4 ms·
> The implication being that without such laws, enslavement of children, poisoning and maiming of workers, and other horrors would be totally legal in America?
by RandoHolmes 6y ago
> The implication being that without such laws, enslavement of children, poisoning and maiming of workers, and other horrors would be totally legal in America?
Perhaps you don't recall the number of years in which slavery was legal in the US?
Or the years in which child labor was actually used?
Or the years in which a 40 hour work week wasn't normal?
The only way I'm able to understand how ANYONE can believe everything would be hunky dory without labor laws is if they haven't been educated in the history of this country (or any other country).
- unishark 6y ago> The only way I'm able to understand how ANYONE can believe everything would be hunky dory without labor laws is if they haven't been educated in the history of this country (or any other country). This is because you argue in bad faith. Apparently you already do understand the point I was making, namely that slavery is outlawed by the 13th amendment to the constitution, not the labor laws regulating consensual employee-employer decisions which the parent poster was talking about. Fyi: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- RandoHolmes 6y agoIf I were to engage with you in a serious manner, it would imply that I agree with your view that the only morality is that which is in the constitution. But I fundamentally disagree with that argument. And I mean _FUNDAMENTALLY_. I cannot agree that these practices in a country that doesn't have the 13 amendment are ok. I just can't. I mean, I understand your argument. You believe these things should be ok in all countries that haven't explicitly outlawed it. But it's why we're fundamentally opposed. I believe it was reprehensible even BEFORE these countries outlawed it. I mean, I get it, this is "arguing in bad faith"... "THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT". Of course it isn't because it's morally reprehensible. Of course that's not what you meant. but........... If the logical implications of your statement results in something morally reprehensible, than maaaaaaybe the statement itself is morally reprehensible... juuuuuust something to think about from a "bad faith actor".
- unishark 6y agoOr it's just you. I've seen some of your other posts around this discussion and you really need to check out those guidelines I linked.
- RandoHolmes 6y agogasp YOU MEAN THE SLAVE OWNER POINTED TO THE CURRENT LAWS TO DEFEND THEIR POSITION!?!??! Well that worked out well in terms of their history, lmao. Please, keep telling me how the site guidelines for a random website somehow protect you from the moral judgement of others, I'd love to hear more...
- dang 6y agoWe've banned that account, but in the future please flag egregious comments instead of feeding them by replying. that's also in the guidelines!