4 ms·
They are been pedantic by pointing out that the set "everyone else" excluding train drivers would still include pilots rather than reading it as intended which
by noir_lord 1y ago
They are been pedantic by pointing out that the set "everyone else" excluding train drivers would still include pilots rather than reading it as intended which would conventionally and implicitly exclude pilots.
It is what it is with some people.
- tome 1y agoThanks for trying to help me understand. I'm not sure if I do yet. Can I check my understanding? Did you mean, when you said > in reality their pay is fair for the responsibility it's everyone else who is underpaid that train drivers and pilots are fairly paid, whereas everyone else is underpaid?
- nostrebored 1y agoYou don’t get it because it doesn’t make sense. People’s understanding of money is horrible.
- danaris 1y agoThe "everyone else" is not meant to be read literally. Many people are well-paid, or even overpaid. CEOs, for instance. It's just that most people, in most common professions, are underpaid. It only makes sense to talk about a blanket statement like that being a "contradiction" when someone is attempting to speak in the language of formal logic or detailed argument, not colloquial speech.
- tome 1y agoThat's fine, then the response I was looking for is simply "I didn't mean literally everyone else, I just meant simply 'most people, in most common professions, are underpaid'". That's a perfectly valid point of view. Then I would have replied that, despite perhaps being true, I don't how it's relevant to the question of whether it's fair to pay train drivers and pilots the same.