again, you said there are poor people, then you said there are no poor people, now there are poor people again.
contradicting yourself and then re-contradicting yourself is not good form.
You're being intellectually dishonest right now in pretending you weren't following the discussion. Let me refresh your sieve-like memory, from beginning to end:
Buck: "how can you be poor if you can heat AND cool your own food!?!"
Tokeprep: "I'll make this really simple for you:
I'm not trying to say that at all."
(Caveat: You accused me of switching arguments and being inconsistent when I referred to my parents and misuse of resources. Looking back at the first posts, I actually made the point at the beginning of the discussion: "Relative to the American poor of the past, today's "poor" live in astonishing comfort, devoting substantial portions of their incomes to
entertainment rather than survival..." Another example of your intellectual dishonesty in pretending that I'm being inconsistent. Also note the additional explicit distinction between poor and "poor").
Buck: "then you tried to massage the numbers and redefine what being poor is."
Tokeprep: "You know who is poor, Buck?
The millions of people alive in this world right now who haven't eaten in days because they can't afford food. I think Jesus would be far more concerned with helping those people than with ensuring that the American "poor" get cell phone service and beer money."
I explicitly defined poor right there and distinguished from the second group of "poor" in every future post.
Buck: "the poor aren't poor."
Tokeprep: "The "poor" aren't poor. If you have a comfortable life you are not poor by the definition of the word. "Poor" Americans have exceedingly comfortable lives."
I explicitly distinguish between my use of the words yet again. You could possibly believe that I was saying hungry people have comfortable lives and should be grouped in with the "poor" given my explicit definition of poor as days of hunger in the previous post.
Buck: "the poor aren't poor. the 10 million+ children who go to bed hungry every night are not from poor families."
Tokeprep: "10 million children don't go to bed hungry every night. If you're food insecure for 1 out of 365 days of the year your household is considered "food insecure.""
Now I assert that you're overstating the number of poor in the United States (note poor, not "poor") by attacking your made up stat on hunger, which is entirely consistent with my earlier definition (people "who haven't eaten in days" versus "food insecurity" being defined as lack of food for any period during the year).
Buck: "i like how you are arguing that people who have to send their children to bed hungry are not actually poor."
Tokeprep: "I actually didn't say there were no genuinely poor people in the United States, by the way. I said most/the majority of the "poor" in the United States are not actually poor."
And here we are. Wow, that's actually a lot more damning for you than I thought it would be.
