Dealing with the illogical perceptions of White America

It wasn't that long ago, but fortunately the jim crow laws that democrats passed have been repealed. We're still fighting racism, but jim crow laws are in the rear view mirror. Now it's in the schools with AA and hiring quotas where companies will reject applicants based upon race and sex.

 

1) you do not even know what a glass ceiling is
2) you have no clue what the prime causes of poverty are
3) perhaps

 

Clearly you do not have a clue about history and discipline of sociology .. no offence

1) I have no idea whether or not poverty is bigger and stronger than ever on a proportional basis... and neither do you
2) What does "independence" have to do with anything ?
3) Roman oratories are filled with senators talking about the need to feed the poor ... cause if you didn't there would be trouble. This is not unique.
4) you completely ignore external factors that relate to poverty. Perhaps you are an adherent of Eugenics ideology (now known as biological determinism) or are just reciting establishment mantra... my guess is the latter.

5) History has taught us about the evils of monopolism/oligopolism (which is why we have laws on the books) .. unfortunately those laws are no longer or rarely enforced.

Do feel free to list the problems with monopolism/oligopolism in this nation to show that you at least have some conception of what you are talking about.

6) Many in poverty do work .. they work 60 hours a week. So what is it that you want - them to work an extra 10 hours a week for food stamps ? Have you ever heard the term "indentured servitude" ? If not - look it up and then list some actions by large corporate interests that are many in this nation into a state of indentured servitude.

 

Thanks for your clueless response

 

You are the one that made a bunch of naked claims without backing those claims up... claims that you have repeated over and over (without any substantiation) thinking repetition will make those claims true.

In addition - you completely ignore information - posted previously by yours truly - that conflicts with your claims.

Not only are you clueless in relation to what the glass ceiling is and the causes of poverty - what is worse is that you are either incapable of learning or refuse to learn.

When you encounter information that conflicts with your claims you ignore that information and go running to the playground to stick head deep in the sandbox of denial. When your head pops back up you just repeat the same claim as if information contrary to that claim had not been provided.

Feel free to disagree by showing that you are not clueless by explaining what the glass ceiling you refer to is .. and the causal factors of poverty.

 

You are full of insults but no logic

 

If the shoe fits ... the shoe fits. Every thing stated above is true ... Don't blame me for pointing out that you ignore information that conflicts with your beliefs followed by repeating your premise as if repeating a claim over and over makes that claim true.

It is not my fault that you engage in "assumed premise fallacy" ... When you make a claim - especially if you are making that claim repeatedly - it is you that is responsible for backing that claim up - and addressing arguments to the contrary if you want to be taken seriously.

An argument consists of 2 things. 1) Statement of claim 2) evidence or at least some kind of justification that shows your claim is true.

You are good at 1) ... very poor at 2 .. and even worse at 3) addressing/refuting arguments to the contrary.

Repeating your claim repeatedly is not a refutation to anything.

 

I wouldn't classify telling somebody they are clueless as "information". You want him to tell you what the glass ceiling is (a stupid idea from identity politics), but you refuse to explain it yourself.

As for poverty, well I think everybody knows what poverty is. If you're so poor that you can't buy a loaf of bread and are starving in the street, you're poor.

 

All of those "choices" affect the poor far more than any other group. Everyone makes "poor choices" some times. Having money means you overcome them much more easily.

Ya kinda missed that.

 

I wouldn't either .. the convo has been ongoing for quite some time and the information has been given previously.

WTF are you talking about "you refuse to explain it yourself" 1) it is up to the person making a claim to explain the terms one is using and further ... explain why that claim is true 2) the poster never asked me to explain the term and nor have I ever refused to explain it.

If you are going to jump into a long convo - on the basis of one post - and then build a straw man .. Frack off.

I did not ask the poster what poverty was - what are you talking about ?

 

Your liberal activist studies are entitled to their opinion

I dont ignore them but neither do I let strangers do my thinking for me as you do

 

Of course you let strangers do your thinking for you. You are spouting ideological perspectives that you do not understand .. repeating that perspective over and over without giving any justification for why that claim is true.

More than just liberals think feeding the poor is a good idea. The fact that you would label someone "Liberal" because you can't back up your claims is a pathetic tactic ... ad hom fallacy.

I realize that you may not well understand or have studied history or sociology but - the fact of the matter is that the Establishment does not feed the poor because of charity or some moral righteousness. The poor are fed to avoid chaos - so the poor do not start rioting and stealing from the rich en masse.

Many on the right (the ones with any background in history) realize this - if not most.

 

Having money usually means you were smart enough not to make those poor choices

You kind of missed that sir.

 

After reading your reply, no offence taken

 

Well that's good to know - I was worried there for a moment

 

so much anger...

A lefty, no doubt.

 

I got it from a government web site twenty years ago. The official poverty line for a family of four in 1964 was 3k. in 2018 depending on where you go it is anywhere from 21k to 30k last time I checked about ten years ago you still qualified for food stamps at 25k a year. Care to prove that line isn't higher now. So basically anywhere from 7 to 10 times higher depending on who you want to believe.

 

No need to demonize because you were called out for jumping into a conversation with a strawman fallacy.

Get a valid argument and perhaps folks will take you more seriously

 

Sorry we have yet to spend a trillion on defense Last I checked we are spending about 16-18% of our roughly 4 trillion dollar budget on the military anyway you slice it that is well short of a trillion. That by the way is near the post WWII low. By the way those wonderful tax code days of the 1950's that for which so many leftist pine, half the current federal bureaucracy didn't yet exist and no one paid that 90% rate they talk of because it was set so high that only a relative handful of people even made that much money and they left the country.

 

There are 28 pages, and you're all "frack off" because I didn't read them all?

You could have been decent and explained that you guys have already agreed to things like reasons for poverty and have mutually agreed that the glass ceiling is a real thing. But no...

 

I did not say we spent a trillion dollars on defense. I said "Total Military Spending" .. there is a difference.

Looking at spending as a ratio of the total budget is rather silly considering how much deficit spending is in that budget. Better to calculate as a ratio of "revenue" to put things in better fiscal context.

1 Trillion/ 3.5 Trillion = 28.5% (and 1 Trillion is likely much lower than actual as this was the figure some 7 years ago).

Regardless - this is just one form of wealth redistribution we could do with much less of.

 

The "Frack off" was because you read one post and jumped into a long convo with not one but two Strawman fallacies.

Do you like it when people jump into one of your conversations by accusing you of things you have not said nor implied ... twice ?

 

[ Russia for Stalin, or China for Mao[/QUOTE]

Yes, because they get some help with food stamps, you conclude they’re content with that. Would you be ? So sad that you see poor people with such contempt

 

I apologize for that.