Take Down the Bird Feeder!

[Zeke]

That would be ideal, yes!

The government taking money from you and giving it to someone else is stealing. Not only that but government welfare creates a conflict of interest on both sides of the ballot box. It is fundamentally and irreparably corrupt and should be abolished.

People in need can get VOLUNTARY help from their family, friends and neighbors and other private organizations that both get money from voluntary donations and have control over who gets the help and what form that help comes in and for how long.

I guess you have never investigated the CAFR nor where that bank loan manifest from, those are the birds you should be concerned with not the dialectic victims of the problem reaction solution this pyramid scheme operates under, I guess you could start a small pox laced blankets campaign to take care of the native tongue you certainly don't spew out of that pie hole.

 

[Alate_One]

Maybe this is slightly off topic, but do you think that citizens should be required to be able to speak English?

No. How would you enforce that requirement? You have to take a citizenship test in English already, isn't that enough?

It's very difficult to get a good education and have a successful professional career in this country without that ability. I'm not saying that other languages should be shunned but imo you really need to know English to be your most successful self in this country

Yes, and that's why most immigrants do learn English, or their children do so. It's been the same for generations, and latino immigrants are actually faster to learn English than previous generations' immigrants.

So the fear of immigrants still smacks of racism since immigrants in the past were proportionately more white.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nope.

Your post made little or no sense. There was some value in the conversation up till then. OP has no racist content, but you see some in it. If your analysis had weight, you would be able to say what it is that the guy did that is racist. However, as is obvious, all he did was build a bird feeder and then take it down.

No white-hooded men or disparaging remarks to be seen. :idunno:

Make your mind up Stripe, if this was simply a story about a man building a bird feeder and subsequently taking it down there wouldn't be much to talk about would there? Allegory, remember?

:AMR:

As luck would have it, I'm not a teacher.

I would hope you aren't but I'm pretty sure you used to teach, or claim to at least?

And if your argument relies on reading between the lines to find racism, I'm happy to stick with the fundamentalists' approach where the words mean what they plainly say, unless you have good reason to say otherwise.

The alarmist crap over a class where more than 50% of the students can't speak English was more than a giveaway. The whines over cornflakes packets and bank phone lines were just additional fetid icing on an already rotten cake. It's probably just as well the parables are described as such otherwise the poetic narrative probably wouldn't be enough to stop you considering them as literal events...

In the hunt for good reason from the Darwinists, little is to be found.

A bit like accredited, peer reviewed papers from Creationists then. Else, this topic has zero to do with your bizarre little side bar.

lain:

 

[ok doser]

The alarmist crap over a class where more than 50% of the students can't speak English was more than a giveaway.

being unable to speak a particular language =/= race :nono:

Town made up a new story, presumably because he hates OP, and made it racist. He used his story to call OP racist.

i believe that's called a "strawman" argument

 

[Angel4Truth]

Whats racist in the OP, TH? I cant find anything, maybe you could quote the racist part and then tell us what is racist about it. Thanks.

 

[ok doser]

Corn flakes now come in a bilingual box ...

The horror. Unless one of those isn't English the complaint isn't much of one.

at what point would it become "much of one"?

the following languages are spoken at home in the us:

English – 230 million Spanish – 37.58 million Chinese – 2.88 million (mainly Yue dialects such as Cantonese and Taishanese, Standard Mandarin Chinese, also Hokkien, Hakka) French – 1.30 million + 750,000 French Creole Tagalog – 1.59 million + (Most Filipinos also know other Philippine languages, e.g. Ilokano, Pangasinan, Bikol languages, and Visayan languages.) Vietnamese – 1.41 million Korean – 1.14 million German – 1.08 million (High/Standard German) + (May include German dialects like Pennsylvania German, Hutterite German, Plautdietsch, Texas German) Arabic – 951,700 Russian – 905,800 Other Indic languages – 815,345 (Includes Punjabi, Marathi) Bengali- 800,000[14][15][16] Italian – 723,600 Portuguese – 673,500 Hindi – 648,900 Polish – 607,500 Japanese – 436,100 Persian – 407,600 Urdu – 373,800 Gujarati – 358,400 Greek – 304,900 Serbo-Croatian – 269,600 Telugu – 247,760 Armenian – 246,900 Hebrew – 216,300 Khmer – 212,500 Hmong - 211,200 Tamil - 190,000[17] Nepali language - 185,145 Navajo – 169,300 Thai - 163,200 Yiddish - 160,900 Laotian - 140,900 Cherokee - 100,000 American Sign Language – ~100,000

shouldn't my cereal box have every one of these languages on it?

why or why not?

 

[ok doser]

Whats racist in the OP, TH? I cant find anything, maybe you could quote the racist part and then tell us what is racist about it. Thanks.

it's racist because he says so

just like he's not a liberal because he says so :darwinsm:

 

[Town Heretic]

Whats racist in the OP, TH? I cant find anything, maybe you could quote the racist part and then tell us what is racist about it. Thanks.

No problem, but what I said was that there was a racist subtext in play. I'll go back and link this to the post where I speak to that, but the short version is that, historically, racists have used rhetoric that reduces minorities to the animalistic, especially blacks, both in the particular (monkey and ape) and in general (beastial). The narrative here uses one character and a group of animals to represent two different groups. The human is a giver, an altruist who finds himself plagued by animals who clutter and crap and peck. Comparing those on assistance to animals is historically in line with that racist rhetoric I noted. It's sold more softly, and the human is framed as someone desiring to improve the welfare of the animals he later regrets helping. The author then ties that into immigrants, though the initial net covers a wider grouping. The author sums his point by suggesting the solution here might be to "take down the bird feeder".

When you compare immigrants and people on assistance to ill behaved animals and use a human being to represent the put upon giver/altruist, a racial card is being played.

 

[ok doser]

No problem, but what I said was that there was a racist subtext in play. I'll go back and link this to the post where I speak to that, but the short version is that, historically, racists have used rhetoric that reduces minorities to the animalistic, especially blacks, both in the particular (monkey and ape) and in general (beastial). The narrative here uses one character and a group of animals to represent two different groups. The human is a giver, an altruist who finds himself plagued by animals who clutter and crap and peck. Comparing those on assistance to animals is historically in line with that racist rhetoric I noted. It's sold more softly, and the human is framed as someone desiring to improve the welfare of the animals he later regrets helping. The author then ties that into immigrants, though the initial net covers a wider grouping. The author sums his point by suggesting the solution here might be to "take down the bird feeder".

When you compare immigrants and people on assistance to ill behaved animals and use a human being to represent the put upon giver/altruist, a racial card is being played.

what specific race?

the "human being ... represent(ing) the put upon giver/altruist" - is that character's race defined?


is there any reason (other than your vivid imagination) to believe they're not of the same race?

 

[Stripe]

I set out my position and reasoning, left it capable of examination and rebuttal by the same faculty and means: reason.

You invented motives and ascribed them to the main character. You want him to be racist, so you made up a back story.

You got a declaration about what you did because there was no rational argument presented, just invention. You declare OP to be racist and the only support you can ever get for that is stuff you invent.

You invent stuff, I tell you your inventions are not in the story.

That's about it.

Oh, and an inordinate, consuming amount of attention paid to me in lieu of particulars about my assessment of your argument.

Positively Darwinian.

He is within the story.

Wow. Gee. :shocked:

He represents a large group of people.

Nope.

Until you're able to map allegorical entities onto their real-life counterparts, you cannot be a rational part of this conversation.

Even Brain has gotten this part right.

Why can't you?

The narrative/story had a rhetorically racist subtext.

Only of we read the things you invented. If we just read the story, nope.

Not even the author believes that or uses it as "just a story". Not even you believe it, continuing to beat the allegory drum, which isn't "just a story". And I've agreed from the start with you and the author on that, so you're arguing with yourself--good luck with that. He's not going to listen.

We know why you break up quotes now.

I'm wondering what the deal is with you and the quote function.

Just your ongoing messenger themed approach. You haven't done more than declare it.

Nope.

I've described maybe three situations in which you've used fallacious arguments. You've done nothing to defend your points except wail about me pointing out their deficiencies.

I never made up a new story.

Sure, you did. It came complete with a made-up set of motivations for the main character.

I examined that, it's approach, rhetorical use, and logical shortcomings. Your response to that has been almost entirely about me.

But wait, I feel another riveting, logical, part-driven and particular rebuttal coming.

I'd love to respond to a cogent rebuttal and illustration on some actual fault that can be set out within my particular and illustrated criticisms of your nonsense analysis.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Zeke]

 

[Stripe]

If this was simply a story about a man building a bird feeder and subsequently taking it down there wouldn't be much to talk about would there? Allegory, remember?

Which is exactly my point.

There is no problem with the story.

You have to invent motivations to get racism out of it.

I would hope you aren't but I'm pretty sure you used to teach, or claim to at least?

I've done everything from pick apples to walk a police beat. :idunno:

I'm not a teacher any more.

Get over it. :up:

The alarmist crap over a class where more than 50% of the students can't speak English was more than a giveaway. The whines over cornflakes packets and bank phone lines were just additional fetid icing on an already rotten cake. It's probably just as well the parables are described as such otherwise the poetic narrative probably wouldn't be enough to stop you considering them as literal events...

:AMR:

Now you're finding racism outside the allegory.

A bit like accredited, peer reviewed papers from Creationists then.

:AMR: You want to read peer-reviewed creationist papers now?

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[ok doser]

they were black crows attacking white children


didja notice?

 

[Stripe]

they were black crows attacking white children


didja notice?

:shocked:

RACISM!

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[ok doser]

and crows don't speak english! :sibbie:



betcha they'd eat my bilingual cornflakes too, given half a chance :sozo2:

 

[Zeke]

 

[Zeke]

they were black crows attacking white children


didja notice?

No, but you did. The point being missed by color of law.

 

[Zeke]

American citizen be it right or left neither have a clue to their slavery.

 

[Stripe]

No, but you did. The point being missed by color of law.

One wishes the liberals could be this color blind consistently.

Like with OP. :thumb:

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[ok doser]

No, but you did. The point being missed by color of law.

first thing i noticed was suzanne pleshette! :Shimei: