2 ms·

I don't know what exactly "equal-pay-for-equal-work" stands for. But in this context as an analogy it's seeing a poor starving man eating a rat to survive. You

I don't know what exactly "equal-pay-for-equal-work" stands for. But in this context as an analogy it's seeing a poor starving man eating a rat to survive. You basically want to take the rat away from him and shout "don't eat that! 'Someone' should give him a chicken!" Unless you immediately offer to be that 'someone' personally you're not fighting for his good. You want him to die.

ninjagoo 4y ago
>But in this context as an analogy it's seeing a poor starving man eating a rat to survive. You basically want to take the rat away from him and shout "don't eat that! 'Someone' should give him a chicken!" >Unless you immediately offer to be that 'someone' personally you're not fighting for his good. You want him to die. Let's analyze your argument shall we, with some historical context - first let's make the man poor, force him to starve through colonial theft from his family, then refuse to pay him to right the historical theft (oh no, it would reduce our standard of living, we can't have that!), then oppress a local group (like women or minorities) and when they ask to be paid a fair amount (equal pay for equal work), tell them - do you want to take the rat from the starving man??? Funny how it's always one group of oppressed people that must make sacrifices for other groups of oppressed people, never people like kuboble or ninjagoo.... noooo our standard of living mustn't be affected, we can't have our taxes going up. >Unless you immediately offer to be that 'someone' personally you're not fighting for his good. You want him to die. Did you offer to be that someone? Or is that all on me? You're happy to let the starving man go ahead and eat the rat as long as you don't have to do anything?
- kuboble 4y ago
  If you look at my other reply in this thread you'll realize that I actually lived being this poor person in poor country. You might have your high morals and and what is morally rightest or who was at fault for me being born poor etc. But knowing how it is at the bottom you have to realize that X offering me a better job does me a favor and anyone calling X to don't do that due to some moral concern over my well being is caring more about his ideals than about my actual wellbeing. You can let them give me this job while trying to improve my position in other ways. It's not a dichotomy.
  - ninjagoo 4y ago
    You were poor once, but you are not poor now. I also don't see you stepping up to be that someone that you asked me to be. And it's a bit rich, accusing me of "high morals" (clearly a pejorative in this context) while at the same time accusing me of forcing starving people to eat rats and accusing me of wanting poor people to die, and at the same time refusing to accept higher taxes on yourself to help those starving people avoid having to eat rats. Your arguments, Sir, are opportunistic, hypocritical and dishonest. Why do I think so? Because here's what's really going on - there are two injustices here- the lack of equal-pay-for-equal-work, and starving poor people in poor countries. Paying a higher pittance to the poor people resolves the second injustice, which is beneficial to people like yourself while they are poor, and benefits people like yourself when you are rich. The solution to both injustices which involves equal-pay, and reparations/grants through taxes, benefits people like yourself when you are poor, but 'hurts' people like yourself now when you are rich - that solution you don't like because then you actually have to contribute something from your "earnings". Paraphrasing, you only care about fixing the injustice where the fix benefits you in all scenarios, and not at all about any other injustice, because that doesn't affect you. Based on that, I wonder if you actually care about fixing an injustice at all, or whether you only care about yourself, and all these arguments about fixing the poverty are a smokescreen to continue a current benefit (lower costs and taxes) for yourself. I am having a real challenge discerning the true motives here. You really want to resolve injustice(s)? You can support both equal-pay and reparations/grants. You only want to resolve one injustice (donor fatigue is a real thing)? Fine, support reparations/grants to help the starving poor people in poor countries. These funds can pay for public works or factories that will create jobs with beneficial ripple effects throughout their economies. Just like the Marshall Plan for western Europe after WW2. Which option do you choose? And why?
    - kuboble 4y ago
      You're building a strawman here. I don't try to fix the world. I'm trying hard to not be poor again myself, yes. In this topic I'm just stating very narrow argument that 2$/hr is better than nothing. And a company who offers it here does more good than companies who don't offer those jobs and even more good than people trying to prevent it from doing so. Most of your very long argument is judging me for things I haven't said, done or thought.

ninjagoo 4y ago

>But in this context as an analogy it's seeing a poor starving man eating a rat to survive. You basically want to take the rat away from him and shout "don't eat that! 'Someone' should give him a chicken!" >Unless you immediately offer to be that 'someone' personally you're not fighting for his good. You want him to die. Let's analyze your argument shall we, with some historical context - first let's make the man poor, force him to starve through colonial theft from his family, then refuse to pay him to right the historical theft (oh no, it would reduce our standard of living, we can't have that!), then oppress a local group (like women or minorities) and when they ask to be paid a fair amount (equal pay for equal work), tell them - do you want to take the rat from the starving man??? Funny how it's always one group of oppressed people that must make sacrifices for other groups of oppressed people, never people like kuboble or ninjagoo.... noooo our standard of living mustn't be affected, we can't have our taxes going up. >Unless you immediately offer to be that 'someone' personally you're not fighting for his good. You want him to die. Did you offer to be that someone? Or is that all on me? You're happy to let the starving man go ahead and eat the rat as long as you don't have to do anything?

kuboble 4y ago
If you look at my other reply in this thread you'll realize that I actually lived being this poor person in poor country. You might have your high morals and and what is morally rightest or who was at fault for me being born poor etc. But knowing how it is at the bottom you have to realize that X offering me a better job does me a favor and anyone calling X to don't do that due to some moral concern over my well being is caring more about his ideals than about my actual wellbeing. You can let them give me this job while trying to improve my position in other ways. It's not a dichotomy.
- ninjagoo 4y ago
  You were poor once, but you are not poor now. I also don't see you stepping up to be that someone that you asked me to be. And it's a bit rich, accusing me of "high morals" (clearly a pejorative in this context) while at the same time accusing me of forcing starving people to eat rats and accusing me of wanting poor people to die, and at the same time refusing to accept higher taxes on yourself to help those starving people avoid having to eat rats. Your arguments, Sir, are opportunistic, hypocritical and dishonest. Why do I think so? Because here's what's really going on - there are two injustices here- the lack of equal-pay-for-equal-work, and starving poor people in poor countries. Paying a higher pittance to the poor people resolves the second injustice, which is beneficial to people like yourself while they are poor, and benefits people like yourself when you are rich. The solution to both injustices which involves equal-pay, and reparations/grants through taxes, benefits people like yourself when you are poor, but 'hurts' people like yourself now when you are rich - that solution you don't like because then you actually have to contribute something from your "earnings". Paraphrasing, you only care about fixing the injustice where the fix benefits you in all scenarios, and not at all about any other injustice, because that doesn't affect you. Based on that, I wonder if you actually care about fixing an injustice at all, or whether you only care about yourself, and all these arguments about fixing the poverty are a smokescreen to continue a current benefit (lower costs and taxes) for yourself. I am having a real challenge discerning the true motives here. You really want to resolve injustice(s)? You can support both equal-pay and reparations/grants. You only want to resolve one injustice (donor fatigue is a real thing)? Fine, support reparations/grants to help the starving poor people in poor countries. These funds can pay for public works or factories that will create jobs with beneficial ripple effects throughout their economies. Just like the Marshall Plan for western Europe after WW2. Which option do you choose? And why?
  - kuboble 4y ago
    You're building a strawman here. I don't try to fix the world. I'm trying hard to not be poor again myself, yes. In this topic I'm just stating very narrow argument that 2$/hr is better than nothing. And a company who offers it here does more good than companies who don't offer those jobs and even more good than people trying to prevent it from doing so. Most of your very long argument is judging me for things I haven't said, done or thought.