Take Down the Bird Feeder!

[Stripe]

So, Artie wants to ride on Town's coattails?

Maxine is rehashing that ol email bit? I read that one about...nine or ten years back. It pops up from time to time, bizarre as ever.

Seems quite pertinent to me. :idunno:

First error, in premise. Public assistance isn't some disengaged altruist handing things to lesser beings. A great many people who at some point in their lives require and use it have been and go on to be productive, wage earning and tax paying citizens. Those who aren't are largely comprised of those with significant disabilities, the elderly and children. That's the actual rule.

This is pure fantasy when compared with reality. Regardless of what welfare is intended for, the consequences are exactly as insinuated in OP. You declaring the intended outcomes as if they are all that happen does nothing to show that the "premise" is incorrect.

Not that your assumption is at all justified. OP is an allegory; inserting intent to regard people on welfare as "lesser beings" is completely unjustified.

So from this shallow, misshapen acorn a twisted tree with a bitter bark tries to take root, watered by the tears of frustrated outrage on the part of people who are either insufficiently informed, willfully ignorant, or bias blinded. But let's continue...

Or, people in need utilizing the mechanism put in place for that need.

Nope. That has no part to play in the allegory.

Birds can look after themselves.

It sounds like you just don't like the story.

Exactly as intended. The free is mistaken (see: the working poor pay taxes too) and the loving? We're about to see the falsity of that sentiment by the maker, someone who no one reading this would ever believe put up a feeder to begin with. No, they paid funds into their neighborhood co-op and the board thought it would be a good idea. They've been grousing ever since, doing their best to cut back on the feed allocated. Suggesting the feed could be scattered on the ground as easily and at lower cost.

This is just plain stupid.

The story is a simple description of a perfectly normal person; you're trying to turn a perfectly reasonable imaginary character into a monster.

Responsible management leads to manageable use, by and large. The grotesque exception is paraded here as the rule, along with the subtext of reducing people in need to greedy animals with the real human being the well-intentioned provider. Let the subtextual racism continue:

Racism now?

Where are you getting this rubbish?

And as before, the birds aren't needy people. Well, not in the sense you mean.

Third flaw. The porch would be owned by everyone, all of us are birds. There's no "taking back" a thing overrun.

Allegory is beyond you, is it? The "person" who put out the birdfeeder and owns the porch is utterly distinct from the birds, just as government regulations are not people.

The arrogant, assumptive conflation of the worst expectation with the rule. There's so much wrong with this analysis.

The government, subject to screening and real need provides, where necessary, subsistence living assistance.

Which it cannot achieve, hence OP.

Asserting that government programs can be better regulated than the image painted in OP is just asserting that OP has no value, while you have shown nothing that indicates it is not accurate. You're begging the question. It's a logical fallacy; you should give those up. :up:

Free education is provided to everyone, rich and poor, and only an idiot would suggest that nominal investment in creating good citizens and a superior workforce is a form of welfare, altruism, or largess.

Asserting the value of your agenda and pretending OP has been addressed is not convincing.

Citizenship has always been about birth here. What's bizarre is that right after criticizing that by lump sum inference the next complaint is about immigrants.

The complaint about immigration is within the context of the bird feeder. Do try to keep up. :up:

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

You've got no idea what this story is about, do you?

Supra.

What additional rights? Which people? What liberties and how are any liberties less than free?

Watch the news tonight. :up:

Just her heartless, headless, opinion, pulled fresh from half-baked, vaguely racist noodling that can only be called reason as an act of charity.

The racism card again? You do know who you're maligning, don't you?

That was without doubt the stupidest post of the year. :thumb:

 

[quip]

:darwinsm:

Darwinists couldn't form a reasoned point if it fell into their laps.

Adding captions now? - Old clown, new trick! :juggle:

 

[Town Heretic]

Regardless of what welfare is intended for, the consequences are exactly as insinuated in OP.

They really aren't, but how you get to those consequences was important enough for the author to spend a lot of time on, and it's flawed. Worse, the flaw is intentional and sets a dishonest table as I noted in my response to it.

OP is an allegory; inserting intent to regard people on welfare as "lesser beings" is completely unjustified.

It's completely justified. The writer makes the "altruist" human and the problem one of misbehaving animals. If you don't see it you're trying not to and there's nothing for it.

Birds can look after themselves.

I agree, it's a flawed attempt at parallel from that angle as well. A great many people receiving public assistance can't.

It sounds like you just don't like the story.

Rather, it's why I don't like the story that matters, because it's rooted in reason and analysis and not in feeling.

This is just plain stupid.

Of course it isn't, but I understand why you feel that way about it.

The story is a simple description of a perfectly normal person; you're trying to turn a perfectly reasonable imaginary character into a monster.

Make up your mind. You said it was an allegory. It's a poor bit of writing and worse reasoning channeled through characters only purported to act as the rule. Complete nonsense.

Racism now?

Sure. Stop squinting.

Where are you getting this rubbish?

From an understanding of literary device, political rhetoric and the ham fisted attempt of the author. Where do you get your rubbish?

The "person" who put out the birdfeeder and owns the porch is utterly distinct from the birds, just as government regulations are not people.

Regulations don't feed anyone. People do. The person in this story is meant to represent those who provide for those who don't. The provider is put in a superior position to the "animals" reliant on his care, who then abuse the gift of his generosity. I say generosity because at the end he feels no particular obligation to them, cuts off the food supply and sees things go back to what's important to him, his enjoyment of the fruits of his labor.

And the best proof of that is found in the authors stated aim, set out at the end in the form of a question.

you have shown nothing that indicates it is not accurate.

It's the author's case to make. Declaring it to be the reality of his welfare fantasy isn't proof, it's assertion/assumption. The burden is on him and anyone foolish enough to support it.

The complaint about immigration is within the context of the bird feeder. Do try to keep up.

So because some birds are migratory any bird is an illustration? I think you just unintentionally illustrated the problem of some hard right thinking. Thanks.

That was without doubt the stupidest post of the year. :thumb:

Okay, that's a couple of swings below the belt. Insecurity noted. You're just another symbol thrown from a cliff who has confused the noise he makes with meaningful participation in the orchestra.

 

[Alate_One]

Never...was this scripture an actual event or just, a prayer of David? a man who lost his child due his sin, killing of an innocent, the blood of Uriah was on his hands and he paid a price for it with death of his own son.

This one was a prayer, hoping for an actual event. I presumed you knew better but apparently you don't know scripture very well as there are certainly actual events where God commands the deaths of presumably innocent children.

I Samuel 15

Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"

And Saul is rebuked for sparing the cattle.

Numbers 31:17-18 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. 18 But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.

Deuteronomy 2:33-34 33 The Lord our God delivered him over to us, and we defeated him with his sons and all his people. 34 So we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed the men, women and children of every city. We left no survivor.

And there are plenty of other examples I'm not inlcuding.

So, if it was commanded to kill these children because they belonged to evil peoples of old, how would it not be okay for a woman to choose not to carry a rapist's child?

A life that was created through an evil act. Now many women might choose to carry the child, but I find it hard to get behind government policy that tells the woman she MUST do so.

Rose colored glasses I see...

Non-sequitur much?

Sure they do...absolute nonsense, they are abortion mills. Again, with those rose colored glasses.

Source

This is the problem, you make up your own facts.

You asked me who told me to have children and that was my answer God, and no the earth was not filled at all with my offspring prior. If people want children God bless them, if they don't that is their choice but, if you don't want children than protect against it, or take the responsibility when you get pregnant and do't murder your child to avoid the consequences. Murder is not the answer to the problem...and that is exactly what it is.

Not everyone in this nation sees it as murder, and you're again saying that the government should FORCE a woman to carry a child to term whether she wants it or not. For people that are anti government regulation, this strikes me as quite a contradiction.

I have to say this would be far less complicated if we laid eggs or were marsupials. Someone needs to invent an artificial womb. Still, any removal of an embryo at an early stage is likely to be fatal no matter what.

 

[Crucible]

Except for people like Barbara McClintock, Marie Curie, Rosalyn Franklin among others. McClintock especially stands out as her male colleagues couldn't even understand her research until decades later.

Sure, there are exceptions, and those exceptions in no way represent a rebuttal- what I stated is otherwise a scientific fact, men and women do not think the same way.
Their brains are not interchangeable. The fact that art, philosophy, and sciences from the beginning were of men speaks for itself- women are on the losing stick in those regards because they didn't have the minds that men do. They never approached these things on their own accord.

You, being a liberal, are just bought by a modern lie that, even now, shows no evidence of being true- most people, including women their selves, trust men more than women in all things practical. The human nature therein is rooted by what I've stated.

So, you can go on with all that fantasy feminist nonsense :wave2:

 

[Arthur Brain]

So, Artie wants to ride on Town's coattails?

Seems quite pertinent to me. :idunno:

This is pure fantasy when compared with reality. Regardless of what welfare is intended for, the consequences are exactly as insinuated in OP. You declaring the intended outcomes as if they are all that happen does nothing to show that the "premise" is incorrect.

Not that your assumption is at all justified. OP is an allegory; inserting intent to regard people on welfare as "lesser beings" is completely unjustified.

So from this shallow, misshapen acorn a twisted tree with a bitter bark tries to take root, watered by the tears of frustrated outrage on the part of people who are either insufficiently informed, willfully ignorant, or bias blinded. But let's continue...

