Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65589
    19 Oct '17 23:342 edits
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    All this says is you believe employers [should / do ] have the absolute right to make demands on employees regardless of the employee's personal values and ethics. Employment, to you, seems to be an entirely authoritarian relationship - not one negotiated between adults of equal standing. You are advocating that working adults must doff the cap to their masters. Short of demanding that we bow down and worship money, this is pathetic and infantile.
    Nope, employees can make all the demands they like too. They can demand to stand, they can demand to not stand.

    And of course no-one is demanding you do anything, least of all "bow down and worship money". I value my time and productive effort I use money as a tool to measure it and trade my time. That's a good thing. A popular refrain of lefties is to try to devalue this, but all the time they're making up stories to try to get their hands on it.

    By earning it? Haha No way. By force and threats of force is their way.
  2. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    20 Oct '17 00:36
    Originally posted by @wajoma
    Nope, employees can make all the demands they like too. They can demand to stand, they can demand to not stand.

    And of course no-one is demanding you do anything, least of all "bow down and worship money". I value my time and productive effort I use money as a tool to measure it and trade my time. That's a good thing. A popular refrain of lefties is to ...[text shortened]... heir hands on it.

    By earning it? Haha No way. By force and threats of force is their way.
    Why do you imagine "Lefties" don't work for a living?
  3. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65589
    20 Oct '17 06:45
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    Why do you imagine "Lefties" don't work for a living?
    Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I was talking about their addiction to other peoples money to fund their latest dream feelings.
  4. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    20 Oct '17 10:571 edit
    Originally posted by @freakykbh
    Your lack of response speaks far more than any affected elegance.

    The dross is stultifying.
    Hopefully my lack of response communicates, in this case, a lack of respect. You reacted to my comments with the label "sneering" and that is why your reaction is not interesting and not really worth dealing with.

    When I simply abuse someone and say their post is rubbish without argument, that indeed is sneering. I do that when I lose my patience and when I consider the subject of my response is plainly not engaging in serious debate. Why should I do all the work and produce reams of considered material for someone who is just behaving like a four year old, saying "why" and "why" and "why" until their parents lose patience in the same way?

    On other occasions I do take the trouble to set out a counterargument, not only to say they are wrong but to say why and to give my alternative. This provides tbe basis for what we fondly imagine to be "debate." In this thread I took a bit of time to do that and I do not accept that my posts on this thread - regardless if you agree or disagree - amounted to "sneering."

    Sometimes, though, even a post like this one is far less effective than a simple "sod off" You see I don't think people like you always read the content as such - you focus on the sentiment, the mood, and you react at a sub-cortical level long before you engage your thinking.

    In this case, I think you react out of fear - a feeling of threat, because someone is questioning stuff that you imagine to be beyond question.
  5. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    20 Oct '17 11:031 edit
    Originally posted by @wajoma
    Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I was talking about their addiction to other peoples money to fund their latest dream feelings.
    My understanding is the the Left want to secure for the mass of the populatlion a share in the wealth produced by their collective labour, to protect as public property the essential utilities and basic resources for a decent life, while insisting on a proper accounting for the costs imposed on our environment by the way we choose to live.

    So how would you describe a system which systematically impoverishes the mass of the population, silently undermines and destroys the middle class in particular, takes away even the most basis necessities for a decent life from a growing proportion in poverty, while concentrating wealth and opportunity in the hands of an elite, increasingly built on inheritance and not on any recognisable form of work?
  6. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65589
    20 Oct '17 11:25
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    My understanding is the the Left want to secure for the mass of the populatlion a share in the wealth produced by their collective labour, to protect as public property the essential utilities and basic resources for a decent life, while insisting on a proper accounting for the costs imposed on our environment by the way we choose to live.

    So how would ...[text shortened]... e hands of an elite, increasingly built on inheritance and not on any recognisable form of work?
    A popular refrain of lefties is to try to devalue this, but all the time they're making up stories to try to get their hands on it.
  7. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    20 Oct '17 11:383 edits
    Originally posted by @freakykbh
    Ought an enthusiastic, zeal-filled conservative Bible-thumping Christian be able to proselytize their employer's customers whilst in said employer's business of securing appointments for roofing quotes?
    Let's work with your Christian who was found to be proselytizing instead of selling.

