3 ms·

Evidence required? Those workers could have stayed at home, weren't they being forced to come to work. This goes beyond the raw numbers, the real issue is that

Evidence required? Those workers could have stayed at home, weren't they being forced to come to work. This goes beyond the raw numbers, the real issue is that the workers were forced to take the risk. The worst part? Quoting the article: "It had promised they could remain home if they felt uncomfortable returning to the line. The Post reported in late June and July that workers concerned about covid exposure received termination notices after they did not return to work.

1996 6y ago
> Evidence required? Yes. Your are not dispensed from evidence when everything suggest a simpler explanation (Occam's razor) > the real issue is that the workers were forced to take the risk Who forced them? They are free to quit. But by not working they will not get money > "It had promised they could remain home if they felt uncomfortable returning to the line. The Post reported in late June and July that workers concerned about covid exposure received termination notices after they did not return to work Yes, this is not a charity - and if people abuse the provision and stay at home all the time, they are no longer workers, so they are terminated. The journalist just wanted to turn that into a poor vs rich, deforming evidence as needed. I wonder what are your intention by supporting that. I was ready to give you benefit of doubt and assume good intention, then I checked your comment history. In short order, you are: - attacking AirBNB ("A handful of landlords got richer, turists could travel cheaper (not necessarily a good thing overall), but an entire class of citizens got kicked out of the city as now no landlord wants to regularly rent their flat") - attacking people making money with their free software ("Following the recent events, wait until multinational corporation x comes, repackages your software as a managed solution, hosted on their infrastructure and resells it through their channels"), - posting needlessly political comments about reducing waste ("I have an even better way to reduce waste: Let's raise food prices so that no one can afford to eat! No consumption, no waste") So I think you too are out for blood. Maybe you should be reported for repetitively breaking the rules?
- pietrovismara 6y ago
  You really went out of your way to attack me personally and read my past comments. Please report. While I'm engaging in discussion and as far as I know not breaking any rule, I suspect behavior like yours is way more detrimental to the community. But let the moderators decide.
  - 1996 6y ago
    > You really went out of your way to attack me personally and read my past comments. I went to check if you had an history of bias, which you clearly have > Please report. No, I have wasted enough time on you. > I suspect behavior like yours is way more detrimental to the community. Calling out people who have a clear political agenda and participate to the discussion in bad faith has its risks, but I think I did the right thing by exposing the reason you would support such a weak argument.

1996 6y ago

> Evidence required? Yes. Your are not dispensed from evidence when everything suggest a simpler explanation (Occam's razor) > the real issue is that the workers were forced to take the risk Who forced them? They are free to quit. But by not working they will not get money > "It had promised they could remain home if they felt uncomfortable returning to the line. The Post reported in late June and July that workers concerned about covid exposure received termination notices after they did not return to work Yes, this is not a charity - and if people abuse the provision and stay at home all the time, they are no longer workers, so they are terminated. The journalist just wanted to turn that into a poor vs rich, deforming evidence as needed. I wonder what are your intention by supporting that. I was ready to give you benefit of doubt and assume good intention, then I checked your comment history. In short order, you are: - attacking AirBNB ("A handful of landlords got richer, turists could travel cheaper (not necessarily a good thing overall), but an entire class of citizens got kicked out of the city as now no landlord wants to regularly rent their flat") - attacking people making money with their free software ("Following the recent events, wait until multinational corporation x comes, repackages your software as a managed solution, hosted on their infrastructure and resells it through their channels"), - posting needlessly political comments about reducing waste ("I have an even better way to reduce waste: Let's raise food prices so that no one can afford to eat! No consumption, no waste") So I think you too are out for blood. Maybe you should be reported for repetitively breaking the rules?

pietrovismara 6y ago
You really went out of your way to attack me personally and read my past comments. Please report. While I'm engaging in discussion and as far as I know not breaking any rule, I suspect behavior like yours is way more detrimental to the community. But let the moderators decide.
- 1996 6y ago
  > You really went out of your way to attack me personally and read my past comments. I went to check if you had an history of bias, which you clearly have > Please report. No, I have wasted enough time on you. > I suspect behavior like yours is way more detrimental to the community. Calling out people who have a clear political agenda and participate to the discussion in bad faith has its risks, but I think I did the right thing by exposing the reason you would support such a weak argument.