546
get a job you loser (thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Photonic@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Which question do you want me to answer?

Is it:

Are you deliberately moving the goalposts or just forgetting the context?

Or:

Which simple words in the English language do you believe I don’t understand?

Or:

Also, remind me what it is that you’ve proved?

Or:

Do you not know what illiterate means?

?

[-] jve@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Here’s 2

Do you think it’s “not that hard” to get a nursing degree or a teaching credential?

Do you think 50k$/year pre tax, the average starting salary for a teacher, is a livable wage?

EDIT: Sorry I missed your edit, but yeah, any of those questions too.

Also, apologies for getting back on topic. You were really roastin me good there.

EDIT2: and to be fair, you did address the moving the goalposts question. You just answered it with bullshit.

[-] Photonic@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Are you deliberately moving the goalposts or just forgetting the context?

Neither, I was resetting the goal posts to their original position after your movement of them.

Which simple words in the English language do you believe I don’t understand?

The words I wrote in the comment before that.

Also, remind me what it is that you’ve proved?

That you can’t read for shit, which incidentally, is not something that I proved, but you did yourself.

Either that, or you’re arguing in bad faith. I’m on the fence.

Do you not know what illiterate means?

I do.

(Note: the questions you asked are what’s called “rhetorical questions”. People are not supposed to answer them, so they will think it’s weird if you get mad when they don’t answer them.)

Do you think it’s “not that hard” to get a nursing degree or a teaching credential?

Not for most people, no. Nursing can be hard to get into, but anyone motivated with a half-decent brain can do it.

But as I mentioned before: you don’t have to become a nurse or teacher to be of value to the human race, so don’t get stuck on these two examples, as that is what they are: examples. There are many other jobs that benefit society.

Do you think 50k$/year pre tax, the average starting salary for a teacher, is a livable wage?

Yes. Let me ask you a question: do you think all starting teachers die? Or live in the street? (Don’t answer, this is another rhetorical one, it’s supposed to make you think about something you’re not getting!)

[-] jve@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

So to be clear you “know what illiterate means” and you’re gonna double down on how you think I’m illiterate?

Despite all the evidence to the contrary?

It was not a rhetorical question. You either don’t know the definition, you are lying when you continue to press on it, or you’re a fucking idiot.

Not for most people, no.

Wow ok then. Didn’t realize you knew so much about most people. Thanks for the evidence.

That you can’t read for shit. Either that, or you’re arguing in bad faith. I’m on the fence.

Man, you just fuckin love irony/projection huh?

Yes. Let me ask you a question: do you think all starting teachers die? Or live in the street?

I don’t. Do you think that either of these would be necessary for it to be a non living wage? Do you think all people that work for minimum wage die or live on the street? Or do you think that minimum wage is a living wage?

Don’t answer, this is another rhetorical one, it’s supposed to make you think about something you’re not getting!

Oops my bad. What was the thing I’m not getting?

[-] Photonic@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago

So to be clear you “know what illiterate means” and you’re gonna double down on how you think I’m illiterate?

Figuratively yes. (It was a joke, like I said before, but which you apparently also failed to read).

Despite all the evidence to the contrary?

Not that I’ve seen.

It was not a rhetorical question.

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

Wow ok then. Didn’t realize you knew so much about most people. Thanks for the evidence.

No problem.

Man, you just fuckin love irony/projection huh?

So you think starting out with:

Gosh darn reality making things hard.

…puts you in the good-faith zone? Yeah I don’t think I’m the one projecting here. LOL

I don’t. Do you think that either of these would be necessary for it to be a non living wage? Do you think all people that work for minimum wage die or live on the street? Or do you think that minimum wage is a living wage?

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

Oops my bad. What was the thing I’m not getting?

That 50k/yr is a living wage and there are plenty of people who start out with that salary and do fine. And they earn more over the years.

[-] jve@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 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.

Weird thing to do for questions you thought to be rhetorical.

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.

https://livingwage.mit.edu/

[-] Photonic@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 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

You said :

Mm yes, he forgot to mention the silly extra requirements of food and shelter.

If they’re not dead it means they’re living. If they’re not homeless it means they have a home. And they also have enough to eat. So by your standards they should have a living wage.

Also, it was 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 points 1 day ago* (last edited 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 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/

[-] Photonic@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 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 –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.

[-] jve@lemmy.world 1 points 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.

[-] Photonic@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Was that pretty confusing for you without the apostrophe?

Just helping you on your way towards literacy. You’re welcome!

I have

Really? Where? Show me all those incredible arguments you made!

the jobs that give back to humanity and pay a livable wage are hard to get.

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.

you did a shit job. I even deconstructed it for you.

More empty statements from the guy that can’t even read. Yeah I’m gonna be a no on that one.

This isn’t moving the goal posts. This is the literal definition of a livable wage.

Really? Being able to have a house or an apartment 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.

You dont? I’m trying to argue that many many teachers don’t get paid a living wage. Are you illiterate or something?

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 something that I already acknowledged in my second comment, the one you responded to, as if I’m denying that teachers are underpaid?

The fact that these jobs don’t exist, or are hard to get

They do exist and are not hard to get. Have you even tried?

trying to derail it to shit on me.

LOL there is no derailing a conversation that starts with:

Gosh darn reality making things hard.

Train was off the tracks with both wheels right from the start. This is all on you.

The premise was that the jobs that are both fulfilling and pay decently were hard to get.

Was it? Where did the OP say that? Please use direct quotes.

Assertion fallacy.

Yeah that’s not what that is LOL but nice try there buddy!

[-] jve@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

Alright man. You win.

Your troll powers are too much for me.

QED

[-] Photonic@lemmy.world 0 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Nice “no u” again, but you only have yourself to blame for this.

Next time maybe don’t start off in bad faith and see where that leads you.

[-] jve@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago
[-] Photonic@lemmy.world 0 points 12 hours ago

Do you have words of your own?

[-] jve@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago
[-] Photonic@lemmy.world 0 points 11 hours ago

QED indeed, or, as someone else phrased it:

Gosh darn reality making things hard.

[-] jve@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)
[-] Photonic@lemmy.world 0 points 9 hours ago

I thought you were done? Or is spamming your new tactic now all else has failed?

[-] jve@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago
[-] Photonic@lemmy.world 0 points 8 hours ago

So you started out with annoying and bad faith and you’re ending it the same way… your parents must be so proud of you. If only the reading proficiency could get a little better…

this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2026
546 points (98.9% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

41022 readers
6200 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS