• jve@lemmy.worldEnglish
    21·
    3 months ago

    Fuck you’re stupid.

    If you’re just going to ignore direct questions and restate bullshit as fact, it’s hard to avoid ad hominem.

    • arrow74@lemmy.zip
      2·
      3 months ago

      Yeah this guy is really weird. If they’re just lonely there really need to find another way to interact with people

      • jve@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        3 months ago

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

        • arrow74@lemmy.zip
          2·
          3 months ago

          I think they may actually believe themselves, this is going beyond normal trolling.

          I mean I stopped responding so they started double replying. Very odd

          • jve@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            3 months ago

            Could well be!

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

      • jve@lemmy.worldEnglish
        21·
        3 months 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.

          • jve@lemmy.worldEnglish
            21·
            3 months 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?

              • jve@lemmy.worldEnglish
                21·
                3 months 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/

                  • 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/