Comment

Comment on get a job you loser

<- View Parent

jve@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

Not that I’ve seen.

Sorry so it was a joke or not?

Or is this a joke now.

So you really wanted me to answer whether I was moving goal posts or forgetting? Uhhuhh…

I really did. Thanks for answering the question both the first time, and the second time when you copy/pasted it.

the good-faith zone?

I guess I could have been nicer when replying to your ignorant comment.

It’s hardly minimum wage. This is a nice example of moving the goal posts. I won’t move with you.

This is not an example of moving the goal posts. This was a clear and obvious example of showing you how bad your argument was.

Specifically, it’s a logical fallacy called denying the antecedent.

Eg if A then B

DOES NOT imply that

If NOT A then NOT B

That 50k/yr is a living wage

In many many parts of the us, this is simply not a living wage. It’s borderline poverty.

livingwage.mit.edu

source

Sort:hotnew top

Photonic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

Sorry so it was a joke or not? Or is this a joke now.

I clearly wrote, for the third time now: the word illiterate was a joke about your lack of understanding a simple written sentence.

I guess I could have been nicer when replyto your ignorant comment.

Maybe you’re hallucinating things now. There was nothing ignorant about my comment. Your sarcastic bullshit was simply asinine right off the bat. I was having a chat with that other guy and here you come barging in, your idiocy on full display. You’re not projecting that shit on me. Get it away from me.

This is not an example of moving the goal posts. This was a clear and obvious example of showing you how bad your argument was.
Specifically, it’s a logical fallacy called denying the antecedent.
Eg if A then B
DOES NOT imply that
If NOT A then NOT B

If they’re not dead it means they’re living. If they’re not homeless it means they have a home.
It was a reductio ad absurdum, and like I said, not questions one should really answer.

In many many parts of the us, this is simply not a living wage. It’s borderline poverty.

Teachers are living perfectly normal lives and they are not all on the brink of poverty. Sure they don’t drive the nicest car, but if that is what you think is important, just go work for Evil inc. instead.

source
- jve@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  
  I clearly wrote, for the third time now: the word illiterate was a joke about your lack of understanding a simple written sentence.
  
  You did. You also doubled down and yet again with “none that I’ve seen”.
  
  So this was an extra joke? Hilarious.
  
  There was nothing ignorant about my comment
  
  There was and is. The comment were referring to is the one where you said “it’s not that hard” right?
  
  That ignorant as fuck comment?
  
  If they’re not dead it means they’re living
  
  So to be clear, everybody who is not dead or homeless is making a living wage? Is that your argument?
  
  So by your standards they should have a living wage.
  
  This appears to be your standard. Not mine.
  
  If I am misconstruing your standard, what is your standard?
  
  Mine is that they should be able to afford reasonable shelter and food without having to find roommates or other external sources of income.
  
  Also, it was reductio ad absurdum
  
  That is what I used, yes. You did not.
  
  Teachers are living perfectly normal lives and they are not all on the brink of poverty.
  
  Why do you keep generalizing it to “all”? Where did “all” come into the conversation?
  
  erstrategies.org/…/average-teacher-salary-is-belo…
  
  source
  - Photonic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    
    I’ve understood
    
    Doubt.
    
    The comment were referring
    
    We’re*
    And you can pick whichever you want. You still haven’t made a case why any of them are ignorant. Using the word doesn’t make it so.
    
    So to be clear, everybody who is not dead or homeless is making a living wage? Is that your argument?
    
    Well…
    
    Mm yes, he forgot to mention the silly extra requirements of food and shelter.
    
    … apparently it’s yours. Which is why the reductio ad absurdum was mine, but nice try at trying to make it seem like you can read.
    
    to be your standard
    
    Still nope, see above.
    
    Mine is that they should be able to afford reasonable shelter and food without having to find roommates or other external sources of income.
    
    More movement of the goal posts I see… whatever happened to food and shelter?
    
    Why do you keep generalizing it to “all”?
    
    What’s your point? Why shouldn’t I generalize? We don’t know the financial situation of each teacher so we can only speak in general terms.
    
    And for the umpteenth time: it’s not about the teachers, or the nurses, or whatever job. The fact that teachers are underpaid is something I already addressed in the comment you responded to. So I don’t know what you’re trying to argue.
    
    The premise was that the jobs were hard to find. They are not. Period.
    
    source
    jve@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    
    We’re*
    
    Lmfao. Got me there! Was that pretty confusing for you without the apostrophe?
    
    You still haven’t made a case why any of them are ignorant. Using the word doesn’t make it so.
    
    I have, but I’ll say it again.
    
    It’s ignorant because the jobs that give back to humanity and pay a livable wage are hard to get. You just choose to believe that they are not.
    
    You also seem to be willfully ignorant of what a livable wage means.
    
    Which is why the reductio ad absurdum was mine
    
    If this is what you were trying to do, you did a shit job. I even deconstructed it for you.
    
    More movement of the goal posts I see… whatever happened to food and shelter?
    
    This isn’t moving the goal posts. This is the literal definition of a livable wage.
    
    What is your definition?
    
    What’s your point? Why shouldn’t I generalize?
    
    Loads of reasons, but most relevant here is that you can make some very misleading but technically true statements when you do so.
    
    For example:
    
    Not all homeless people are poor.
    
    Not all doors can open.
    
    We don’t know the financial situation of each teacher so we can only speak in general terms.
    
    Technically true, but when we’re talking about the typical case, highlighting that there are exceptions is pointless.
    
    The fact that teachers are underpaid is something I already addressed in the comment you responded to. So I don’t know what you’re trying to argue.
    
    You dont? I’m trying to argue that many many teachers don’t get paid a living wage.
    
    Are you illiterate or something?
    
    And for the umpteenth time: it’s not about the teachers, or the nurses, or whatever job
    
    It is though. The fact that these jobs don’t exist, or are hard to get, is what this entire conversation is about. That, and you trying to derail it to shit on me.
    
    The premise was that the jobs were hard to find. They are not. Period.
    
    The premise was that the jobs that are both fulfilling and pay decently were hard to get. And they are.
    
    Period.
    
    Assertion fallacy.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments