I am curious how you can say that my statement is a Straw Man Fallacy?
The answer to that is in what you quoted of my post. You suggested that people will face prosecution because of this thread, and now you wish to change your argument and assert that non compliance will lead to prosecution. It is one thing to make the point that non compliance will lead to prosecution, and another thing entirely to claim that this thread will lead people to non-compliance. Your Straw Man is in the latter.
The above scenario was a hypothetical extrapolation of what would occur to anyone if they failed to comply with the Census.
No, the hypothetical was offered in your defense of suggesting this thread be moved to hoax, and that is a fact.
I thought that was what you asked me to do was to demonstrate what might happen?
I never asked any such thing from you. I asked a few things of you, one being you drop this horrid idea of moving this thread to hoax, I asked you to point to which valid arguments you believed you made in previous posts so I could better understand what you mean by valid arguments, and I asked you to make a commitment with me to stay on topic. I never asked you to demonstrate what might happen.
"If you are so sure it will hurt people, please demonstrate, not through hearsay and innuendo, what will happen to us by reading this."
This that you quoted was not posted by me, and I have no idea who you are quoting I just simply know it is not me. I went back several pages, just to give you the benefit of the doubt and make certain I did not write it, and now that all doubt has been removed, I don't mind telling you how annoying that was, to re-read my own posts knowing full well I did not write that, just to give you the benefit of the doubt. You are playing a lame game my friend, and attributing the words of someone else to me is more than insidious and should be looked at for what it is, and only undermines you own assertions as to your intent. You have ignored the requests I have made of you and disingenuously answered some other posters questions and now pretend I asked that question. Even if this was accidental, at best what this means is you are having difficulties in discernment.
It is a fact that the count of the census is used to determine the number of representatives apportioned to the citizens and it is a fact that undercounting will lead to misrepresentation.
I did not challenge this fact as being invalid, and no matter how many times you repeat it, it won't make it any more of a fact.
It is a fact that communities can loose federal funding due to undercounting during the Census. Please understand that these facts are based on U.S. law not my own postulations.
This "fact" I challenge, and I ask of you, so what? Why should communities be getting federal funding to begin with? Where in the Constitution has the federal government been mandated with doing this? Please understand that it is a fact based upon the Supreme Law of the Land, that the federal government has no obligation to fund communities, and not my own suppositions.
I "lumped" the statements regarding representation and funding together due to a typographical error in all honesty.
I can accept that.
It should have read "this persons Congressional district also looses seats due to an inaccurate count; and funding for public projects within the district." The semicolon would have more clearly illustrated that I was speaking of two different sets of consequences stemming from one action. I can understand your confusion regarding that poorly formatted sentence.
There was no confusion, and I fully understood what you meant by funding for public projects within the community, and my argument was that you took one valid argument, that being loss of representation in the House, and combined it with a not so valid argument, that being a federal welfare program. You went further in that paragraph to assert that this lack of funding could be very detrimental for the average citizen. You did qualify it as an opinion, and that is what it is, an opinion offered as a scare tactic to those who seem to feel a need for federal funding. I reject your opinion on that matter as valid, and would love to see communities across the nation refuse federal funding on principle alone, but that is my opinion. What is not my opinion is that federal funding of communities by the federal government is not an obligation that must be met. That is a fact.
In no part of my statement did I say that the states cannot survive without federal funding.
More dis ingenuousness argument from you. I did not accuse you of saying that the states cannot survive, and called you on this:
Someone whom would otherwise meet their civic duty fails to do so thanks to Proto. This person faces prosecution for doing so thanks to the disinformation they have seen in this thread. This persons Congressional district also looses seats due to an inaccurate count and funding for public projects within the district. I think being disproportionately represented and lacking in funds needed to maintain your community is very detrimental to the average citizen. Do you agree that disproportionate representation and a lack of funding is bad for a citizen?
And this is what I said:
but this fallacious argument that communities are incapable of funding themselves and must rely upon the federal government in order to survive is merely your opinion and not at all based in fact.
I wish people would be more aware of what someone said versus what people extrapolate from what was said.
Perhaps you could begin with what you said, and stop pretending I said something else. Do you honestly believe that all you have to do is misrepresent what I said, and others reading this will believe your misrepresentation and not know that I did not say what you said I did? I said what I said, and I did not say what I did not say. You on the other hand have been quite dishonest about the matter.
As for Proto's "disclaimer" regarding his actions I can only say cigarette companies put warning labels on their cigarettes but people still smoke.
All people have free will and must accept responsibility for their own actions. As to the quotation marks you've put around the word disclaimer, once again it is unclear who you are quoting, since you have conveniently left that factoid out, but you sure as hell ain't quoting me.