And the key thing that makes a society a society is that the people that have a strength use that strength to help the people that do not have that strength.
And this is exactly why taxpayers without college educations shouldn’t be subsidizing those who do. The lion’s share of the “strength” is in the latter category.
You write “help people”, but you specifically want to help the (educational) demographic of people who least need it, statistically.
I never can quite understand the concept of casting aspersions on a person you’re having a debate with.
Accusing me of being educationally elitist does not serve your side of the conversation.
It only increases the divide between us, and it makes me not like you as a person.
If your goal is to be disliked, you’re very, very close to your goal.
But if your goal is instead to argue, which is what my assumption was, that people who make financially bad decisions regarding their education should suffer the consequences of those decisions… Well, I mean, it’s not like I was going to like you for your stance anyway, but at least you wouldn’t be attacking me for no reason.
This accusation exists only in your mind. I pointed out that, in advocating for student loan forgiveness, you are advocating for a financial incentive that is going solely to the demographic of people who are the least impoverished, on average.
And that is a simple, plain, objective fact, not an accusation on any moral axis, or “casting aspersions”. I didn’t say a single word about you as a person, you pulled that literally out of thin air. Not appreciated.
You write “help people”, but you specifically want to help the (educational) demographic of people who least need it, statistically.
You are talking specifically to me making an accusation that assumes incorrect information about me, therefore labeling it as an accusation is an accurate statement.
I assumed nothing about you, at all. These are the facts plainly stated in our exchange:
Fact: You’re in favor of student loan forgiveness.
Fact: You created a straw man argument by acting like my being against student loan forgiveness was equivalent to my being against taxes being used to help people. To quote you: “Why would you not want your tax money to go to help people?”
Fact: Student loan forgiveness only helps a small minority of people.
Fact: Said minority are wealthier on average than the rest of the population, and the crux of my argument all this time is that no such government aid should be going exclusively to those who are objectively least in need of it, on average.
If anything, I would be justified in labeling you as being disingenuous, based on your obviously-deliberate mischaracterization of my argument, but I didn’t even do that, I just replaced your straw man with the actual argument. Even then, there has been no ‘incorrect information assumed about you’.
All of the information I responded to was overtly present within the words you wrote.
And this is exactly why taxpayers without college educations shouldn’t be subsidizing those who do. The lion’s share of the “strength” is in the latter category.
You write “help people”, but you specifically want to help the (educational) demographic of people who least need it, statistically.
I never can quite understand the concept of casting aspersions on a person you’re having a debate with.
Accusing me of being educationally elitist does not serve your side of the conversation.
It only increases the divide between us, and it makes me not like you as a person.
If your goal is to be disliked, you’re very, very close to your goal.
But if your goal is instead to argue, which is what my assumption was, that people who make financially bad decisions regarding their education should suffer the consequences of those decisions… Well, I mean, it’s not like I was going to like you for your stance anyway, but at least you wouldn’t be attacking me for no reason.
This accusation exists only in your mind. I pointed out that, in advocating for student loan forgiveness, you are advocating for a financial incentive that is going solely to the demographic of people who are the least impoverished, on average.
And that is a simple, plain, objective fact, not an accusation on any moral axis, or “casting aspersions”. I didn’t say a single word about you as a person, you pulled that literally out of thin air. Not appreciated.
You are talking specifically to me making an accusation that assumes incorrect information about me, therefore labeling it as an accusation is an accurate statement.
I assumed nothing about you, at all. These are the facts plainly stated in our exchange:
If anything, I would be justified in labeling you as being disingenuous, based on your obviously-deliberate mischaracterization of my argument, but I didn’t even do that, I just replaced your straw man with the actual argument. Even then, there has been no ‘incorrect information assumed about you’.
All of the information I responded to was overtly present within the words you wrote.