It doesn’t cover that because it didn’t cover that. You don’t have to address the totality of a situation to comment on it. Lemmy is particularly bad at this concept.
Strawman fallacy. They (Dangblingus) tried to argue with a completely different topic to try and discredit the argument, without acknowledging the difference.
If someone stated they like the color blue, and another person states that red is better, asserting that the first person hates red. That would be a stawman.
Op stated unskilled labor means no prior experience.
Comment stated then why is it ok to give slave wages.
OP was not making an argument about wages. Making the comment a starwman since they are arguing a point that was unrelated to the original argument.
LMAO no, taxes used correctly would end up solving most of these problems. Government influence in housing markets would solve these problems.
Letting Nestle draw even more drinking water to turn into mountain dew doesnt.
It just means “no prior knowledge required”. It’s not a myth lol
Even McDonalds trains you to use the equipment before they let you use it.
… which is usually a matter of hours, not several years of academic studies
See the difference ?
Want someone to sweep the floor ? You can quite literally grab some one off the street and tell them to do it, with some amount of success.
Your words:
If you need to be trained, then I guess McDonald’s is skilled labor.
Then why is it justified to pay people poverty wages? Your answer doesn’t cover that.
I didn’t claim it was justified?
It doesn’t cover that because it didn’t cover that. You don’t have to address the totality of a situation to comment on it. Lemmy is particularly bad at this concept.
A comment is a comment, not a through rebuttal
Strawman fallacy. They (Dangblingus) tried to argue with a completely different topic to try and discredit the argument, without acknowledging the difference.
Edit: since everyone interpreted this wrong.
The statement has two clauses, are you saying we’re not allowed to acknowledge corrections to clause A without also addressing clause B?That seems a little silly, I’d think you’d strive for the most accurate overall statement, and corrections to either clause should be welcome.You can offer an objectively true correction without addressing the entire argument, can you not?EDIT: I misunderstood the comment - disregard this.
If someone stated they like the color blue, and another person states that red is better, asserting that the first person hates red. That would be a stawman.
Op stated unskilled labor means no prior experience.
Comment stated then why is it ok to give slave wages.
OP was not making an argument about wages. Making the comment a starwman since they are arguing a point that was unrelated to the original argument.
Ah, okay, I thought the straw man accusation was pointed at the fellow defining unskilled labor. My bad!
I get you. Ya I was supporting GBU, not saying they were making the stawman.
Lol nope
Nope what? You didn’t make the strawman guy.
God damn right I didn’t.
I guess you left out the brackets in the first version - I have to admit I misread it even then.
Only commenting to let you know that your edit succeeded in at least one case, no matter the points! ♥
deleted by creator
LMAO no, taxes used correctly would end up solving most of these problems. Government influence in housing markets would solve these problems.
Letting Nestle draw even more drinking water to turn into mountain dew doesnt.
deleted by creator
LMAO you are delusional.
The housing market in the US is fucked because we let people do whatever the fuck they want.
deleted by creator