CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Classes of people can be oppressed, but classes of people cannot be the oppressor.
A common lens through which people often frame societies issues is in terms of oppressors vs oppressed. While this lens has important and applicable functions, a problem often arises when justice is sought for the oppressed. While entire classes of people can be oppressed, entire classes of people cannot perpetrate oppression. Thus, when retribution is sought against the offending class, individuals within that class who never oppressed are held equally liable for oppression. When the innocent individual proclaims their innocence, they are pronounced guilty anew, for perpetuating the oppression for which they are accused.
There's very little real oppression happening in the United States. If someone who feels oppressed in the U.S. had to live in a truly oppressive society, they'd run back to the red, white, and blue forever changed. There is no oppression in the United States strong enough to keep anyone away from the American dream if they want it bad enough. Most countries and cultures cannot say that. I'm comparing the United States to other real countries and societies, rather than a Utopia that does not and will not ever exist.
There is no real super "oppressor" in the United States. There are amazingly rich people all around, but you don't have to work for them or associate with them at all. You can even sue them or challenge them. That is not oppression. Iran and Pakistan's treatment of women is oppression. Being a slave is oppression. Having no opportunity no matter what you do or how hard you work is oppression. That would be some country, but it would not be THIS country. Blacks decades ago were oppressed. Their ancestors are NOT oppressed. Any black person that decides they are going to be successful is successful, and no one can stop them. They have created a culture of "feeling oppressed" and hanging onto past "wrongs", but it just hurts them. I'm Native American. My forefathers were done more wrong than any group in American history, but what that does NOT mean, is that I am oppressed. What that does not mean, is that I went through the Trail of Tears. What that does not mean, is that I cannot be successful in the U.S. of TODAY, in real life, right now.
That's a tough one. But I voted false because in those (admittedly rare) circumstances where a nation has legal and widespread slavery you can indeed blame the entire class of slave owners because they control the rule of law and they have institutionalized the process of oppression.
But like I said, that's admittedly rare. Far more often the allegation of oppression and the reason it occurred isn't so cut and dried. I for example do not feel I or my direct ancestors were responsible for US slavery and shouldn't be lumped in with the oppressors despite my skin color. But that's because my family came over after it had already been institutionalized, did not own slaves, and lived in a state which voted to be "free". Yet I would say though that at the height of US slavery, before any serious bubbling up of emancipation cries, it would be fair to say the Whites (as a class) were oppressing Blacks.
At the height of US slavery, it was an institution for the rich. Most white people were not slave owners as most white people could not afford it. It's not even the case that all the rich were slave owners. John Adams, for example, did not own slaves.
Thus, you cannot know an oppressor by their class. Being white, male, or even rich was not sufficient to know an oppressor when you saw one. You could, however, know an oppressed man by the color of his skin.
In modern terms, there is an ongoing problem with human trafficking and forced prostitution. It happens in every state of the nation. It happens almost exclusively at the hands of men. This does not make every man a pimping slave driver. Not even if the man has done nothing to fight human trafficking. As most of us haven't.
I would agree with this statement. Even with a class of oppressors, there is usually a few that question the reason for it or look to form a bond with those who are oppressed. Be it in sympathy or as a way to be seen as a "savior" in the eyes of the oppressed, some may be with good intent, others may be doing it only for self-interest.
Yep. This is the same thing as the "White people are all racist" cry that seems to be everywhere because this is implying there is no individuality. There is. People consistently forget about the whites who helped the Underground Railroad, the ones who campaigned to have slavery banned. No one class of people is all the same. Everyone is an individual. But that's not to say that a class can be oppressed. An obvious example is the peasantry of medieval England.
"Being the oppressor" is subjective. You could argue that you are the oppressor if you are directly allowing oppression to take place. For example, a man in the late 19th century using physical force to keep his wife in the kitchen and out of the polling station, or a white person in 20th century America forcing a black person to the back of the bus.
There is also the argument that if you are complicit in oppression, or if you are allowing yourself to benefit from the oppression without doing anything to stop it, then you're part of the oppressing group.
Examples include:
The daughter of a slave owner who is in full knowledge of what her father is doing, but chooses to ignore it because she has a very comfortable and wealthy life. She uses dehumanising slurs to refer to the slaves and enjoys watching them get punished, though she doesn't oversee or punish them herself.
