2 ms·

Are you retracting your original statement: ...it'd be slavery if they couldn't quit. Coast Guardsmen are not being paid and are not allowed to quit. Therefo

by skh 8y ago

Are you retracting your original statement: ...it'd be slavery if they couldn't quit. Coast Guardsmen are not being paid and are not allowed to quit. Therefore, according to your statement you think it is slavery.

ceejayoz 8y ago
No, I'm saying the USCG is in a very specific situation that's more akin to conscription than slavery, especially as they're certain to receive back pay when the shutdown lifts.
- skh 8y ago
  You made the statement that it'd be slavery if they couldn't quit. I didn't make that claim. You did. I presented a subset of federal workers who can't quit and aren't being paid. According to your statement it follows that this subset of federal workers are in slavery. It's fine to misspeak or to not have thought about all of the implications of a statement. Just say you are retracting it or modifying it. You can't logically claim to maintain that it'd be slavery if they couldn't quit and then say of the workers who can't quit and are not being paid that they are not in slavery. This is a matter of logic and not opinion. Say you are modifying your original claim to be it's not slavery because of backpay. Or say that you need to change the original statement in some way. But don't double down and claim your original statement holds when you don't believe the subset of unpaid federal workers who can't quit aren't in slavery! It appears what you really believe is that workers who aren't being paid and aren't allowed to quit are in slavery unless they are in military type job. You should stop using conscription because no one in the Coast Guard was conscripted.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    There are edge cases in virtually any situation. The USCG being part of the military is one example of an edge case, and I believe it's an edge case covered by existing court precedent on conscription - SCOTUS has determined that the US can force involuntary servitude in the armed forces as a special case without violating the 13th.

by skh 8y ago

ceejayoz 8y ago

No, I'm saying the USCG is in a very specific situation that's more akin to conscription than slavery, especially as they're certain to receive back pay when the shutdown lifts.

skh 8y ago
You made the statement that it'd be slavery if they couldn't quit. I didn't make that claim. You did. I presented a subset of federal workers who can't quit and aren't being paid. According to your statement it follows that this subset of federal workers are in slavery. It's fine to misspeak or to not have thought about all of the implications of a statement. Just say you are retracting it or modifying it. You can't logically claim to maintain that it'd be slavery if they couldn't quit and then say of the workers who can't quit and are not being paid that they are not in slavery. This is a matter of logic and not opinion. Say you are modifying your original claim to be it's not slavery because of backpay. Or say that you need to change the original statement in some way. But don't double down and claim your original statement holds when you don't believe the subset of unpaid federal workers who can't quit aren't in slavery! It appears what you really believe is that workers who aren't being paid and aren't allowed to quit are in slavery unless they are in military type job. You should stop using conscription because no one in the Coast Guard was conscripted.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  There are edge cases in virtually any situation. The USCG being part of the military is one example of an edge case, and I believe it's an edge case covered by existing court precedent on conscription - SCOTUS has determined that the US can force involuntary servitude in the armed forces as a special case without violating the 13th.