Hmmmm

Exactly

Good point

Michelle Obama says many Black people 'live in fear' and admits she worries about her daughters 'every time they get in a car by themselves'
(with the Secret Service right behind them)

Looked @ your stuff, I like the way you think partner.

well they'll probably ask the feminists how they've managed to keep it up for the last 40 years...

No, didn't you see the image? They're gonna ask straight white males.

Is it just me or did I read that as “emopowered” 💀💀

Or to put it another way…

“If people keep getting fed how will they continue to get hungry?”

Diabetes

People are the cause of all their own ills. To end anything that is disagreeable to society all that needs done is to eliminate all people from the equation.

😁 I'm a problem solver. You're welcome. 😁

So if you ever are hungry, you have diabetes.

That’s interesting logic. Expand on that.

Certainly.

It was a wry response to a question.

Oh, so you were attempting to mocking me or my argument with nonsensical logic.

Cool.

Too bad, I was hoping you were saying something relevant.

No. You did not hope I had something relevant. You were hoping my response would give you a reason to make more snarky remarks and expound upon your great intelligence suffering the dimwitted. Just my uneducated, dull, unsophisticated opinion.

I was not mocking you. Feel better?
I was not mocking your argument. I don't even know what your argument is.
You say nonsensical logic (as if your "in other words" statement is) and I say humorous remark.
You say tomayto, I say tomahto - you remember that old expression of course.

You seem to be very thin skinned.

I made a wry comment to the question:

“If people keep getting fed how will they continue to get hungry?”

If you wanna get technical, my response, diabetes, is relevant to that question in that it can cause one to remain hungry after a meal due to poor blood sugar conversion cause by a faulty metabolic function.

However, my goal was to be funny. Some people don't get or appreciate comedy.

You weren't on my mind when I typed the words.

Now this question arises - what have YOU done to end world hunger?

(I know you're gonna ask me what I have done to end world hunger before you will initiate evasive maneuvers and here is my answer - nothing.)

You make many assumptions, while forcing me to assume your point when offering nothing to say at all.

If I took what you said personally, I wouldve said that “you were mocking me or my argument” rather than “attempting to”

Diabetes has nothing to do with my argument as it does not relate to the OP statement that the empowered cannot be victims.

They can.

Power/food is not a constant. It must be replenished otherwise victimhood/hunger sets in.

If anyone has taken that personally, it’s clearly you. Now do you have anything relevant to say or should we just start trading personal insults because you don’t know how to construct or reply to an argument?

Power/food is not a constant. It must be replenished otherwise victimhood/hunger sets in???

Who, in your opinion, has power?

I don’t understand the purpose of your question as it is far too vague.

Nor do I think it’s relevant to my point that power is not constant.

Are you unaware whom is in power? Are you seriously incapable of understanding that power is constant? Do you think George Washington is our President? That we are still under United Kingdom sovereignty? That we’re still subjects of the Roman Empire?

Power is not constant.

Who do you think is in power? Not that I care but it seems to matter to you.

If knowledge was power intelligent people would be making the rules.. look at what we got and tell me that is what is in power. knowledge without strength means nothing and is worthless, you don't need knowledge when you have unlimited money. You can buy the poeple that have that and make them work for you.

You think intelligent people want to make the rules? Interesting.

Again, you can only throw money at a problem for so long until all you end up doing is throwing money into the fire.

Make no mistake, I do believe in investments but I think you can at least agree, those in power don’t appear to make good choices on those investments.

Hence why, inevitably, intelligent people who make good investments are what you might agree would be better leaders.

Power is not constant ? I can debunk that in one sentence - " Those with money are always the ones in power" -

I can debunk that as well.

Because people lose money or can go broke.

If what you said were true, the people in power now would be the same as those in power four years ago, eight years ago, sixteen, thirty-two, sixty-four.

If money didn’t ebb and weave from person to person, including those in power, we would be Socialists.

Thankfully, we are not.

Those with money are always in power - Money is power. That is an eternal truth. No matter how you try to recombobulate that to fit what you are saying, Money is power.

That’s an opinion, not an eternal truth.

If it were true, then richer countries would always triumph over poorer countries.

True, money helps, but it doesn’t guarantee power to that group or individual.

If you want to share platitudes, the more common expression is that knowledge is power. Which it is hard to argue that it isn’t.

Knowledge appears to dominate over money in many respects. In war it is the people who have the home advantage that have the more likelihood to win. Not in every scenario but a good many of them.

Specifically knowledge of the terrain is a huge advantage despite the money spent on any advantages, usually technological. Technological advantages that wouldn’t have been possible without funding, true, but there is only so much money you can throw at a problem without using knowledge to solve it.

