Imaginary Enemies of the left

[Timmy]

The left makes things up !?

You have crackpot righties here who legit think the prez is a foreign born Muslim spy who's trying to destroy America .

"You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism."

Your logical fallacy is tu quoque

Fine .

To say institutional racism doesn't exists is to deny reality !

is it?

Demonstrate the existence of "Institutional Racism".

(Reader, this will be the end of this particular issue... as the would-be 'Contributor' will be become FASCINATED with something else... anything else...)

Ok. Colleges give preference to legacy . If your parent went to university z , you get favorable admission .

University z was all white for decades . So the kids if the white alumni are now the applicants. They get favorable admission over black kid who's parents were never allowed to be on campus . Never mind be an alumni .

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Little children have imaginary friends. Modern liberalism has imaginary enemies."

Hunger in the US is an imaginary enemy, the campus-rape "epidemic" is an imaginary enemy, institutionalized (white on black) racism is an imaginary enemy, and global warming is an imaginary enemy.

Lefties make up these fake crises in order to drum up support for various and assorted policies and programs, that NOBODY would support without some sort of lie to justify them.

Liberalism’s Imaginary Enemies

You need to put your meno on pause.

 

[JakeStarkey]

koshergrl's logical fallacy is tu quoque

 

[JakeStarkey]

koshergrl's logical fallacy is tu quoque

She keeps repeating herself: Polly want a cracker.

 

[Moonglow]

koshergrl's logical fallacy is tu quoque

She keep repeating herself.

It's the best she can do.......I did give her a cracker...

 

[initforme]

Gay marriage is a threat to conservatives who despise gift intrusion. Hypocrites...massive hypocrites. What 2 consenting adults do is their business...gay marriage is no threat to anyone.​

 

[Missouri_Mike]

koshergrl's logical fallacy is tu quoque

She keeps repeating herself: Polly want a cracker.

She keeps repeating herself. Said the moron quoting his own fucking post. Can you spell irony?

 

[koshergrl]

Your logical fallacy is tu quoque

You don't even understand what is a tu quoque fallacy. I love that you post here. Keep it up.

"
You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism.
Pronounced too-kwo-kwee. Literally translating as 'you too' this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring because it takes the heat off someone having to defend their argument, and instead shifts the focus back on to the person making the criticism."

Your logical fallacy is tu quoque

No, that is not what you did. You said XYZ were imaginary enemies. I told you that XY were not in fact imaginary enemies, that were in fact real enemies of America.

My correction was to correct your silliness, not to repeat it.

I am glad you are trying to learn. Use this as a reference: Purdue OWL

If that's what I did, how odd that you don't actually say what I did, and quote me, instead of this gibberish.

Meanwhile...
Your logical fallacy is tu quoque

Where is your truth about no hungry people in the USA?

Straw man. I certainly never said that.

 

[koshergrl]

koshergrl's logical fallacy is tu quoque

She keeps repeating herself: Polly want a cracker.

You keep doing the same stupid shit and I point it out. Yup.

 

[koshergrl]

koshergrl's logical fallacy is tu quoque

She keep repeating herself.

It's the best she can do.......I did give her a cracker...

Ad hominem.

 

[Moonglow]

You don't even understand what is a tu quoque fallacy. I love that you post here. Keep it up.

"
You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism.
Pronounced too-kwo-kwee. Literally translating as 'you too' this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring because it takes the heat off someone having to defend their argument, and instead shifts the focus back on to the person making the criticism."

Your logical fallacy is tu quoque

No, that is not what you did. You said XYZ were imaginary enemies. I told you that XY were not in fact imaginary enemies, that were in fact real enemies of America.

My correction was to correct your silliness, not to repeat it.

I am glad you are trying to learn. Use this as a reference: Purdue OWL

If that's what I did, how odd that you don't actually say what I did, and quote me, instead of this gibberish.

Meanwhile...
Your logical fallacy is tu quoque

Where is your truth about no hungry people in the USA?

Straw man. I certainly never said that.

You never say anything, do you, Trump?

