From: howdHol@yaooho.com   
      
   "Kerr-Mudd, John"  wrote   
      
   > TLDR: Abuse rarely wins arguments.   
      
   I think the word to focus on is *argument* and note that somebody   
   extrapolating to the world from their clearly, wildly unrepresentative   
   viewpoint to say things like "these people being bottle-fed" isn't   
   interested in argument in any normal sense of the word.   
      
   He's cherry picking to a hopeless degree. You can't present facts or   
   logic to refute that because it always leads to a variation on the line   
   from Prufrock "that is not what I meant at all; that is not it at all."   
      
   The hope of this kind of person is to turn their opponents into   
   Prufrocks -- people so hopelessly paralyzed with analysis and getting   
   every single word right that they end up wringing their hands at the   
   prospect of eating a peach.   
      
   His vision of people recieving benefits is hopelessly cherry picked.   
   Simply looking at the school lunch and Social Security programs in   
   America, 1/3 of all Americans recieve major benefits. Add in veterans,   
   Medicaid, child tax credits, and the number jumps much, much more. His   
   claim that 3/4 of people people receiving benefits around him are some   
   kind of spoonfed, helpless parasites is not the product of a rational   
   mind. He's doing the opposite and looking at the worst people around   
   him, seeing that they recieve some kind of benefits, and arguing an   
   absolutely obvious false generalization.   
      
   There is no argument that will matter here.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)