Nope. That has no part to play in the allegory.

Birds can look after themselves.

It sounds like you just don't like the story.

This is just plain stupid.

The story is a simple description of a perfectly normal person; you're trying to turn a perfectly reasonable imaginary character into a monster.

Racism now?

Where are you getting this rubbish?

And as before, the birds aren't needy people. Well, not in the sense you mean.

Allegory is beyond you, is it? The "person" who put out the birdfeeder and owns the porch is utterly distinct from the birds, just as government regulations are not people.

The arrogant, assumptive conflation of the worst expectation with the rule. There's so much wrong with this analysis.

Which it cannot achieve, hence OP.

Asserting that government programs can be better regulated than the image painted in OP is just asserting that OP has no value, while you have shown nothing that indicates it is not accurate. You're begging the question. It's a logical fallacy; you should give those up. :up:

Asserting the value of your agenda and pretending OP has been addressed is not convincing.

The complaint about immigration is within the context of the bird feeder. Do try to keep up. :up:

You've got no idea what this story is about, do you?

Supra.

Watch the news tonight. :up:

The racism card again? You do know who you're maligning, don't you?

That was without doubt the stupidest post of the year. :thumb:

Er, no, I addressed Clete directly myself only to be met with a bunch of toys being thrown out of a pram in "response". It was a badly thought out OP and TH took it apart as he's just done with you in turn.

You haven't even managed to use the quote function correctly in this half baked crap so stop deflecting with the evolution nonsense and as for your last comment, you ain't in a position to decide that doofus.

If at all possible, stop being such an insufferably pompous clown dude.

:up:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sure, there are exceptions, and those exceptions in no way represent a rebuttal- what I stated is otherwise a scientific fact, men and women do not think the same way.
Their brains are not interchangeable. The fact that art, philosophy, and sciences from the beginning were of men speaks for itself- women are on the losing stick in those regards because they didn't have the minds that men do. They never approached these things on their own accord.

You, being a liberal, are just bought by a modern lie that, even now, shows no evidence of being true- most people, including women their selves, trust men more than women in all things practical. The human nature therein is rooted by what I've stated.

So, you can go on with all that fantasy feminist nonsense :wave2:

Just as well your thought patterns don't reflect those of most men innit?

:freak:

 

[Crucible]

Just as well your thought patterns don't reflect those of most men innit?

:freak:

I find it hilarious how a bunch of people, who hold to evolution, try to repeal the roles and traits of men and women. You all are simply arbitrary, nothing really stacks up to reason with your nonsensical biases.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I find it hilarious how a bunch of people, who hold to evolution, try to repeal the roles and traits of men and women. You all are simply arbitrary, nothing really stacks up to reason with your nonsensical biases.

Evolution has nothing to do with this. I suspect the only reason Stripe started bringing it up is because AlateOne is assistant professor of biology if I recall correctly (Alate, by all means correct me if I'm wrong) and has regularly schooled Stripe on the threads on that very subject. It's more bizarre that fundamentalists have such a hang up with established science but hey, you believe in a flat earth or whatever if you want to. A scientist you certainly ain't.

 

[Alate_One]

Sure, there are exceptions, and those exceptions in no way represent a rebuttal- what I stated is otherwise a scientific fact, men and women do not think the same way.

That's true but it doesn't make one better than the other. Each has strengths and weaknesses and there is plenty of overlap between the two as individuals vary.

Their brains are not interchangeable. The fact that art, philosophy, and sciences from the beginning were of men speaks for itself- women are on the losing stick in those regards because they didn't have the minds that men do. They never approached these things on their own accord.

Women didn't have the opportunity to do so. There's nothing wrong with the minds of women, your mind, however, is in question for repeating this nonsense.

You, being a liberal, are just bought by a modern lie that, even now, shows no evidence of being true- most people, including women their selves, trust men more than women in all things practical. The human nature therein is rooted by what I've stated.

No. That's called social programming, not human nature. You do understand nature vs. nurture? Cultures around the world are different, and they value different things in men vs. women. Apparently you're willing to believe that whatever YOU were raised with is true for all of humanity for all time.

Women can fulfill a variety of roles without the known handicaps of men (being easily distracted by beautiful women for example). Women have been shown to be better doctors than men for example.

Women are also safer drivers than men.

Men and women are not the same, but there are strengths and weaknesses on average, but the individual should be judged on their own merits since there's a lot of overlap.

 

[Alate_One]

Evolution has nothing to do with this. I suspect the only reason Stripe started bringing it up is because AlateOne is assistant professor of biology if I recall correctly (Alate, by all means correct me if I'm wrong) and has regularly schooled Stripe on the threads on that very subject. It's more bizarre that fundamentalists have such a hang up with established science but hey, you believe in a flat earth or whatever if you want to. A scientist you certainly ain't.

