4 ms·
The kid getting paid to mow neighborhood lawns has: 1. The right to say "no" without repercussions beyond "not getting paid". 2. Significant statutory protect
by rosser 8y ago
The kid getting paid to mow neighborhood lawns has:
1. The right to say "no" without repercussions beyond "not getting paid".
2. Significant statutory protections regarding exploitative treatment.
EDIT: There's also a large body of statute defining what is and isn't okay in the family farm situation.
- a1369209993 8y ago> 1. The right to say "no" without repercussions beyond "not getting paid". Have you ever had parents? I realize it's outside the Overton window to do anything about it, but age-based slavery[0] is ubiquitous and the legal default in essentially (I think literally) every country on Earth. It's an even more pervasive affliction than copyright, so I find your ignorance implausible. 0: in the ownership sense; actually using them for forced labor is less common
- rosser 8y agoMy comment was about kids mowing neighborhood lawns, not their own. Please try to address the argument I actually made.
- a1369209993 8y agoI was; my comment was about the purported lack of repercussions for disobediance. Also, you were responding to: > a teenager mowing the lawn for their parents which was about their (owner's) own lawn.
- rosser 8y agoThe full quote I was responding to is: >>>> What's the difference between a teenager mowing the lawn for their parents and someone paid to mow a lawn? In response to which, I said: >>> The kid getting paid to mow neighborhood lawns has: Selective quoting tends to change the context a bit, don't you think?
- dang 8y agoCan you please not do this sort of nitpicky-flamey argument on HN? It's the kind of discussion we're trying to avoid here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html