    This is not what he is paid to do - he is paid to secure appointments. Not only is he failing to do what he is paid to do, he is almost certainly driving customers away.

    As you say, there can be only one conclusion - off with his head, he must be dismissed.

    What are the assumptions for this conclusion? There are a great many, but they include the assumption that the employee's personal religious convictions are not relevant to his employment contract - rightly so, and that is to his advantage, as he might be discriminated against for his beliefs.

    You see, in terms of the employment contract, he is not a person in any meaningful sense - he is a commodity and there is nothing unique or individual about a commodity of any kind - he can be replaced by an alternative commodity of equal value.

    This is identical, as you say, to Elador's remarks about the status of a sports star declining to stand for the national anthem. In his words, they are nothing but "a product" which can be replaced. See my comment on that earlier, which I think has been overlooked.

    So I completely agree that anyone who advocates either supporting or merely tolerating (perhaps as free speech) the protests of these athletes is also advocating that their situation should (morally - hence "should" ) not be penalised by attacking their contract of employment. In other words, there should be limits to the extent to which an employer can treat people as "products" or commodities, rather than treat them as people.

    Now do you think there is a comparable moral argument to say that a roofing firm [Notice the impersonal "firm"] should support or at least tolerate proselytizing by an employee at the expense of their business? Clearly you do not (and neither do I) but in my local area (in the UK) I see builder's vans with the message "A Christian Firm" on their sides, in bold print. They clearly see this as a selling point. [I see it as a coded message to say they are not Muslims but I could not prove this in court.]

    Unlike many, I would certainly want to ensure that a fair process was followed before the Christian roofer lost his job, as there may be alternative solutions available. That is because, unlike many, I respect the reality that he works to live, as do we all unless we have inherited great wealth - but only about 1% of us have that security.

    You see there is a moral argument to be considered and there is a conflict between treating employees as commodities and as people. That is not the case, though, within the values of capitalism, which functions by insisting on the impersonal - and hence replaceable - nature of the individual employee. Indeed, the worst thing for employers arises when they feel unable to just go into the market for a replacement of equal value, which is why sports stars get such high wages and Christian roofers don't. [Of course, the employer - the "firm" - is also impersonal, since the term stands in not for its managers, who are also employees, but its owners, who may be shareholders via an offshore fund with no possible personal relationship.]

    Capitalism requires "individual freedom" in order to establish this entirely commercial, market based relationship which is of course uterly impersonal and treats people as disposable commodities. "Freedom" simply means - free of restraints for purposes of economic exploitation.
  8. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    20 Oct '17 11:493 edits
    Originally posted by @eladar
    That's why they get the big bucks. They are a valuable commodity.

    As long as they bring in enough money to cover their salaries and make a few more bucks to cover expenses and make a profit.

    Their actual value is zero, only what people will pay to watch.
    Exactly what I have been saying. They are commodities - and can be interchanged with other commodities. In your words: "Their actual value is zero, only what people will pay to watch." You see, people, as people, have no value in capitalism. The only source of value is what can be secured by exchange in the marketplace.

    So now will you stop the BS about "individualism" and "freedom"? In capitalism "individuals" do not matter - they have no value - they are not important at all in capitalism. In capitalism, "freedom" is not personal freedom, it is freedom to form and then to break contractual relationships without acknowledging personal qualities outside the exchange value of their labour. Capitalism requires "free " labour, to permit it to function on a contractual basis. If you are not "free" you cannot sign contracts.
  9. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    20 Oct '17 11:55
    Originally posted by @wajoma
    A popular refrain of lefties is to try to devalue this, but all the time they're making up stories to try to get their hands on it.
    Rubbish. See my post above, especially this part:

    "When I simply abuse someone and say their post is rubbish without argument, that indeed is sneering. I do that when I lose my patience and when I consider the subject of my response is plainly not engaging in serious debate. Why should I do all the work and produce reams of considered material for someone who is just behaving like a four year old, saying "why" and "why" and "why" until their parents lose patience in the same way? "
  10. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    20 Oct '17 12:061 edit
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    Let's work with your Christian who was found to be proselytizing instead of selling.