A youngster in 1930s Germany who believes the Jews to be evil. When he goes out with his parents, he sees their behaviour towards them and doesn't stop it or even consider that it is wrong. He and his school friends talk about what they want to do to Jews "to help save Germany" but never carry out their fantasies.
A young woman in modern day Russia has three older brothers whom she knows routinely beat up gay men coming out of underground haunts in central Moscow. She doesn't particularly agree with what they're doing, but she doesn't do anything to try and stop them.
We could expand that to say that two centuries ago, a specific class of people (white slave owners and their families in the Deep South) were the oppressors. So yes, classes of people can be oppressors.
However, expanding this to an entire skin colour, gender or sexual orientation is very dangerous as it implies that huge groups of diverse people who don't hold a central shared viewpoint all think exactly the same way.
Hi Catninja , do oppressors always know they're oppressors ?
Thay may not see it this way as in slavers who purchased slaves for large plantations in the US , a lot of these people saw it as a divine right to purchase and own slaves and would mostly class themselves as ' Christian pillars of the community ' and would be horrified to be branded oppresssors .
No, I don't think you have to know or believe you're an oppressor to be one.
Obviously it's much clearer-cut if you know you're squashing certain people down, but you can be unaware of what you're doing and still be squashing those people down.
For example, you could be a man in the 19th century who genuinely believes women do not have the logical capabilities to make a sensible choice, and is worried that to allow them the vote would be to doom the country. This may be due to Victorian ideas or the kind of "science" that being peddled about by phrenologists etc. at that time.
You could have been taught in school that Jews are a threat to the Aryan race and if you don't have any reason to question it then you'll believe it just as surely as you would if you'd been taught the earth was flat.
I acknowledge it also paints the human race in a bad light to see everyone as either an oppressor or a victim. So while we may play the role of one or the other at times, our power shifts through our lives. So a child is "oppressed" in that they have less power than the adults in charge, but they can still take the role of a playground bully. A low-end office worker may have less power than his boss, but he can still go home and beat his wife. His wife may hold another sort of power (e.g. financial or social) over him, and so it goes on...
Oppression is not always "bad" (for example, letting pets or young children do whatever they like is probably not a good idea).
For the most part it's power dynamics and I also don't agree with the notion that all white people (or men, or straight people, or able-bodied people) are oppressors and all black people (or women, or gay / queer people, or disabled people) are victims. Some groups may or may not have certain advantages or generally hold more power in society, but it's too complex to try and draw generalisations.
Also the oppressed may not believe they're being oppressed for example I was born and raised in 'holy Catholic ' Ireland the church were all powerful from the very top all the way down and their influence was all enveloping ; incidentally a bishop helped pen our new constitution of 1937 .
We did not believe we were being oppressed and the oppressors did not believe they were oppressors.
Children who went to Catholic schools and were brutalised now can claim from the government for the suffering caused so they realise NOW that they were oppressed and the church fully realise they were indeed oppressors .
If one half of the equation includes EVERYBODY, then the other half does too... If the people who DON'T oppress, DON'T stop the half that does, they're oppressors TOO..
This is exactly the error. Every black person can be targeted for oppression simply by being black. It is not the case that every white person necessarily oppressed simply by being white.
If you do nothing to stop human trafficking, that does not make you responsible for the actions of other men. Even if your a man.
Collectivist perspective has been the cause of the worst atrocities in human history. The error you are making helps explain how.
No, they didn't. Nazis did. The specific class of oppressors had oppression as part of their ideology, not their race.
Many in the master race were on the other side of the fight. Individuals are not defined by their group. Those who seek such definitions are the problem.
We can classify people according to anything they have in common. So if we view everyone in the world who oppresses others as a class, what does this make of what you assert in the debate description?
There is a narrow type of class that can be oppressive by virtue of their class. That is any class that has oppression as a necessary element of its nature. There are some clubs, gangs, and ideologies that fit this category.
It is a nuance that I couldn't build into the title and didn't think necessary to put in the description (it can be discussed here). It is the only situation that disproves the topic line. But I consider it the exception the proves the general rule.
The reason for the debate is to illustrate that oppressive people tend to view collective groups as a target and that many who oppose oppression make the same error of collectivizing people to oppose.
I apologize for disputing the letter while knowingly agreeing with the spirit of what you were getting at. It's cheap oneupmanship and I am ashamed to admit I am sometimes guilty of it.
No apology necessary. If it hadn't been pointed out in good faith and addressed, the opponents of the spirit of my position could use this nuance as sufficient grounds to shut down the conversation and declare victory, never again considering an alternate perspective.
Your argument is false. It assumes that oppression is a choice rather than a natural by-product of hierarchical systems of government. In order to justify its own identity the ruling class must necessarily believe it has a right to that identity, which in turn leads to a justification of the identity of the lower classes. The ruling class quickly develops the notion that it is somehow "better" and this inevitably leads to oppression from above and resentment from below.
Oppression is a choice. People choose to lynch black people and gas Jews.
rather than a natural by-product of hierarchical systems of government
All governmental systems are hierarchical, but not all governmental systems are oppressive. Nor do all forms of oppression stem from government. There are numerous non-governmental groups that choose to oppress other specific groups. The KKK are just one example.
In order to justify its own identity the ruling class must necessarily believe it has a right to that identity
Not only is it the case that not all ruling classes are governmental (except in Communist Regimes), but neither is it the case that all ruling classes are oppressive. Furthermore, the nature of rule wielded by the ruling class determines whether said class has a right to that identity or if a given individual deserves to wield the rule characteristic of the given class.
Not all power is equal, neither is it the same. Nor does all power lack justification. But more to the point, power and rule is not sufficient to claim oppression. Oppression requires actions by individuals.
The ruling class quickly develops the notion that it is somehow "better" and this inevitably leads to oppression from above
The ruling class quickly develops the notion that it is somehow "better" and this inevitably leads to oppression from above
The notion that you are better than others is usually necessary, though not sufficient to engage in oppression. Plenty of people, even most in a class, have thought they were better than me. They not only have thought this, but they have had the means to oppress. Yet, neither individuals nor groups from these classes have oppressed me. That's because oppression requires actions (which are necessarily individual in nature), not merely an oppressors notion.
Your positions technical incorrectness is made worse by leading to morally incorrect responses. Responses to faux oppression include various communist revolutions, the rise of Nazism, Berkeley Riots, and the Dallas Police sniper.
Wrong. It isn't as simple as that. Oppression is a by-product of the dominant culture in society. For example, slaveowners did not view themselves as oppressors, but rather believed they had the economic right to own slaves. This only changed once their culture changed, and the actions of slaveowners were only understood as oppressive by subsequent cultures.
People choose to lynch black people and gas Jews.
No, you are again oversimplifying. People did these things because they were legitimised by the dominant class culture. It is not by some magical coincidence that only German fascists "chose" to gas Jews. It is because it was justified by the ideology of the dominant class. The same applies to our present culture, in as much as the "choices" I make directly reflect the ideology of that culture.
All governmental systems are hierarchical
Clearly, no they aren't. The internet is governed, but it is not hierarchical.
but not all governmental systems are oppressive
All governmental systems which are hierarchical are oppressive, because otherwise you are saying people choose not to be valued as highly as other people.
There are numerous non-governmental groups that choose to oppress other specific groups. The KKK are just one example.
The KKK is governed, it is a hierarchy, and it has a dominant ideology, so you'd better try again.
Not only is it the case that not all ruling classes are governmental
I did not say that the government was the ruling class. I did not even mention government in the passage you quoted, so it appears that you are deliberately distorting my argument again.
but neither is it the case that all ruling classes are oppressive
Wrong. All hierarchy is oppressive, because nobody chooses to be at the bottom of a hierarchy.
A thing being chosen does not necessitate it being a simple matter. It appears your confusion is caused by you operating on a different definition of “oppression” then that which is commonly accepted.
Individualism is specifically nuanced. Collectivism, wherein people are viewed as the group they resemble (physically or otherwise) exemplifies oversimplification. But again, this may come down to you using the wrong definition. I won’t know until you tell me what definition you are using. You should put it in your next post.
If it is not the case that oppression is a choice, perhaps you can provide an example of oppression wherein no one does anything oppressive.
Clearly, no they aren't. The internet is governed, but it is not hierarchical
You specifically blamed “systems of government” for oppression. If by this you did not mean government, but rather governance, that’s fine. You can disregard my comments concerning systems of government (such as communism) vs non-governmental organizations. They are related to the topic though not related to your post, apparently.