Intelligent people know when they are suffering and know when something is not right. Dumb , stoned, people are easy to control. Have you noticed that human IQ has been steadily dropping since the 50s ? I wonder if Pharmaceuticals have been engauged in socially genetic alterations by the request of some group that wants an easily controlled people.

I don’t see how that proves that people in power can’t be victims.

wait wait wait... are you saying victimhood is like hunger? I think victimhood is a mind set , some people still think they are victims even when they are not.

More saying that people in power can be victims.

That is an oxymoronic comment.. people in power are victims lmfao

Is Donald Trump a victim in your opinion or do you disagree with his often claimed assessment that “No politician in history has been treated more unfairly”?

He was targeted with political attacks and was treated unfairly by the media.. does that make him a victim? no, he wasn't harmed, he wasn't oppressed or physically stopped from winning the 2016 election.

Interesting you didn’t say he was stopped from winning the 2020 election. Was he not a victim of that election?

Victim definition:

1. One that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent

1.a One that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions

So you wouldn’t apply that term at all despite to Trump by being “a target”? What kind of people are targeted exactly? We don’t call them “target people”. They’re called victims. Perhaps you have a better term then?

Nevertheless, there appears to be a contradiction in your reasoning.

Trump isn't a victim, the only people victimized by 2020 are the American people. The people who have no power that can't afford groceries, the people being duped into not seeing their families for years while peolpe in power went on their merry way. Someone that goes home to a mansion and has lobster for dinner everynight after some one was mean to them is not a victim. There is no contradiction in my reasoning.

Excellent rebuttal on the 2020 election.

Unfortunately, you failed to actually address where I proved your reasoning. was in contradiction in regards to Trump and the media.

What do we call people who are targets? Especially targets who are successfully employed by actions deemed unfair?

-Unfortunately, you failed to actually address where I proved your reasoning. was in contradiction in regards to Trump and the media.-

Just because someone keeps saying they are a victim doesn't make it true. Trump has a victimhood mentality.. it bothers me about him. Everyone politican ever has has the media attack them.. is every politican a victim becuase of that? I don't think so.

IMO- victims are people that have been raped, murdered, swindled out of everything, or has been diagnosed with a illness, basically a major loss of their quality of life.

Your opinions do not change the fact that Trump was a victim of the media’s unfair attacks.

Whether or not the attacks were unfair can be an opinion but therein lies the contradiction.

philosophical debates are always a good time, but I gotta go to work. Take care

Agreed on philosophical debates, You argued very well. I’m sorry that you’re working on a holiday, but hopefully you got some time off this past weekend to celebrate our troops. Have a good one.

Quick question - what do you mean by that reply?

What is implied in your statement, please.

He doesn't know, his statements are so disjointed that it feels like Biden is writing them(or Kamala). Trying to equate hunger which is physical to Victimhood which is mental is vacuous and without any merit. Feeding the hungry cures hunger , feeding victimhood , prolongs it.

Thank you for your reply. You may be absolutely correct but I am awaiting the answer from the person I asked. I know I'm not going to get one because I've asked twice in the last 12 to 24 hours and haven't received it yet.

But I maintain hope that all the sanctimonious pontificating will allow the grandiose narcissistic ego to deign to respond to one like me, a political neophyte of subhuman intellect.

I agree with you that victimhood is a mental disorder that should be starved from one's consciousness.

Let them (victims) eat cake

I answered your question well before you even posted this statement that you were supposedly still waiting for.

I assume you mean a later question.

Though, in your haste to agree to someone appealing to your confirmation bias, it may have escaped your notice that the very same person who claimed that victimhood is only a mentality that cannot be applied physically, also goes on to contradict themself and say that victims must be harmed or physically stopped in this comment here:

imgflip.com/i/7n4h8n?nerp=1685449444#com25956103

This is a holiday weekend and I was with my family so my replies may be slower than you might expect. I also tend to work for a living and only browse this site during my limited downtime. Perhaps you may not have considered this due to your, as you say, subhuman intellect.

But my grandiose narcissistic ego will sanctimoniously pontificate that you were merely being impatient.

Perhaps you ought to examine caution when blindly agreeing with people who only appeal to your apparent desire for instant gratification.

Waffler

Simpler to just answer instead of rendering verbose obfuscation.

You lack the ability to answer a direct question clearly, concisely, and definitively with a single sentence.

I answered your question twice. It is not my fault that you cannot comprehend it.

I never claimed one should feed victimhood.

Only that people in power can be victims. Which I fail to see anyone actually proving they cannot be. Understandable, you can’t prove something that isn’t, only what is. Which is more an error in logic, which is my only issue with the claim.

Ah, a more intelligent response.

