Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
It's a bad situation when you get your propaganda from the 'news', and your facts from comedy shows.

---

Quote:

---

It's a bad situation when you get your propaganda from the 'news', and your facts from comedy shows.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Thanks for real info. That feels better. Saner.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Makes me smile, but doesn't surprise me in the least. A Cleveland, Ohio, news station, "Michigan Live", The Tampa Tribune, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and U.S. News are all "Left wing collectivist propaganda". I guess the only things that AREN'T left-wing propaganda are Breitbart and FauxNews.

Hooo…kay.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm OK with that. I got used to $157 a month of "free" groceries. I even banked a few hours to help pay for a BBQ I was planning. Next month, it will be cut down to less than $75 a month. Those extra bucks I'd been squirrling away will have to help pay the bills. I can easily cut out 30 bucks of luxuries.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:
It occurs to me there's another kind of entitlement at work here. The entitlement to look down on others, for judging those with less education, less wealth, fewer opportunities than you and being able to do so guilt free. "It is my RIGHT, I am ENTITLED to feel superior to those people."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
Yeah!

Heaven forbid the middle class, who pay more than their fair share of taxes, should get to eat gourmet food too.

Nah, it's all about shafting those less fortunate, right?

RIGHT?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
Yeah!

Heaven forbid the middle class, who pay more than their fair share of taxes, should get to eat gourmet food too.

Nah, it's all about shafting those less fortunate, right?

RIGHT?

---

Do you even know what point you're trying to make??

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I note that a common 'conservative' stance, regardless of which country, is to zoom the focus on the poorest and most powerless people and do lots of finger wagging.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:

Try to keep up little Marky.
How is it that people on government assistance can get gourmet food?
Do they need the assistance in the first place?
Could the money be better spent on getting more, less expensive food instead of less, more expensive food?
If a program helps some in need is it never to be scrutinized for waste?
What about the optics of the scenario? The person receiving the assistance is eating better food than the person giving the assistance.
Is there any incentive to get off of the assistance so you can stop eating wild salmon and start eating P.B.@ J. sandwiches?
These are all relevant questions, IMHO. But the usual if you question the program, you hate those less fortunate than yourself rhetoric pops up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
What evidence is there that masses of poor people are buying gourmet food? It's a made-up strawman argument. Propaganda courtesy of Faux "News."

We've established that the program has little fraud. You're worried about what poor people do to eat, and don't care at all that GE and Exxon paid no net taxes on their billions in profits.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
What evidence is there that masses of poor people are buying gourmet food? It's a made-up strawman argument. Propaganda courtesy of Faux "News."

We've established that the program has little fraud. You're worried about what poor people do to eat, and don't care at all that GE and Exxon paid no net taxes on their billions in profits.

---

Spreaking of made-up strawman arguments...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Thank you for demonstrating you don't know what "straw man" even means.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Thank you for demonstrating you don't know what "straw man" even means.

---

School's in Marky.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

1.Person 1 has position X.
2.Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
1.Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
2.Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]
3.Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]
4.Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5.Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
3.Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This reasoning is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not address the actual position. The ostensible argument that Person 2 makes has the form:

"Don't support X, because X has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."
However, the actual form of the argument is:

"Don't support X, because Y has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."
This argument doesn't make sense; it is a non sequitur. Person 2 relies on the audience not noticing this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


Now a highly educated man like you claim to be should be able to figure it out. If your reading comprehension is lacking or if you need me to spell it out for you more plainly, don't hesitate to ask.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
I know what the term means, half-wit. No one made up a false argument, and attributed it to you, nor a fictitious person, nor attacked an oversimplified version of your argument (since you never actually made one).

---

Quote:

---

If you're going to claim to school somewhat - at least start with a clue. And posting a definition you copy 'n pasted without any actual example of said straw man happening doesn't prove your point, it just makes you an even bigger joke, you fuckin' moron.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I note that a common 'conservative' stance, regardless of which country, is to zoom the focus on the poorest and most powerless people and do lots of finger wagging.

---

Anecdotal or do you have a cite for this statement?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:

So Reaverfan didn't try to insinuate that I care more about what "poor people" eat than I do about corporate America stealing from me?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
(What I'd like to know is what fucking business is it of anyone's WHAT food people use food stamps for?? Wouldn't they be over the roof if the Government DICTATED what food people bought with food stamps?)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
What is to insinuate? You make it clear. You aggressively attack anything that helps the poor, and applaud anything that benefits the wealthy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Its not a straw man when its demonstrably based on your behavior. Now, you may resume misusing phrases to try and look smart. Its what makes you so funny.

---