I recently saw a Birdargument that I thought was so stupid that I need to make a single paper dedicated to how idiotic it is. It goes: "If you are dissatisfied with Minimum-Wage jobs, then just don't do Minimum-Wage Labour!" or something along those lines. Now, in the 21st Century, I have not once heard someone in this century be satisfied with the MW (For this paper we will refer to the Minimum Wage as the MW). Due to this, the argument is a paradox. If all MW workers just start working better, and all become doctors and lawyers like their moms told them to, then there will be a deficit in this sort of labour, which will then have a good pay. So, as it isn't the hardest job, it will have a whole lot of people coming in. Now it is again MW, or perhaps the medical and legal pursuits become the MW job. That is my basic premise to my counter-argument. Is it good? No, but I tried, okay? My counter-argument is not Socialistic, too. I hope you shall now prevent yourself from making an argument similar to this one.
† A "Birdargument" is a Twitter-esque style argument, which is based on a fallacy but one that is stubborn and not easily counter-able for the average Internet Debater; The term may also apply to arguments where often the two sides shout fallacy littered points and later devolve into insults.
0 Comments
|
OverviewThe Karlovy Papers: A collection of middling papers by K.A. Karlov. Archives |