Imaginary Enemies of the left

[amrchaos]

koshergrl is BIG on opinion, yeppers.

But only her own.

Actually, it is Bret Stephens opinion.

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.

 

[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.

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.

Your logical fallacies are boring the shit out of me.

 

[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.

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.

Your logical fallacies are boring the shit out of me.

First, by claiming hunger is an imaginary enemy, he is basically claiming hunger does not exist in US. It is not a problem worth contemplating. Food programs and charities used to address the issue are pointless since there is no problem.

Second, he never described such a comparison between hunger in the US versus Ethiopia. Where are you getting this claim from?

Third, Food insecurity is a definition created to make a statistical measurement from. There are differences between the conditions that leave a person in hunger, and a food insecure person is probably more likely to fall into hunger than a food secure person.

Stephens does not describe any hysterical treatment of the term by the left.

Finally, there is a difference between starvation and hunger. Death by Starvation is a rarity in America-- with only a handful of cases recorded this decade. Starvation begins after weeks to months of little to no food. It is an extreme state of hunger, in which the person suffering from it can face permanent damage to their bodies or even death.

Hunger is simply the need for food. You can experience hunger by skipping a couple of meals, by fasting. Hunger can set in within a day or two, for most people.

Food insecurity is a precondition for hunger. Hunger is a precondition for starvation. No where is it demonstrated by Stephens that the terms are treated equally by the left/liberals.

Stephens never talked about starvation.

 

[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

No hunger in America?

More confirmation that that War on Poverty has been a great success.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Muslims taking over the world is an imaginary enemy. Gays destroying civilization by getting married is an imaginary enemy. Single payer healthcare is an imaginary enemy.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

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....

 

[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.

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.

Repeating a fallacy doesn't make it less of a fallacy, punkin.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Somebody got a fallacy book for Thanksgiving!

 

[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

By your 'logic',

God is an imaginary friend of many, including yourself, I'm guessing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

Says the guy who can't understand irony.

 

[JakeStarkey]

AMRchaos booted kg's OP and her butt into space.

 

[The Rabbi]

"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

Brett Stephens is some kind of god. What a great critique.

 

[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.

Repeating a fallacy doesn't make it less of a fallacy, punkin.

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?

 

[SeniorChief_Polock]

The facts are clear: institutionalized racism and climate change at least are real enemies of America.

And Obama has done NOTHING for neither.
Next?

 

[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.

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.

Repeating a fallacy doesn't make it less of a fallacy, punkin.

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?

It means that hunger is not a problem in this country. Nobody in this country starves unless they choose to or are forced to, by someone who exerts control over them and is intentionally starving them. It means the ridiculous mantra of the left that said that children are starving, and therefore the state needs to exert more control over the lunch program is a lie. It means that the mantra that we need more foodstamps to prevent starvation is a lie. It means that obesity is NOT a symptom of starvation.

All claims that the hysterical left has made and still make. It's a contrived crisis by the left, who actually WANTS our population to starve.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The facts are clear: institutionalized racism and climate change at least are real enemies of America.

And Obama has done NOTHING for neither.
Next?

I am glad you admitted they are "real enemies" even if you got it wrong about Obama.

 

[JakeStarkey]

kg, you are a fucking moron.

That is the nicest language that can be used to describe you.

We have millions of people going to bed hungry in this country every single night, and you know it. Most of them are children.

The heavy lifting we had to do in our school district to make sure the poor children were fed was amazing.

 

[SeniorChief_Polock]

The facts are clear: institutionalized racism and climate change at least are real enemies of America.

And Obama has done NOTHING for neither.
Next?

I am glad you admitted they are "real enemies" even if you got it wrong about Obama.

I got it wrong? Sorry. I didn't mean to.
Let's take blacks first.
What has Obama done for blacks, specifically, since he took office that you're proud of! That the whole American black population is grateful for?
Go ahead.
This ought to be rich.

 

[SeniorChief_Polock]

We have millions of people going to bed hungry in this country every single night, and you know it. Most of them are children.

What's Obama done about it? Last I checked, he's been in charge for the last 7.6 years.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Repeating a fallacy doesn't make it less of a fallacy, punkin.

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?

Are you stupid or trying to look like it?

The Left claims there is an epidemic of hunger. One out 7 people goes hungry or something. He mentions it in the piece.
He points out the statistic is wrong and absurd. Obesity is a problem. Hunger is not a problem.