Reply With Quote
Please show where anyone, anywhere, in this thread, or any other here, has EVER advocated such a thing.
Since I know you can't:
Fallacy: Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and subs utes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
Person A has position XPerson A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not cons ute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
Agloco: "we should help people with low incomes"
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
elbama: "you want to hand out your money without any accountability"
Person B attacks position Y.
elbambas implied attack: "helping people with low incomes is irresponsible"
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
"we should not help people with low incomes because it is irresponsible".
No one says hand out money willy nilly without any accountability or oversight.
The fact there may be abuse in en lement programs is not, to me, a valid argument against helping people with en lement programs.
I am sure there are people that abuse the system. I can accept that cost, when the benefits are just as clear.
If you can't quantify the "countless stories" of abuse, then you are not giving me anything logical or quantifiable, but asking me to change policy based on your hunch.
Sorry, I prefer having say, actual data, before changing that many people's lives.
