Therefore, something. :idunno:
Rather:
You're not responding honestly to me.
You say that, but you won't quote me doing it, while I've caught you literally misrepresenting my response, see: post
315. (link added)
Tu quoque is the lowest form of logical fallacy.
That's another thing you like to do, claim a logical fallacy without actually making the case it's so. Or, your head is filled with cream cheese, therefore nothing you say makes sense.
Same degree of proof in either case.
I have laid out a coherent idea.
Which "nope" was that?
lain: More seriously, you set out several ideas. And I answered on several points. You declared a couple I rejected with the same effort offered. I'm not in the habit of responding to every notion someone has with serious consideration absent evidence of the same effort put into their proffer. Seems fair to me.
If you want to be a sensible part of the discussion, engage with it.
I have. You're just in the habit of saying something like this as a defensive move. It's wasted on me the way actual counters seem wasted on you...at least so long as you nope and declare and attempt to mislead your way through differences.
Again, your startlingly cogent reasoning notwithstanding, we have a representative government here. You may not be as familiar with it, being a foreigner. We collectively elect people to stand in our place and speak for us. When they spend our collective money on projects from defense to welfare, they do it in our name. Welfare is, therefore, a public charity, a willful, intentional giving to those in need from a common purse. Of course, we do a bit more than that and, unlike the average person, we can investigate both if the person in question is needy and take more particular measures to see to it that our funds actually address the problem.
Individuals, through no fault of their own, aren't in a position to manage it.
The most effective way to meet a need is for a man to see it and respond.
Not unless you have the right man and he has enough resources to meet the need. Supra, but again, the reason we organize through the federal and state governments to meet natural disasters and other emergencies is that we realize we can do it more efficiently and faster with that degree of organization. The same is true for poverty. A great deal of it exists in the inner cities and in other places where few are present who are not also struggling with poverty and where fewer will venture to address it.
Fortunately, we can apply the same principles and understanding to the problems presented by poverty, momentary and long run, that we do for other national concerns. And we do. It's flawed and we've had to consistently address fraud and related issues, but given most people on public assistance, outside of the disabled, children and elderly, are off the roles in relatively short order (and we've taken relatively recent measures to further ensure that) and back into the work force they largely came from, it's been a successful enterprise.
Hopefully our current administration will continue to grow the economy, further reducing the ranks of those in need of help.
Making this about everything is one way to retreat.
Which would be a great rebuttal if I'd done it, but I'm still talking about the one thing and I'm standing right in front of you, rhetorically speaking.
