Wisconsin school district opts out of free school lunches...cuz Boostraps

[Jonnusthegreat]

Then you don't think all kids should eat for free.

He literally disproved this entire point in the text that you quoted. You're trying to impose some fallacious argument on him that isn't his argument.

[Orange Joe]

He literally disproved this entire point in the text that you quoted. You're trying to impose some fallacious argument on him that isn't his argument.

Well no. If you are fine with either you are fine with kids going hungry. You don't WANT all kids to eat. IF you did you wouldn't be fine with some going hungry.


This isn't "fallacious" it's basic logic.

[Machismo]

Then you don't think all kids should eat for free.

Nope, that's a misconception on your part.

Let's put it this way. I want to eat a cheeseburger right now, but I'd be fine with a salad.

[Egomaniac]

He literally disproved this entire point in the text that you quoted. You're trying to impose some fallacious argument on him that isn't his argument.

I asked him if he thought all kids should or should not eat for free.

He said he's "fine with either"

Therefore he does not think all kids should eat for free.

[Orange Joe]

Well no. If you are fine with either you are fine with kids going hungry. You don't WANT all kids to eat. IF you did you wouldn't be fine with some going hungry.


This isn't "fallacious" it's basic logic.

Nope, that's a misconception on your part.

I know logic isn't your strong point but yeah.... IF you are fine with both you don't WANT all kids to eat for free.

[Shadowferal]

Well no. If you are fine with either you are fine with kids going hungry. You don't WANT all kids to eat. IF you did you wouldn't be fine with some going hungry.
This isn't "fallacious" it's basic logic.

Ya...one shouldn't be fine with "either."
You're either all in for the children or you're a *expletive

[Machismo]

I know logic isn't your strong point but yeah.... IF you are fine with both you don't WANT all kids to eat for free.

Have you ever wanted something for dinner, but been fine with something else?

[Jonnusthegreat]

Well no. If you are fine with either you are fine with kids going hungry. You don't WANT all kids to eat. IF you did you wouldn't be fine with some going hungry.


This isn't "fallacious" it's basic logic.

"Basic logic" dictates that being fine with something less than ideal does not mean that the ideal is not desired, mutual exclusivity not being a thing and all.

Re-read the literal arguments.
Person A says "I think X. I also think Y."
"Person B says "You don't think X."
It's just stupid to side with person B.
That's what you've done.

- - - Updated - - -

I asked him if he thought all kids should or should not eat for free.

He said he's "fine with either"

Therefore he does not think all kids should eat for free.

What does being fine with either have to do with anything?

He literally said all kids should eat for free. He gave you the answer you were expecting, yet you somehow decided to ignore his answer when formulating your response.

[Egomaniac]

Have you ever wanted something for dinner, but been fine with something else?

These kids just want to have dinner. You're "fine" if some of them don't get it.

[Orange Joe]

"Basic logic" dictates that being fine with something less than ideal does not mean that the ideal is not desired, mutual exclusivity not being a thing and all.

Re-read the literal arguments.
Person A says "I think X. I also think Y."
"Person B says "You don't think X."
It's just stupid to side with person B.
That's what you've done.

when y is in contradiction to x it's not logical. Which it would not be stupid to side with person B.


It's like saying I'm against guns but I'm fine with people being shot. It doesn't work.

[Machismo]

These kids just want to have dinner. You're "fine" if some of them don't get it.

I'm fine if some of their parents who can afford to pay for that dinner... pay for that dinner.

You forgot about that part.

[Egomaniac]

I'm fine if some of their parents who can afford to pay for that dinner... pay for that dinner.

I didn't forget anything. You forgot about the "free" part.

Basically, you're fine if little Timmy doesn't get to eat lunch today because his parents just aren't quite poor enough.

[Machismo]

I didn't forget anything. You forgot about the "free" part.

Basically, you're fine if little Timmy doesn't get to eat lunch today because his parents just aren't quite poor enough.

So, if a parent who can afford to feed their kids feeds them... you're not fine with it?

This is literally your crappy logic.

Nope, I want Little Timmy to eat. I'm fine if the government pays for it. I'm fine if his parents pay for it.

[Egomaniac]

So, if a parent who can afford to feed their kids feeds them... you're not fine with it?

This is literally your crappy logic.

Nope, I want Little Timmy to eat. I'm fine if the government pays for it. I'm fine if his parents pay for it.

Again, it's not about what "you're fine with" happening.

I'm fine if kids get hot dogs. I'm fine if kids get pizza. But i think all kids SHOULD eat free.

Either you think kids SHOULD eat free or you do not. And you do not.

Nope, I want Little Timmy to eat. I'm fine if the government pays for it. I'm fine if his parents pay for it.

You want little Timmy to eat. But you're "fine" if he doesn't.

[Machismo]

Again, it's not about what "you're fine with" happening.

I'm fine if kids get hot dogs. I'm fine if kids get pizza. But i think all kids SHOULD eat free.

Either you think kids SHOULD eat free or you do not. And you do not.



You want little Timmy to eat. But you're "fine" if he doesn't.

No, you don't get to tell me what I think, and have it actually stick.

I'm literally refuting you with my own words.

I'll just settle it with this. You are objectively wrong, because I have literally typed something else, and.uou deliberately misinterpreted it.

[Jonnusthegreat]

when y is in contradiction to x it's not logical. Which it would not be stupid to side with person B.


It's like saying I'm against guns but I'm fine with people being shot. It doesn't work.

Y is not a contradiction of X in this case.

I also think all kids should eat free but am also fine with only impoverished children eating free.

You can also be against guns and fine with people being shot. I'm not sure where your sense of mutual exclusivity has gone.

[Egomaniac]

Y is not a contradiction of X in this case.

I also think all kids should eat free but am also fine with only impoverished children eating free.

You can also be against guns and fine with people being shot. I'm not sure where your sense of mutual exclusivity has gone.

It's really simple.

If the question is "Should all kids eat free?" and your answer is "I'm fine if some kids don't" then that means you don't think all kids should eat free.

[Jonnusthegreat]

It's really simple.

If the question is "Should all kids eat free?" and your answer is "I'm fine if some kids don't" then that means you don't think all kids should eat free.

It is very simple.

You are incorrect.

[JohnBrown1917]

It is very simple.

You are incorrect.

At least now Machismo is not the only poster arguing against this.

[Jonnusthegreat]

At least now Machismo is not the only poster arguing against this.

Anyone with a working brain is arguing against this.