You're viewing part of a thread.
I observed that different kinds of labor require skills that differ qualitatively, yet by the inherent attributes of labor emerges no particular ranking among the kinds.
What statements have I made that are inaccurate?
It is inaccurate to say that labor does not require more or less skill. That is what you said.
You are conflating a duration of time invested acquiring a particular skill, which is quantitative, and therefore may be ranked, if desired, with a skill itself.
No one is conflating anything. You are arguing with yourself. Rank it however you want. People can have more or less skill, and that's OK.
It doesn't mean that one person deserves more rights than another. THAT is the point.
How are you ranking one skill against another?
What is your criteria or method?
There is an elder swordsman who has dedicated their life to refining their blade. A life of training, failure, modesty, and improvement.
How can you distinguish their work from a novice? And how do you dismiss their skill so readily?
More importantly, should the novice not be treated just as well, in any case? Because skill is not the deciding factor in justice.
Are you asserting that skills otherwuse differing only qualitatively are related by a ranking, based on the duration of time invested in acquiring them?
Are you using word salad to deny workers their lifelong earned skill sets by assigning an esoteric value judgment based on the level to which YOU deem it necessary for justice?
My question is plain, and I have insinuated no denial nor revealed any agenda as you now are suggesting dishonestly.