Is This A Fair Assessment Of General American Attitudes?
Side Score: 18
Side Score: 19
Yes. That's an American attitude, but they are even better at it in Switzerland and Sweden.
For some 'Americans' perhaps. More censorship. More government. More communism.
Except communism is the opposite of more government:-
Communism—a society without class divisions or government
I suppose it begs the question really. Are you a liar or just completely ignorant about what communism is? Or perhaps both?
When you try to sum up, with one sentence, the general attitude of a country as large and diverse as the US, you can't possibly present an accurate summary. Furthermore, your summary was specifically negative, and implied that Americans generally do the wrong thing and repeat their error. This is the kind of attitude that, if it were generally true, could not produce a country that is consistently a top achiever in studies concerning innovation, whether it's defined narrowly in terms of patents produced or more broadly, covering a more general swath of the population, such as in the source I presented.
Innovation leader is just one way to look at American attitudes. We are also consistently the most generous people on Earth by a wide margin.
Work ethic is another way we could talk about American attitudes. While we pride ourselves on our world topping work ethic, our lazier European friends love to talk about how aweful that is for us. Simultaneously, they complain about how rich and decadent America is, as if input and output are unrelated. Amusingly, "lazy American" is the picture many try to paint of the country that works longer average hours than even Japan.
The US is consistently on the short list for most technologically advanced country min the world. The countries that top this list correlate to the countries at the top of the supposedly arbitrary innovation list. Top technological advancement, like innovation, is another example situation that Americans could not achieve if Noms ridiculous were anywhere close to fitting.
Now that I'm done with this response, will my bitches please search for the sources I used? Thank you.
When you try to sum up, with one sentence, the general attitude of a country as large and diverse as the US, you can't possibly present an accurate summary
What a complete crock of crap. Firstly, generalisations are not supposed to be accurate summaries. Second, the idea that Americans do not share common beliefs is retarded. For example, 89 percent of Americans believe in God or some form of higher power.
Furthermore, your summary was specifically negative
If the accuracy of my generalisation hurts your feelings then I'm afraid that isn't my problem.
This is the kind of attitude that, if it were generally true, could not produce a country that is consistently a top achiever in studies concerning innovation
Oh shut up you flagrantly delusional sophist. Stop distorting facts so they better fit in with your ridiculous version of reality. As I explained to you the first time you tried using this fallacy:-
A) Innovation is not an objective noun. It essentially means whatever the researcher wants it to mean.
B) Your claims about "innovation" have nothing to do with the general attitude of Americans and, as previously pointed out, Americans are statistically less intelligent than almost all of their counterparts in the developed world.
Following your attempts to regurgitate this big fat red herring about "innovation", which quite clearly is not a study about the millions of people who are starving in America or living in a ghetto, but rather of the privately financed research being conducted by specialist academics, I can also conclude:-
C) Two sentences after claiming we can't generalise Americans you directly imply that Americans are innovative. This of course follows the traditional pattern where you contradict all of your own arguments.
D) If, following your inevitable denials that implying Americans are innovative is a generalisation, we conclude instead that you are saying a specific demographic is innovative, then of course your reference therefore has zero relevance to a question about general American attitudes and is, as previously mentioned, a big fat red herring.
This of course follows the traditional pattern where you contradict all of your own arguments.
Got it in one the clown lists several points and contradicts them then asserts you’ve “conceded “ points .....he’s the only person I know who can hold two contradictory views and think he’s making a reasoned argument
It's good that you conceded the fact that your generalization of Americans is not at all an accurate summary.
As for starvation in the US, we are neck and neck with Belgium and quite a bit better off than France. Our poor who suffer hunger and food insecurity also happen to be disproportionately obese. This is why lying little leftists like you have changed the focus from malnutrition to hunger. Capitalism has been reducing starvation world wide for decades now. So you switch the goal post to hunger and talk about it in the same terms as starvation.