• jve@lemmy.worldEnglish
    21·
    3 months 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 yet again with “none that I’ve seen”. Am I misreading that or was this another hilarious “joke?”

    I’ve understood every word you’ve said. You’re just wrong.

    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 to attack your argument, yes.

    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?

    https://www.erstrategies.org/news/average-teacher-salary-is-below-the-living-wage-in-half-the-country/

      • jve@lemmy.worldEnglish
        21·
        3 months 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.