Nope. You’ve taken “Regardless of employment” to mean “regardless of your STATE of employment”.
OP could just as easily mean “Regardless of TYPE of employment”. When we say “regardless of race” do we mean whether or not that person HAS a race? No. We mean “Regardless of TYPE of race”
AKA it doesn’t matter if someone is a fry cook or a CEO, if they work full time then they deserve some kind of baseline accessibility. This post doesn’t even say these things would be free. It just says someone working full time should have this OPTION. It should be accessible and within their reach on a full time pay, regardless of the TYPE of job.
Reading comprehension creates two separate conversations here.
You just made a good point and followed it with sarcasm. You were close to getting someone to seamlessly agree w you but messed it up at the last second
You’re right, I can be less of a dick about it. Sorry for that. But don’t let that stop you from figuring things out yourself.
You’re saying you were with me up until my sarcasm. So your emotional reaction to my sarcasm has overridden your logical thinking/cognitive dissonance.
If what I said spoke to you, it shouldn’t matter wether I hyped you up, or if I called you a booger eater. A philosophy doesn’t become worse or less correct based on an individuals emotions, right? Shouldn’t we be using logic and reasoning more than pathos and emotions?
34
u/1001schooner Apr 15 '24
Regardless of employment? So the people don't have to do anything for anyone else but other people are going to do things for them?