Post #4285283

2026-07-24 05:20 UTC

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 –and the proof that you can’t read keeps building: it’s not about the teachers, or the nurses, they were just examples. There are other jobs, you know? As are there other countries outside of the US. And the fact that teachers are underpaid is something I already acknowledged in the comment you responded to, which you could have read, hadn’t you been illiterate. 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.

Replies (1)

@jve@lemmy.world 2026-07-24 05:56

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.

Open ##4285282