Actually, it is Bret Stephens opinion.But only her own.koshergrl is BIG on opinion, yeppers.
I can't say if KG agrees or disagree since she hasn't stated if she agree or not.
All she did was point out fallacies in other peoples statements.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually, it is Bret Stephens opinion.But only her own.koshergrl is BIG on opinion, yeppers.
Meh, semantics. He did not say that hunger doesn't exist in this country. His point was that the left pretends its a crisis along the lines of Ethiopia, using "data" about food security. They hysterically insist that food insecurity is the same as starvation, and of course it isn't. People are not starving in this country. Not yet.Nonsense. The opt did not say hunger is imaginary. It said there is no epidemic in the US, and that is correct.The OP piece you put up said it. Back it up or concede.Straw man. I certainly never said that.
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.
Meh, semantics. He did not say that hunger doesn't exist in this country. His point was that the left pretends its a crisis along the lines of Ethiopia, using "data" about food security. They hysterically insist that food insecurity is the same as starvation, and of course it isn't. People are not starving in this country. Not yet.Nonsense. The opt did not say hunger is imaginary. It said there is no epidemic in the US, and that is correct.The OP piece you put up said it. Back it up or concede.Straw man. I certainly never said that.
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.
Your logical fallacies are boring the shit out of me.
"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
I posted the piece because I agree with it and have said the same thing myself. It's called discussing ideas. You should try it sometime. People form opinions, and they share their theories....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.
Repeating a fallacy doesn't make it less of a fallacy, punkin.Nonsense. The opt did not say hunger is imaginary. It said there is no epidemic in the US, and that is correct.The OP piece you put up said it. Back it up or concede.Straw man. I certainly never said that.
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.
"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
Says the guy who can't understand irony.She keeps repeating herself. Said the moron quoting his own fucking post. Can you spell irony?She keeps repeating herself: Polly want a cracker.koshergrl's logical fallacy is tu quoque
Brett Stephens is some kind of god. What a great critique."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
Repeating a fallacy doesn't make it less of a fallacy, punkin.Nonsense. The opt did not say hunger is imaginary. It said there is no epidemic in the US, and that is correct.The OP piece you put up said it. Back it up or concede.Straw man. I certainly never said that.
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.
And Obama has done NOTHING for neither.The facts are clear: institutionalized racism and climate change at least are real enemies of America.
Repeating a fallacy doesn't make it less of a fallacy, punkin.Nonsense. The opt did not say hunger is imaginary. It said there is no epidemic in the US, and that is correct.The OP piece you put up said it. Back it up or concede.Straw man. I certainly never said that.
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.
I take it you are referring to the statement:
"Hunger is an imaginary enemy"
The context of the following paragraph suggest the meaning of "enemy" in terms of a social problem. "Imaginary" suggests it is non-existing. This can be derived by how Stephens argue against hunger. Hence, the term "imaginary enemy" refers to a nonexistent social problem in Stephens view.
At least that is what I took as the meaning from Stephens.
If that is not what Stephens meant, what do you think "Hunger is an imaginary enemy" means literally?
I am glad you admitted they are "real enemies" even if you got it wrong about Obama.And Obama has done NOTHING for neither.The facts are clear: institutionalized racism and climate change at least are real enemies of America.
Next?
I am glad you admitted they are "real enemies" even if you got it wrong about Obama.And Obama has done NOTHING for neither.The facts are clear: institutionalized racism and climate change at least are real enemies of America.
Next?
We have millions of people going to bed hungry in this country every single night, and you know it. Most of them are children.
Are you stupid or trying to look like it?Repeating a fallacy doesn't make it less of a fallacy, punkin.Nonsense. The opt did not say hunger is imaginary. It said there is no epidemic in the US, and that is correct.The OP piece you put up said it. Back it up or concede.Straw man. I certainly never said that.
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.
I take it you are referring to the statement:
"Hunger is an imaginary enemy"
The context of the following paragraph suggest the meaning of "enemy" in terms of a social problem. "Imaginary" suggests it is non-existing. This can be derived by how Stephens argue against hunger. Hence, the term "imaginary enemy" refers to a nonexistent social problem in Stephens view.
At least that is what I took as the meaning from Stephens.
If that is not what Stephens meant, what do you think "Hunger is an imaginary enemy" means literally?