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.
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.