QED

QED

QED

Alright man. You win.

Your troll powers are too much for me.

QED

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.

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/

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/

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?

Could well be!

I may be giving them too much credit for being self aware.

At this point, I’m just curious how long this particular troll will stay on the comment thread.

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.

Lmao. Classic non-troll response