Remember me
▼ Content

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.



Page 2 of 2<12
13-10-2016 23:23
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: Have you ever talked to a worker?

I talk to workers all the time.

So you think that if they had any other choice, they would stay in sweatshops?
jwoodward48 wrote: Do you think that they would stay in sweatshops if they had an actual way of providing for themselves elsewhere?

Irrelevant. Do they voluntarily show up for work every day. They are completely free to stay home, or do you not understand that?

Staying home is technically a choice, but you can't live that way. Without money, you'll lose your house. Scavenging off the streets, living in a cardboard box - that's no choice.
They are all free to choose, go to work under the given conditions or go do anything else they want. They choose to go to work.

They can't get another job. If someone's working in a sweatshop, you can be sure that if they had another job available, they'd quit in a heartbeat. People need jobs.

As Sartre said, you always have a choice, since you can always commit suicide, but that should never be expected of someone. Similarly, you should never expect someone to become homeless.
Yet you demonize the employer. I can just imagine your utopia in which stormtroopers burst into businesses and force the employees to go home and the business to shut down for the benefit of the workers who are now liberated from their paychecks. And society benefits as well because of the now missing goods and services.

Strawman, plain and simple.
jwoodward48 wrote: That's no choice. They have no other option, save "scavenge in the streets" or "die".

So how is that the employer's fault? If the worker doesn't like the job s/he can leave. It's an entirely real choice despite your insistence that it is not.

Because they have a monopoly on money for that worker. They have to stay, or they'd be jobless and homeless.
I am trying to imagine your utopia of a ruined economy that leaves the people poor and starving ... and then going around closing the only businesses that remain for offering jobs. That's great. Don't blame the government that makes the people destitute; blame the businesses that are trying to keep the economy on life support.

There wouldn't be any businesses that aren't owned by people. There would be no government except by the people.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Okay, fine. It adds value to society by hurting part of society and helping other parts.

You still need to show this. You need to show how merely offering someone a job and allowing said person the choice of freely accepting or not accepting the job, should be made a criminal act.

This is the bottom line.

So sweatshops are fine? Child labour is fine? It seems like your statements would imply that.

jwoodward48 wrote: The fact that American companies can do this in other countries.

Wait, we now have a new problem. If those businesses are operating within the law in those countries then they aren't sweatshops. Part of your definition is that they are breaking laws.

There are basic human rights that transcend borders. If a company is using slave labour to produce cheap goods and sell them in America, should that be allowed?

jwoodward48 wrote: Depends on context. Which serious crime, which person, and how did they obstruct justice?

Thank you. In your mind it's OK if the FBI lets people walk as long as they are the right people. Can you imagine what I'm thinking of your Utopia at the moment?


.


No, it's context-based.

Besides, ad hominem.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
13-10-2016 23:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
I also talk to workers. Every day. I hire them. I fire them. I expect them to do their jobs. I expect them to be competent in the jobs they do. For certain workers with no training at all, I will train them in that competency. If it takes, kumbayah, we can make money together. If not, too bad for the worker. They will have to try again with somebody else.

Your company might very well be an ethical company. Just like how some people are ethical, some companies are ethical.
The 'workers' you see on the street are not workers. They are drug addicts, mentally ill that the State has abandoned illegally, and gang members. I will have none of them in my business. Other than the mentally ill, they chose the life they lead. The mentally ill is the State's problem. They are a good example of just how inhumane governments can be.

And I don't expect you to.
No one is forced into a low paying job. All have the choice of getting training for a better job. My company offers such training while you work. You can earn AND learn. I am not unique in offering such programs.

Really? Hmmm...


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Word Smithy3625-04-2019 18:57
'Emergency' is the right word for climate change, Kingston prof says209-03-2019 18:56
How Fossil Fuel Money Made Climate Change Denial the Word of God1420-11-2017 22:54
Preferred word in lieu of "GW Denier"4020-09-2016 00:48
M2C2 - where all or nothing means nothing317-10-2015 05:22
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact