@Anonymous: Next time you see your co-worker, why don't you punch him in the balls... what an asshole

@Anonymous: it's funny. I was just thinking of a MJ joke in a different context.

Nice work

@Anonymous: Straw man, very weak.

@Anonymous: >Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist
Arthur C. Brooks (born May 21, 1964, in Spokane, Wash.) is an American social scientist and musician. He is the president of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank
Arthur C. Brooks (born May 21, 1964, in Spokane, Wash.) is an American social scientist and musician. He is the president of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank
Arthur C. Brooks (born May 21, 1964, in Spokane, Wash.) is an American social scientist and musician. He is the president of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank
Arthur C. Brooks (born May 21, 1964, in Spokane, Wash.) is an American social scientist and musician. He is the president of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank
Arthur C. Brooks (born May 21, 1964, in Spokane, Wash.) is an American social scientist and musician. He is the president of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank
Arthur C. Brooks (born May 21, 1964, in Spokane, Wash.) is an American social scientist and musician. He is the president of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank

@Jiakko: The only roadblock you're running into there Jiakko is that, at least according to the study, the average D household made 6% more than the average R household.

The real difference is in attitudes about "who is responsible". D's believe in "the collective" and in putting their money into a "forced pool" through taxation that is then redistributed according to certain dictates/etc. R's believe in "the individual" and in being personally responsible for the well-being of those you are near/care about/etc. As such, D's feel they are doing their part through paying taxes and R's feel they do their part by giving to charities. This difference of perspective is also why D's and R's argue constantly about whether or not more social programs should exist within government. R's believe emphatically that it's not the government's job to do what the individual should be doing already and D's believe emphatically that it's not the individual's job to do what the government should be doing already.

There are, of course, a variety of opinions on both sides ... the above simply gives the over-riding principles involved.

@Anonymous: The study has been proven multiple times in this thread to be bullshit.

@Jiakko: http://phys.org/news201364510.html
In one experiment in particular, led by doctoral student, Paul Piff and his researchers, participants completed a questionnaire reporting their socioeconomic status and a few days later were provided with $10 to share anonymously. The findings concluded the more generous of the income brackets were on the lower-income scale. A recent national survey reiterates the results, revealing lower-income people give more of their hard-earned money to charity than the wealthy.
Poor people know better what it's like to be destitute, and to need charity to survive.

@askinnywhiteboy: Ooh, thanks for that! I think that makes sense too.
I think everything makes sense in some way or other, so any study could make sense to me.

@Jiakko: social science is made of soft and math illiteracy

@tingle007: The difference between wanting a systemic change and a guilt-quencher? Thanks for playing Oversimplify though.

@tingle007: You pretty much nailed it on the head. Most liberals would rather use governmental force to coerce others into being "charitable" than actually go out and do what is right themselves.

@tingle007: Do people typically show up at homeless shelters and other places to volunteer and Spout out their political party when they show up where you're from?

@Anonymous: Liberals don't like using tax dollars to expand the failed welfare state?

@Anonymous: >strawman fallacy

@Anonymous: If that's your only response, I'm thinking you may not know what either of those words mean.

@Anonymous: >Personal attack fallacy

@Anonymous: This is the internet, all discussions are required to degrade into personal attacks.

@Anonymous: Nope, democrats have been cutting taxes and attempting to eliminate welfare. Please pay attention.

>greentexting on sites without greentext
>construing reasonable statements as fallacies
ISHYGDDT

@Anonymous: >Doesn't understand fallacies
>Complains about accusations concerning fallacies anyways

A fallacy is, basically, a "bad argument". You can use bad arguments for things that are true. For instance, I could say "The sky is blue, I know this because my teacher said so." This is a fallacy, even though what I am arguing is in fact true (the fallacy is Argument from Authority). Fallacies do not mean that a point is wrong, they mean that the *support* for the point is wrong.

@Anonymous: Yeah, but his arguments weren't actually fallacious.

@Anonymous: >Liberals don't like using tax dollars to expand the failed welfare state?
Oversimplification of a complex system and then attacking this simplified form through implying that the end goal of socialization is to provide welfare. This is a strawman fallacy.

>If that's your only response, I'm thinking you may not know what either of those words mean.
Rather than not reformatting his argument to no longer be a strawman fallacy, the poster decided to attack the other's intelligence. This is personal attack, as well as poisoning-the-well, both of which are fallacies.

They are fallacies, ergo fallacious arguments and statements.

@Anonymous: fuck. Too many negatives in that one sentence. Cut me some slack, it's 2:30 in the morning.

@Anonymous: PROVE it's a strawman. I see it as very accurate. If your goal is to produce more independent people and less poverty it has failed dramatically. Keep in mind I said IF. If that was your goal you'd be operating differently.

@Anonymous: ...

A strawman is when you simplify or otherwise dilute your opponent's statement or argument, and then attack the diluted form while ignoring its true form. You in essence create a mockery of the target, then attack that mockery. So, saying "Liberals don't like using tax dollars to expand the failed welfare state?" is a strawman.
The more verbose reasoning for this as a strawman is the generalization and assumption of the "failed welfare state" as well as what liberals want - this is the "strawman", a pale mockery of what it is (included within the strawman is the fallacy of a sweeping generalization, but that's not what you're asking). Rather than attacking liberal political theory, the poster attacked the strawman: a "liberal" who clings to a "failed welfare state". This is a strawman. Stop arguing.