All governmental systems which are hierarchical are oppressive, because otherwise you are saying people choose not to be valued as highly as other people
Equality before the law, and generally equal treatment are the only valuations people wish it to be the same. In most facets of life, people value people differently and expect to be valued differently. You wouldn’t want the cashier to hug and kiss you the way your spouse does.
In the context of government and governance, most people value the leadership that would not be present if all were equal. Leadership means hierarchy, it does not mean oppression.
All hierarchy is oppressive, because nobody chooses to be at the bottom of a hierarchy
While most wouldn’t choose to be at the bottom, most would also not choose to be at the top. Though being at the bottom is presumably not as good as being somewhere else in the hierarchy, not choosing to be there does not mean you are oppressed. People don't choose cancer, but no one gave it to them, and they are not oppressed (in the social sense) for having it.
A thing being chosen does not necessitate it being a simple matter.
I'm afraid it does when you dispute the complexity of the matter by retorting that: "Oppression is a choice". You are contradicting your own argument again, which makes debating you pointless.
It appears your confusion is caused by you operating on a different definition of “oppression” then that which is commonly accepted.
I'm afraid it is the other way around, since nowhere does the word "choice" appear anywhere in the definition of oppression.
Individualism is specifically nuanced. Collectivism, wherein people are viewed as the group they resemble (physically or otherwise) exemplifies oversimplification.
We are not talking about individualism or collectivism. We are talking about the class system and how it leads to oppression. Stick to the fucking topic please. It is your topic, so changing it to try to score points is a bit stupid and dishonest, don't you think? You are complaining about "collectivism" in a collectivist thread which you started, you disingenuous dope.
If it is not the case that oppression is a choice, perhaps you can provide an example of oppression wherein no one does anything oppressive.
I have already explained that the choice to oppress is predominantly cultural. For example, Americans viewed the invasion of Iraq as liberation because their culture had indoctrinated them into the false belief that what they were doing was not oppressive. Contradictorily, by your theory of simple personal choice, every American soldier made the conscious decision to oppress the Iraqi people.
You are wrong and as per usual you will use every logical fallacy in existence as an alternative to admitting it.
You specifically blamed “systems of government” for oppression.
No, I blamed HIERARCHICAL systems of government, and you denied that it was possible to govern without hierarchy.
I'm done. You're a liar and there is no point debating liars.
I'm afraid it does when you dispute the complexity of the matter by retorting that: "Oppression is a choice"
I didn't dispute the complexity, I disputed your false assertion that oppression is not a choice.
nowhere does the word "choice" appear anywhere
Nowhere in your post did you include the definition. Here you go tough guy:
op·pres·sion
əˈpreSHən/
noun. prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control. Treatment is "the manner in which someone behaves toward or deals with someone or something.
Behavior towards others is a choice. Control that isn't resulting from physics, results from force, which is also a choice.
We are not talking about individualism or collectivism
Class analysis is collectivist in nature. The view that a class can, itself, be the oppressor is a collectivist notion. You would know that if you knew a little.
I have already explained that the choice to oppress is...
Hahaha. The "choice" to oppress...
Americans viewed the invasion of Iraq as liberation because their culture had indoctrinated them into the false belief that what they were doing was not oppressive
If you were not a collectivist, your bias may not have blinded you to the fact that, when we invaded, not only were the Kuwaitis released, but the Shiites and the Kurds felt liberated. Of course they got tired of us blowing shit up eventually, but they (the Iraqis) were happy to have us at first. I don't know how demographics effect your view of groups, but Saddam's class, the Sunnis, were the minority.
No, I blamed HIERARCHICAL systems of government, and you denied that it was possible to govern without hierarchy
You blamed hierarchical systems of GOVERNMENT. Government IS hierarchical. I'm sure you know that, but because of the type of person you are, you had to pretend that you meant governance all along.
I wonder how you must feel being so wrong, in content and method, about almost everything. And then to try to squirm your way out of your own way. It's pathetic.
I didn't dispute the complexity, I disputed your false assertion that oppression is not a choice.
He proved his assertion that oppression is not a (personal) choice when he exemplified the attitude of American soldiers to the Iraq War. The one hundred and fifty thousand American troops who invaded Iraq did not all make the precise same personal choice to oppress Iraqis. That is ludicrous. As Quantumhead rightly asserted, American culture had indoctrinated them into the notion that what they were doing was not oppressive. The same is true of the 14th century witch hunts in Europe. The Christians who were burning witches alive at the stake had been indoctrinated into the belief that they were not being oppressive, but rather were doing the righteous work of God.
All I am seeing from you is deflection and the political abuse of language. I am not seeing any reason in your argumentation.
Nowhere in your post did you include the definition.
He is again right that the word "choice" is nowhere to be found in the definition of oppression. However, instead of conceding that he is right, you first have merged the word "treatment" with "behaviour" and tried to pretend they are the same thing, and then further merged the word "behaviour" with "choice" as if they are also the same thing. And this after you accused him of changing the definition of oppression!!
I suspect that you do not understand the nature or purpose of debate. That is, when you are wrong, you admit it. That way you learn, rather than being blocked from learning by your own gigantic ego.
If you are making a personal "choice" to distort language and employ the use of fallacy, then pray tell why do you do it in every single post? Even when it is unnecessary? You are not making a choice. Your behaviour is being dictated to you by your hyper-inflated ego, which again is a by-product of American cultural inculcation.
Government IS hierarchical
This is another absolutely textbook example of distortion and circular argumentation.
1) He faulted hierarchical systems of governance.
2) You then claimed that all systems of governance are hierarchical.
3) He proved to you with the use of an example (i.e the internet) that there can be governance without hierarchy.
4) You then said he had blamed "systems of government".
5) He corrected you that he had said "hierarchical systems of government".
6) Now you have gone all the way back to the beginning and are claiming point 2 again, which he debunked with point 3.
I was looking through old debates and OMG you are so stupid Amarel. I saw this debate and I had to say it. The very existence of class is oppression you dipshit, if there weren't oppressors and oppressed there wouldn't be class to begin with. You are literally so stupid like omfg. People in the lower class are pretty much oppressed by the powerful class by definition, that's literally what class is.
Classes form very easily around a variety of functions, not just power/oppression. Vegetarian is a class of people, for example. Economic classes often form, in part, around competence and ability, but you wouldn’t know anything about that.
If you want to call that a class then whatever but it's not the kind we are talking about here. You created this debate with the specific intention of blaming oppressed people for their own oppression and claiming that it just can't possibly be due to an upper class oppressing them because that just doesn't happen for some reason. The reason isn't really important, just please believe me so I can keep being a fascist.
Economic classes often form, in part, around competence and ability
Great, so Justin Bieber, Kim Kardashian and the Queen of England are all just better than you. It isn't due to inheritance or arbitrary stupidity, it's because those people are more competent than all of us right?
Your inability to understand classes as anything other than oppression relationships is not a fault in my position, it’s a fault in your blindingly narrow perspective.
I created this debate to illustrate that individuals oppress, not classes. Oppressive people may chose to oppress based on class, but classes of people are not necessarily oppressive by category. Oprah is not oppressing you with her wealth and you are not oppressing her with your race.
I created this debate to illustrate that individuals oppress, not classes.
Class is the socially constructed conditioning of having a society with oppressed people and oppressors. If that was not the case, then rich people would not be a class, they would just be successful people. Instead there are people who are born into wealth, because it is a class and not a personal achievement. The only way to get into the upper class if you are not born into it is to be really evil, really gay, really lucky, or be one of the lucky few who are actually rewarded for doing good things by a system designed to reward mass appeal and/or privilege above all else.
Remember that blindingly narrow view I mentioned? It’s a hindrance.
There is a vast majority of relatively wealthy people who come by their wealth very honestly. A plumber can make enough to be in the top 10% of wage earners. That’s not because he is ripping people off. Same for welders, machinists etc. If a construction worker owns his own business, he will become very rich by enslaving people...Oh wait, I mean by building houses.
Successful people are not, by virtue of their success, oppressors. Unsuccessful people may find comfort in looking for outside forces that hold them down, such as the system, bad luck, or the Jews. But this comfort comes at the cost of virtues which could actually lead to success, such as personal responsibility, individual effort, and a disposition that’s not repulsive to those around you.
Successful people are not, by virtue of their success, oppressors.
I just explained to you that there is a difference between being "successful" and being in a higher class. Class is a fucking social construct which inherently implies that there are lesser individuals and privileged individuals. You are a fucking asinine sack of shit who deserves to get an anthrax infection.
Class is a fucking social construct which inherently implies that there are lesser individuals and privileged individuals.
Incorrect. Not all classes are hierarchical, as I have explained. Furthermore, not all (or even most) hierarchical classes are functions of oppression, as I have also explained. There is literally nothing oppressive about the middle class. Not even with regard to the lower class. By logical extension, there is nothing oppressive about the upper class with regard to any other given class.
Oppression is relatively rare in the west, especially as it concerns class. That’s why people have begun to insist it is unavoidable (inherent bias), accidental (unconscious bias), and invisible (systemic).
It is very important to people like you that classes and other social dynamics be viewed narrowly in terms of oppression. That way you can hide from your own vice by blaming your shortcomings on the made-up evils of the the virtuous.
Stop pussyfarting around the subject at hand. I am not talking about vegetarians, I am talking about the caste system that capitalism creates and that socialism is intended to mitigate.
He obviously isn't "incorrect". He's absolutely bang on the mark. Human society invented the class system and hence the class system is a social construct.
The top 1 percent in the United States holds 42.5 percent of national wealth, a far greater share than in other OECD countries. In no other industrial nation does the richest 1 percent own more than 28 percent of their country’s wealth.
Yeah, if there’s one thing America is known for, it’s our famine. Famine rates are highest among our poor, who simultaneously suffer the highest rates of obesity. The American problem of the century is poor hungry fat people.
Yeah, if there’s one thing America is known for, it’s our famine.
You are known more for your astonishing stupidity, which explains why you apparently believe mocking facts changes those facts.
who simultaneously suffer the highest rates of obesity
Ah, now you are distorting the facts again in order to sell us an absurd narrative. It is your country which has the high rate of obesity, not your poor. Your attempt to convince us that the 41 million people in America who are presently struggling to acquire enough food to eat are all fat bastards is as amusingly self-contradictory as all the other dumb shit you type.
“Poverty rates and obesity were reviewed across 3,139 counties in the U.S. (2,6). In contrast to international trends, people in America who live in the most poverty-dense counties are those most prone to obesity (Fig. 1A). Counties with poverty rates of >35% have obesity rates 145% greater than wealthy counties.”
People in America who live in the most poverty-dense counties are those most prone to obesity
Which is a correlation between high poverty areas and obesity, not a correlation between being food insecure and being fat. Learn the difference before you start cherry-picking information off the internet, you fucking halfwit. Obviously poverty does not cause obesity. Inactivity and poor diet might well cause it, which are also factors in those regions.
Poverty rates and obesity were reviewed across 3,139 counties in the U.S. (2,6). In contrast to international trends, people in America who live in the most poverty-dense counties are those most prone to obesity Counties with poverty rates of >35% have obesity rates 145% greater than wealthy counties.
Poverty rates and obesity were reviewed across 3,139 counties in the U.S. (2,6). In contrast to international trends, people in America who live in the most poverty-dense counties are those most prone to obesity Counties with poverty rates of >35% have obesity rates 145% greater than wealthy counties.
He's literally just posted the same excerpt you fucking idiot. A correlation between high poverty areas and obesity is not the same thing as a correlation between being food insecure and being obese. His claim was that the 41 million Americans classified as food insecure have the highest rate of obesity and his data does not evidence that claim. You both are showing us an apple and pretending it is an orange.
Yes I posted the same piece as Amarel I hadn’t read his piece so you’ve been corrected twice and you’re sulking
You stated 41 Million People in the United States Face Hunger
Amarel asked you about this famine I’m wondering the same thing where can I donate to aid this catastrophe? News is not filtering through over here in Europe I really want to help
You stated 41 Million People in the United States Face Hunger
That wasn't a statement. It is a fact, confirmed by both national and international data.
Amarel asked you about this famine
No, Amarel used the word "famine" because of the images it conjures in the mind of starving African children, and then misapplied it to the situation in the United States in order to manufacture the fallacy that his loaded terminology disproves the fact there are 41 million hungry people in America.
That wasn't a statement. It is a fact, confirmed by both national and international data.
I face hunger at the moment as I haven’t eaten yet , tell me how many people in the U S starve to death?