Power isn’t constant. Never is. It must be maintained or nourished. But it can also be denied or taken away. Which will lead to hunger or victimhood.

Who, in your opinion, has power?

I don’t see how that’s relevant. Opinions, in general, are usually irrelevant to me. I’m merely observing the claim from a logical standpoint. They appear to find it absurd that groups of people who are “empowered” cannot also be “victims”. It lacks four-dimensional thinking and is solely based on false dilemma or forced binary fallacy that people must only be one thing or another. It ignores the fact that anyone can be a victim. Even those in power.

Opinions to you are irrelevant? In your opinion. That is an oxymoron.

You just don't want to say "white" people are in power, which is the typical lament for all other skin colors not meeting their full potential, because I will then counter - according to your OPINION they should be allowed to fight and defend and maintain their empowerment....and have plenty to eat as well.

Using your philosophy you are praising "white power" for it's ability to stave off "victimhood".....which is coincidental to the popular image of white supremacists wearing pointy white hoods (or is it ironic? I get the too confused anymore).

Rabbits run in circles while the hunter stands in place.

So to you, opinions matter more than truth, logic, and facts.

Understandable but obviously not a good baseline to make an argument on your feelings.

You continue to make assumptions of my views and apparently my politics. I don’t frivolously support any group who claim victimhood, but that doesn’t mean victims do not exist.

Nor am I even claiming everyone is a victim, as that would be equally absurd. But to claim people who desire to be empowered are not victims is absurd.

That is an opinion - which you just stated, twice, are irrelevant to you. Even more, you said your opinion is not a good baseline for your argument on your feelings.

I have to make assumptions because people of your ilk spew rhetoric but won't answer a simple question without a lot of diversion and circling.

I am using your words - empowered people have to protect, defend, and feed their power in order to maintain that power so that they do not again become victimized.

Does that mean you are saying that "white privilege", "white supremacy", "white nationalism", white whatever, is a prime example of your irrelevant opinion based on your feelings of preserving empowerment and staving off victimhood?

If your answer is no. Please give your irrelevant opinion based on your feelings as to why not.

I’m not saying or praising anything in regard to any group. I already answered your question about “white whatever” question when I stated “I don’t frivolously support any group who claim victimhood, but that doesn’t mean victims do not exist. “

Why are you so obsessed with white power?

Why do you hate the fact that people in power can become victims?

Are you afraid of white people becoming victims?

Why do you want irrelevant opinions?

I understand you’re attempting to use my logic against me but objectively you’re doing a rather poor job that makes you appear to be defending white nationalism. It doesn’t matter who is in power. What matters is the argument. People who are in power can be victims. I’ve thoroughly argued that point as objectively as I can without polluting it with my personal opinions.

If you want to successfully argue against my point, I suggest you give factual or logical statements.

Waffler

It's your "logic" that renders the conclusion.

You made the case for white supremacists - once victims at some point in history that have defended their empowerment so they never again became victims.

Surely this is simple to understand given your level of self proclaimed mental prowess and intelligence.

😄 You have no point.

If white supremacists are victims of anything, it is their flawed mindset that they are superior.

Refusing to cater to them so that they may victimize others does not make them victims.

You seem to only believe power comes from the control of others and while that is certainly a form of power, I'm talking about a more versatile perception.

Freedom is power and when your freedom is in anyway impaired, you are a victim.

It is not freedom to desire the suppression of others, nor does impairing the actions of white supremacists to suppress others make white people victims. White supremacists are free to think the way they think. They don't have the right to use such ignorance to make victims of others.

My autocorrect gets to, too, and too confused too !

Or you stole a freshman's philosophy homework about how everyone is a victim. ;D

Claiming anyone can be a victim is not the same as saying everyone IS a victim.

My point is forth-dimensionally that people in power can become victims, not that they are victims currently, or that they will always eventually become victims.

Not everyone had to steal a freshman’s philosophy homework to get by so I’d appreciate it if you keep your projections to yourself.

You said victimhood is like hunger -everyone does not get victimized , everyone does get hungry. That is why I could not understand why someone that usually posts well thought out clear points made such a glaring error in comparison.

You claim I usually post well thought out clear points yet earlier claim that my statements are disjointed.

The word “usually” is the indicator that seemingly implies that you just disagree with my current argument at the very least.

Which is fair. Assuming you aren’t trying to appeal to my sanctimonious ego, you appear to then not disagree with my argument but how I am arguing it.

So, if I change the word “hungry” to starving…. As not everyone starves… does the analogy now work for you in the understanding that everyone can be victims, including those in power?

That those with power who eat, can eventually be starved and be victims.

Does this satisfy you or are you still unable to understand my reasoning?