"Ad Hominem is when you attack a person in a debate based on factors that are unrelated to the argument at hand." Well said. Aren't you doing exactly that? I gave - though brief - an argument for my claims, and you deliberately (and selectively) go after my current situation.

If it wasn't clear, here are the arguments:

1. We're creating an epistemic injustice by obscuring important information from the working class. That is, workers are often withheld from information that could affect their choice and value in the free market. (Some disagreed, and I respect that.) I gave my personal example to illustrate this.

2. "This way of thinking, plus the perverse epistemic curtain is really the reason why no matter how hard people work and contribute to society, they never make it to the top." This point relates to Josh's essay. I think that when we're absolve businesses and everyday transactions from moral evaluation, we're inevitably perpetuating income inequality.

I'm fine with critiques. But when you're attacking people's current situation without having understood what they're going through, you're not being fair to that person.

I called you out for ad hominem because you've addressed none of my arguments. What you've done extensively is to show how "I have no understanding of how financing operations work," as if that is sufficient to regard every I've said as hogwash.

Finally, you said that its "morally competent to take all the personal info ... to reveal how your statements are incorrect." Have you really taken all my personal info? That's exactly the point I'm going for. You've made many assumptions from just my saying, "I'm teaching for an establishment." And from those assumptions, you condemned me of having "no understanding of how financing operations work."

I may have sounded emotional then. I was. I try not to be. But I hope that you be more charitable to other people's views in the future. :)