Comment on get a job you loser
Photonic@lemmy.world 1 day agoSorry 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.
jve@lemmy.world 1 day ago
You did. You also doubled down and yet again with “none that I’ve seen”.
So this was an extra joke? Hilarious.
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?
So to be clear, everybody who is not dead or homeless is making a living wage? Is that your argument?
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.
That is what I used, yes. You did not.
Why do you keep generalizing it to “all”? Where did “all” come into the conversation?
erstrategies.org/…/average-teacher-salary-is-belo…
Photonic@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Doubt.
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.
Well…
… 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.
Still nope, see above.
More movement of the goal posts I see… whatever happened to food and shelter?
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.
jve@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Lmfao. Got me there! Was that pretty confusing for you without the apostrophe?
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.
If this is what you were trying to do, you did a shit job. I even deconstructed it for you.
This isn’t moving the goal posts. This is the literal definition of a livable wage.
What is your definition?
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.
Technically true, but when we’re talking about the typical case, highlighting that there are exceptions is pointless.
You dont? I’m trying to argue that many many teachers don’t get paid a living wage.
Are you illiterate or something?
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 that are both fulfilling and pay decently were hard to get. And they are.
Assertion fallacy.
Photonic@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Just helping you on your way towards literacy. You’re welcome!
Really? Where? Show me all those incredible arguments you made!
Are they? You haven’t shown that. All you did was get worked up about the salary of teachers in some states in the US, which I never even denied.
More empty statements from the guy that can’t even read. Yeah I’m gonna be a no on that one.
Really? Being able to have a house without roommates is in the definition?
And if you started out with “food and shelter”, this is quite literally the (in this case real) definition of moving the goal posts.
Nice no u. No, if you actually would have used your brain you might have figured out that the point is: why are you trying to argue for something that I already acknowledged in my second comment, the one you responded to, as if I’m denying that teachers are underpaid?
They do exist and are not hard to get. Have you even tried?
LOL there is no derailing a conversation that starts with:
Train was off the tracks with both wheels right from the start.
Was it? Where did the OP say that? Please use direct quotes.
Yeah that’s not what that is LOL but nice try there buddy!