No, Amarel used the word "famine" because of the images it conjures in the mind of starving African children, and then misapplied it to the situation in the United States in order to manufacture the fallacy that his loaded terminology disproves the fact there are 41 million hungry people in America.
So what’s the difference between hungry children from Africa and the U S?
Hint .....Maybe the hungry in the U S have their hunger alleviated daily?
Shut your stupid fucking mouth.
Translation.....You’re beaten yet again .......it’s so easy
Don’t tell me you think people are starving in wealthy areas. Haha.
People aren’t starving in the US (though fundraisers may tell it differently, go figure). Obesity is our problem. Obesity is a worse problem among the poor.
Don’t tell me you think people are starving in wealthy areas. Haha.
Just stop you fucking idiot. Obviously there are many poor people who live in wealthy areas and obviously there are many wealthy people who live in poor areas. The American population is not neatly geographically divided on the basis of income. You are conflating two different concepts, as per usual, because you are a fucking lying fascist idiot.
Oh, I know populations are diverse. But the explanation for this correlation is not that wealthy people in poor areas are fatter. Health outcomes linked to obesity are worse among the poor. I’m not surprised you keep demanding that I stop and shut up, but I can’t stop. Not when you are so obviously driven by opposition to me rather than advocation of the truth. Care to continue?
Health outcomes linked to obesity are worse among the poor.
I don't doubt it. Part of the condition known as poverty is a lack of funds with which to pay for medical treatment and/or insurance. Thanks for that one, Sherlock.
I’m not surprised you keep demanding that I stop and shut up
I'm not surprised you haven't mentioned the reason I keep telling you to shut up. You are a pathological liar. It is impossible to have any form of discussion with you in which you do not contradict yourself. I have tried many times and failed, so now I simply default to the "Shut your stupid lying mouth" position. It saves time and energy which could be much better spent elsewhere. Trying to convince a dishonest man to become honest is a fruitless and tiresome venture.
Not all classes are hierarchical, as I have explained.
Even if you had explained that not all classes are hierarchical (which I'm guessing you didn't do at all), this would in no way disprove the common fact that most of them are hierarchical, or the common fact that class is a human construct.
There is a vast majority of relatively wealthy people who come by their wealth very honestly.
No, that's complete speculation on your part. You're purposefully making stuff up again to justify your personal opinion. You have not conducted any census of the world and you have not even bothered to define "relatively wealthy" for us, so that we cannot falsify your claim. The word for this is deception.
Successful people are not, by virtue of their success, oppressors.
The system is fundamentally based on oppression. That is its very function. The lower classes are oppressed by the higher classes. You exemplify this fact every single day by purposefully omitting and/or inventing information in order to metamorphose a system in which personal wealth is handed down from generation to generation, into a fair and just system where people get out what they put in. The deception you use when writing proves the point that you are an oppressor.
Even if I conducted debate the way you pretend, that is not oppression, nor is it evidence of one class oppressing another. There’s a reason your argument does not consist of any examples.
And now you have metamorphosed back into the common liar we all know you to be. I didn't "pretend" anything. I accurately explicated that you invent information to support your own opinion, and provided a working example of you doing this.
that is not oppression
Yes it is. You are using deception and logical fallacy to oppress reason.
nor is it evidence of one class oppressing another.
Yes it is. You are using deception and logical fallacy to oppress reason.
There’s a reason your argument does not consist of any examples.
This is just pure, unadulterated Freudian projection. You were the one who didn't provide data to support your opinion, and I was the one who explained it was because you made your data up.
The fact of the matter is that you are a common liar. You sit here all day and night pretending that up is down, black is white and left is right.
The lower classes are oppressed by the higher classes
Interesting I just watched a documentary where an army captain voluntarily went homeless on the streets of Manchester and London for 60 days , the homelesss are showerered with food by over 100 diffferent charities and the public in general , most homelsess people cannot consume the food they’re given such are the amounts and most put on weight .
Most of these homeless individuals take to the streets out of choice and admit this and make extraordinary amounts of money , a fair proportion make 100 pound sterling an hour doing so , a lot give up decent jobs to make huge sums of money to fuel drug and alcohol addictions , these are one of the so called most “oppressed “ societal individuals you bring up several times a week
Homelessness is now a financially viable proposition for these addicts .
Interesting I just watched a documentary where an army captain voluntarily went homeless on the streets of Manchester and London for 60 days , the homelesss are showerered with food by over 100 diffferent charities and the public in general , most homelsess people cannot consume the food they’re given such are the amounts and most put on weight
Ahahaha! Only on this website could anybody literally be so cruel and stupid that they would attempt to argue the financial benefits of being homeless.
Jody, you're utterly fucking pathetic mate. Shut your stupid mouth.
Ahahaha! Only on this website could anybody literally be so cruel and stupid that they would attempt to argue the financial benefits of being homeless.
100 pound an hour pretty good career choice methinks they cannot fuel their addictions any other way unless they resort to crime , it’s amazing you think being well fed and well paid for doing nothing is “cruel”
Jody, you're utterly fucking pathetic mate. Shut your stupid mouth.
It's amazing that you think being homeless is a "career choice"
It’s not except to you
Here is a piece by someone who knows Russ Watkins .....
Most people seen begging in London are not homeless. The majority are in some form of accommodation and feeding a drug or alcohol addiction. There are a few genuine beggars who are rough sleeping and doing it for food but this is very rare indeed.
For 15 years I have worked with agencies where we engage with people begging to offer support and ways out of whatever issue they have. The figures always show at least 90% are not homeless.
Depending on where someone is begging is what they will get. A good spot on Oxford st will get you anywhere up to £80 per hour on a busy day. Bear in mind that someone does not sit there all day solidly but will nip off to score and use during that period. Look around the corner and you will usually see the next ‘shift’ sat waiting for them to move and take their turn.
A beggar who used to be in Oval would deliberately refuse treatment for open abscesses as the smell and look would help get money. He once got a church pastor to give him £500 (yes, five hundred) as he “needed it for a place to live” and the team I worked for had his money in our safe and would not let him have it until the next day. Of course this was all rubbish and the pastor looked a plum when he rang up demanding his money back from us.
I will get a call at least once a week from the public and one of the beggars on the bridges of London saying they are homeless and getting no help after being homeless for X amount of years. We have a London database of rough sleeping in London and a quick look will always tell you that the person is usually working with many, many teams. This is not sometimes it happens, but always.
.
But then again, everything you say is false and stupid. I think we've firmly established that fact.
Most people seen begging in London are not homeless. The majority are in some form of accommodation and feeding a drug or alcohol addiction. There are a few genuine beggars who are rough sleeping and doing it for food but this is very rare indeed.
For 15 years I have worked with agencies where we engage with people begging to offer support and ways out of whatever issue they have. The figures always show at least 90% are not homeless.
Depending on where someone is begging is what they will get. A good spot on Oxford st will get you anywhere up to £80 per hour on a busy day. Bear in mind that someone does not sit there all day solidly but will nip off to score and use during that period. Look around the corner and you will usually see the next ‘shift’ sat waiting for them to move and take their turn.
A beggar who used to be in Oval would deliberately refuse treatment for open abscesses as the smell and look would help get money. He once got a church pastor to give him £500 (yes, five hundred) as he “needed it for a place to live” and the team I worked for had his money in our safe and would not let him have it until the next day. Of course this was all rubbish and the pastor looked a plum when he rang up demanding his money back from us.
I will get a call at least once a week from the public and one of the beggars on the bridges of London saying they are homeless and getting no help after being homeless for X amount of years. We have a London database of rough sleeping in London and a quick look will always tell you that the person is usually working with many, many teams. This is not sometimes it happens, but always.
They claim to be homeless as a lucrative career choice
Read this slowly buddy.
If they aren't homeless then obviously they do nothing to evidence your assertion that being homeless is a great "career choice", because they aren't fucking homeless.
You are the one who needs to do that, you amusing retard.
Say our resident time traveler 🤣🤣🤣
First you claimed being homeless was a great "career choice".
It is
Then you posted an anecdote from some random tool called Russ claiming that beggars aren't homeless.
Yes that’s your usual response when put in place by experts in the field , it’s incredible you accepted the word of two Russian “tools” regarding time travel 🤣🤣🤣
The bottom line is that you're a fucking moron. You're a fucking moron who can't seem to stop proving it.
Your complete capitulation was anticipated now fuck off back to your time machine 🤣🤣🤣
