2 ms·
It wasn't my arguement. Care to clarify which argument you're attributing to me? >The point is that either you need a new argument, or you actually believe all
by ZoF 10y ago
It wasn't my arguement. Care to clarify which argument you're attributing to me?
>The point is that either you need a new argument, or you actually believe all of those things.
No. I can't find one arguement in the thread above that requires 'believing all these things'
-children being able to work in mines(appeal to emotion) is tangentially related we aren't even discussing child labor here.
-fast food workers should absolutely be able to work for minimum wage, I did. Should it be raised? I think so, but again this is a tangentially related appeal to emotion.(seriously what did you mean with this one other than 'feel bad for poor people'? How is minimum wage relevant in this context?)
-Employees should be able to sign off on all employment rights?
Look a relevant point, and generally I agree they shouldn't be able to.
Can you please clarify exactly how this arguement of mine can be used to show the three things you've outlined?
Edit:
The funny thing is I don't even disagree with you or the grandparent on the underlying issue here, I just find this constant strawman bullshit so grating.
- thedufer 10y agoApologies for confusing you with brightball; I didn't notice that you jumped in after the back-and-forth. The entire argument put forth was that the government can't annul a contract agreed upon by both parties (even if it is illegal under current law). Which is how pretty much all labor laws. It is a completely generic argument. Once we admit that there are exceptions (oh, but children can't form a contract!), the generic argument has been thrown away.