    This is not what he is paid to do - he is paid to secure appointments. Not only is he failing to do what he is paid to do, he is almost certainly driving customers away.

    As you say, there can be only one conclusion - off with his head, he must be dismissed.

    Wh ...[text shortened]... commodities. "Freedom" simply means - free of restraints for purposes of economic exploitation.
    Like your previous post--- and a host of others--- the point you most often make is the unintended one.
    On the surface, it is clear you like to hear yourself talk.
    Nothing wrong with that, as you have a way with words; the problem presents itself when your content is at odds with reality and--- also often--- your own stated positions.

    I won't defend or attack any economic platform, as they all have weaknesses as well as strengths.
    However, just sticking to the parameters of capitalism in this case, what the employee is doing other than what they've been tasked with is inconsequential barring any legal issues otherwise.
    It is morally wrong to accept payment for work you're not doing, and it is reprehensible to forward one's own agenda over and against one's employer's agenda.
    You're trading time for money: that's the deal.
    Not upholding your end of the deal is cheating.
    Your illogical insertion of commodity and so forth underscore your lack of grasp of the concept, as though the employee is making a moral statement about the concept of capitalism, freedom and individualism in a free market state.
    That is patently and painfully absurd.

    In an actual free market, the employer is saddled with the continued erosion of what used to be called work ethic.
    The pool was formerly gutted with hard, industrious and conscientious workers.
    Some exist, but very few and far between.
    The rest are mostly disinterested in the party, preferring a meager existence which doesn't impugn on time spent with family, friends, or (increasingly) video games.
    The employer is tasked now with either changing their job descriptions, lowering their standards, raising their pay significantly or all three.
    That's what happens in a free market: it actually works both ways!
    When efficiencies produced reduce the need for work, people adjust accordingly.
    People mature, see the end game and, in more and more cases, say the juice ain't worth the squeeze.
    Their refusal to play by the employer's old rules is but one of many triggers in the give and take.
    Things get bad enough, the roofing company might very well simply put up with it, since (otherwise) good help is hard to find.
    But in a buyer's market, that Christian is--- and ought to be--- toast.
    He is a leech on his boss, literally using the boss's platform and stealing time and reputation.

    Otherwise, you take a lot of words to relay next to nothing.
    I guess there is a place for such "gifts" in bureaucracy, but outside of that, it's pretty pointless.
  11. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65589
    20 Oct '17 12:10
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    Rubbish. See my post above, especially this part:

    "When I simply abuse someone and say their post is rubbish without argument, that indeed is sneering. I do that when I lose my patience and when I consider the subject of my response is plainly not engaging in serious debate. Why should I do all the work and produce reams of considered material for so ...[text shortened]... r old, saying "why" and "why" and "why" until their parents lose patience in the same way? "
    We got it, people shouldn't worship money, they should covet it if someone has more.
  12. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    20 Oct '17 12:38
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    Hopefully my lack of response communicates, in this case, a lack of respect. You reacted to my comments with the label "sneering" and that is why your reaction is not interesting and not really worth dealing with.

    When I simply abuse someone and say their post is rubbish without argument, that indeed is sneering. I do that when I lose my patience ...[text shortened]... feeling of threat, because someone is questioning stuff that you imagine to be beyond question.
    You are so cute, you know that, right?
    Here you spent the majority of your time in the middle stall, fervently thumbing out your dismissive patronizing thesaurus salad in the very obvious effort to insult me, further cementing the jab by sniffing how you won't lower yourself to respond to my scenario--- it's so clearly beneath you, tut-tut--- and then you respond to the post.

    Classic.
    Let me guess: the first post came from your cortex, but the second one was subcortical?
    Help a Neanderthal out, will ya?
  13. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    20 Oct '17 12:55
    Originally posted by @freakykbh
    Like your previous post--- and a host of others--- the point you most often make is the unintended one.
    On the surface, it is clear you like to hear yourself talk.
    Nothing wrong with that, as you have a way with words; the problem presents itself when your content is at odds with reality and--- also often--- your own stated positions.