 

[Moonglow]

koshergrl's logical fallacy is tu quoque

She keep repeating herself.

It's the best she can do.......I did give her a cracker...

Ad hominem.

Don't trip back peddling....

 

[Tuatara]

Straw man. I certainly never said that.

The OP piece you put up said it. Back it up or concede.

 

[amrchaos]

If hunger in the US is imaginary, why are their food programs for the hungry run by different religious organizations?

Is she saying these programs are a scam and not needed? What does she really mean by "Hunger in the US is an imaginary enemy"?

 

[Tuatara]

If hunger in the US is imaginary, why are their food programs for the hungry run by different religious organizations?

Is she saying these programs are a scam and not needed? What does she really mean by "Hunger in the US is an imaginary enemy"?

The OP was done by an imbecile and parroted by others who run and hide with their tails between their legs until they can find another idiotic OP. They can't actually back up any of their assertions.

 

[koshergrl]

Straw man. I certainly never said that.

The OP piece you put up said it. Back it up or concede.

Nonsense. The opt did not say hunger is imaginary. It said there is no epidemic in the US, and that is correct.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

"Little children have imaginary friends. Modern liberalism has imaginary enemies."

Hunger in the US is an imaginary enemy, the campus-rape "epidemic" is an imaginary enemy, institutionalized (white on black) racism is an imaginary enemy, and global warming is an imaginary enemy.

Lefties make up these fake crises in order to drum up support for various and assorted policies and programs, that NOBODY would support without some sort of lie to justify them.

Liberalism’s Imaginary Enemies

In order to keep xyz groups United they need an enemy that is always oppressing them. The poor have the rich. The blacks have whites. Women have men which is why rape culture mythos is maintained by the left. Expect that as Hillary gets closer to the nomination that you will have more stories about "rape culture". I bet they will push America is a rape culture so women will unite against the common enemy of men in America. In the same way whites feel they are racist men will start to feel like they are rapist.

 

[amrchaos]

She is taking this from an editorial in the WSJ, an opinion piece by Bret Stephens.

Madam, you do know the problem with opinion pieces, don't you? They are usually written with hyperbole and flair! They tend to over dramatize the validity of one set of beliefs and denigrate any opposing beliefs.

It does this through shock and faulty logic.

For example:

"Hunger in America is an imaginary enemy. Liberal advocacy groups routinely claim that one in seven Americans is hungry—in a country where the poorest counties have the highest rates of obesity. The statistic is a preposterous extrapolation from a dubious Agriculture Department measure of “food insecurity.” But the line gives those advocacy groups a reason to exist while feeding the liberal narrative of America as a savage society of haves and have nots."

Do you see the problem in hi argument here?

Liberal advocacy groups routinely claim that one in seven Americans is hungry—in a country where the poorest counties have the highest rates of obesity.

His claim suggest that since the poorest counties have the highest obesity, then it should follow that poor people, in America, are eating more than required.

However, the location of America's obese citizens has no direct relationship to the existence of hunger in the US. His 'argument' does not support his claim that hunger does not exist in America. If anything, it suggests that obesity is possible among the poor.


There is more to the first paragraph, but the xample is enough to state my point. Do not take an opinion piece as true, word for word. In fact, the best thing to do to such an opinion piece is to dissect the argument and point where the author goes wrong. That is a part of the entertainment value of such articles.

First--Read it and become shocked/stun by what the author says
Second--dissect the argument and point out where the author 'jumps the rails'

If you want, you can construct a new argument that is either stronger than or undermine the authors position.

But do not take an editorial word for word. It is normally badly argued BS.

 

[amrchaos]

Straw man. I certainly never said that.

The OP piece you put up said it. Back it up or concede.

Nonsense. The opt did not say hunger is imaginary. It said there is no epidemic in the US, and that is correct.

Bret Stephens writes "Hunger is an imaginary enemy"--hence hunger does not exist in America.

The 'epidemic' pops up in terms of campus rape, not hunger. read the article to see.

 

[Borillar]

koshergrl is BIG on opinion, yeppers.

But only her own.