You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
You deny someone their skill when you say they can't have more or less of it. If skill can be obtained and improved, then it can be more so or less so.
Skill is not a requirement at all for justice.
Improvement is not expansion of a quantity, and the subject of discussion is not justice.
Yes, it is. On both counts.
Improvement of an item is at best an expansion of some quantity that is an attribute of the item.
Improvement of an item is not the same as expansion.
OK, that's some high-level bs right there. You truly are skilled.