me.

I said "compared to many of our peer nations". You are acting as if I said "compared to all our peer nations". Pointing out countries we are ahead does nothing to disprove that there are 8 countries in which we are "usually behind".

But either way, I give up. This isn't worth spending any more time on. Congrats, you win!

> I said "compared to many of our peer nations". You are acting as if I said "compared to all our peer nations"

This is where the misunderstanding arises. You are actually incorrect. I’m not acting as if you said compared to all of our peer nations. I clearly and repeatedly accepted that we are behind some of our peer nations.

You on the other hand, are using the fact that we are not literally at the top of the list, to argue that we are behind our peers in a general sense.

If you weren’t you’d simply say “we aren’t at the top of the list - there are 8 countries ahead of us”, instead of the false, and more generic sounding “compared to many of our peers”.