    I won't defend ...[text shortened]... ss there is a place for such "gifts" in bureaucracy, but outside of that, it's pretty pointless.
    I am not alone in using a lot of words. Let's try to break down what you are saying.

    I won't defend or attack any economic platform, as they all have weaknesses as well as strengths.
    This reminds me of Trump's recent speech to the United Nations, when he declared that the USA was unlike any other nation because they had no ideology: all they wanted was individual freedom. Oh dear, I thought, these people really do not get it.

    You keep referring to free markets - a hypothetical concept belonging to a class of economic thinking which has been described as "zombie economics." [Google it]. You may need reminding that when Adam Smith talked of "the hidden hand of the market" he was only one of many thinkers arguing that we are shaped by economic forces without any need to be aware of them; what appears to be going on - and it probably is indeed going one - is a reflection of underlying forces that we are less able to observe directly. This may resemble a conspiracy theory to your febrile imagination; none of this sophistry will do for a man of the world like yourself. However, it is wise to be aware of the nature of your assumptions, because you make them all the time and need to bring them into awareness if you are ever to address them effectively.
    It is morally wrong to accept payment for work you're not doing, and it is reprehensible to forward one's own agenda over and against one's employer's agenda.
    Well of course it's morally wrong. Phrase that differently: well of course you have a moral compass aligned with your ideological assumptions; of course you frame these issues and see these events in terms of your prior assumptions. A very good (classic, highly readable) historical review of these issues was written by Tawney in "Religion and the Rise of Capitalism" who shows in lovely detail the way religious teaching and economic principles have evolved together, so that in every era and for every camp, economic and moral values are carefully aligned with each other.

    "There is a moral and religious, as well as a material, environment, which sets its stamp on the individual, even when he is least conscious of it. And the effect of changes in this environment is not less profound. The economic categories of modern society, such as property, freedom of contract, and competition, are as much a part of its intellectual furniture as its political conceptions, and, together with religion, have probably been the most potent force in giving it its character."

    Your later sentences are a rather distasteful and insulting argument that the modern worker is stupid and indolent, hardly worth the effort and expense of employing. Of our Christian proselytizer you write: "He is a leech on his boss, literally using the boss's platform and stealing time and reputation." There is a level of emotional energy in these lines that is very revealing. It says a lot about you, your attitudes, your view of the world.

    We both know very well that I am an atheist and not a fan of Christian proselytizers at the best of times, let alone on paid time at work. Yet I don't think my remarks about this case displayed anything to match the frothing fury of your rabid convulsions. Which of us, do you think, displays the greater capacity for reasoned thinking?
  14. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    20 Oct '17 12:58
    Originally posted by @freakykbh
    You are so cute, you know that, right?
    Here you spent the majority of your time in the middle stall, fervently thumbing out your dismissive patronizing thesaurus salad in the very obvious effort to insult me, further cementing the jab by sniffing how you won't lower yourself to respond to my scenario--- it's so clearly beneath you, tut-tut--- and then yo ...[text shortened]... ost came from your cortex, but the second one was subcortical?
    Help a Neanderthal out, will ya?
    Classic.

    Why, thanks. Such courtesy is not to be sneered at.
  15. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10118
    20 Oct '17 13:061 edit
    Originally posted by @eladar
    http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20989433/gerald-mccoy-tampa-bay-buccaneers-uproar-players-forced-stand


    I am not sure how anyone is forced to stand. The players can quit the NFL.

    How would players be forced to stand when they can just quit and get a different job?
    The government pays around $53 million of tax payer dollars to have the national anthem played at NFL games according to this article.

    http://atlantablackstar.com/2016/09/19/defense-department-paid-sports-teams-53m-taxpayer-dollars-play-anthem-stage-over-the-top-military-tributes/

    Led by John McCain, this is nothing more than a taxpayer-funded DOD marketing gimmicks. to increase recruiting for wars abroad as Congressmen like McCain try to ignore the plight of veterans around the country trying to obtain adequate health care.

    I have heard that revenue in the NFL are way down after the PR disaster. I would think left wingers would be happy since they disdain football as too violent. In addition, if the NFL went under it would reduce jobs and salaries and create more of an equal society in terms of socioeconomic status among Americans.
Back to Top