That is correct. Though Stripe occasionally uses Darwinist as a random insult it seems.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That is correct. Though Stripe occasionally uses Darwinist as a random insult it seems.

I think Stripe's just random altogether...

lain:

 

[Alate_One]

I find it hilarious how a bunch of people, who hold to evolution, try to repeal the roles and traits of men and women. You all are simply arbitrary, nothing really stacks up to reason with your nonsensical biases.

The "roles" of men and women you espouse aren't determined by evolution, they're determined by the culture one grows up in. The only thing evolution has to do with gender roles is females bear offspring and are on average less aggressive and more sociable. If women ran the world, we would likely have far fewer wars.

 

[Stripe]

They really aren't.

They really are.

It's completely justified.

It's completely unjustified.

The writer makes the "altruist" human and the problem one of misbehaving animals. If you don't see it you're trying not to and there's nothing for it.

And the allegory is to government regulations and those who abuse welfare. You're just skewing the intention of the story because you hate the conclusions.

It's a flawed attempt at parallel from that angle as well.

Nope. And quit making up things for me to say that you can agree with.

Rather, it's why I don't like the story that matters, because it's rooted in reason and analysis and not in feeling.

So you don't like reason and analysis? :AMR:

Of course it isn't, but I understand why you feel that way about it.

Stupid. You're calling Clete a racist.

Make up your mind. You said it was an allegory.

An allegory can't include a description of an imaginary character? :AMR:

It's a poor bit of writing.

Nope. It's well constructed. No major grammatical or spelling flaws. It seems that you've lost all capacity to be reasonable.

And worse reasoning channeled through characters only purported to act as the rule.

Nope. It's an allegory. If you think it is attempting to establish reality, you need to have a think through what allegory is. :thumb:

Stop squinting.

Neh.

From an understanding of literary device, political rhetoric and the ham fisted attempt of the author.

Even if the author is ignorant, how does that show racism?

Regulations don't feed anyone. People do.

You can't be this dense.

Talking to the willfully ignorant is a pain at the best of times, but trying to explain allegory to them?

Seriously, go study some basic literature. :thumb:

 

[Town Heretic]

Cutting to the chase, so to speak:

You're calling Clete a racist.

Clete didn't write it. The person who did traded on it though.

Now back to your ongoing fit, in summary:

completely unjustified skewing the intention you hate the conclusions.quit making up things for me to say you don't like reason and analysis Stupid you've lost all capacity to be reasonable you need to have a think through what allegory is. You can't be this dense.Talking to the willfully ignorant go study some basic literature. :thumb:

As nothing in your response adds anything new or substantive to what you said before, that's "When" for me.

 

[Crucible]

The "roles" of men and women you espouse aren't determined by evolution, they're determined by the culture one grows up in. The only thing evolution has to do with gender roles is females bear offspring and are on average less aggressive and more sociable. If women ran the world, we would likely have far fewer wars.

That's all categorically false, based on a laughable dichotomy.

 

[Alate_One]

That's all categorically false, based on a laughable dichotomy.

Really? There are very few women convicted of violent crimes compared to men, so there's a good chance the world would be less violent with women in charge.

You opened this can of worms.

 

[Crucible]

Really? There are very few women convicted of violent crimes compared to men, so there's a good chance the world would be less violent with women in charge.

You opened this can of worms.

Cool story.

Ever visited a women's prison? They fight each other for far more trivial reasons than what you would see in a men's prison. In fact, that really extends to general society- women squabble over anything.

It's funny when a creationist knows more about the consequences of evolution than an evolutionist :wave2:

 

[Alate_One]

Cool story.

It's called a hypothesis based on data.

Ever visited a women's prison? They fight each other for far more trivial reasons than what you would see in a men's prison. In fact, that really extends to general society- women squabble over anything.

Confronted with data, you resort to anecdotes. What a surprise . . . :chuckle:

It's funny when a creationist knows more about the consequences of evolution than an evolutionist :wave2:

Um, no. You haven't said anything about the "consequences" of evolution that are accurate. What you're actually saying here is "I can confirm my own bias"! *golf clap*

 

[Crucible]

It's called a hypothesis based on data.

Confronted with data, you resort to anecdotes. What a surprise . . . :chuckle:


Um, no. You haven't said anything about the "consequences" of evolution that are accurate. What you're actually saying there is "I can confirm my own bias"! *golf clap*

Evolution is a universal concept that covers 'social constructs'.

Your feminism has robbed you of that concept, and it contradicts you people altogether- the only thing women excel at is birthing and caring for babies. That's what God made women to be- man's helpful companion and birther of more men and women.