3 ms·

No, it certainly does not describe the mechanism. One is inconveniencing a business and one is murder. Please don’t get confused on this.

kcplate 3y ago
No, I am not confused. One is murder and one is intentional destruction of property. Both results are due to intentional sabotage by the actors involved.
- awhitty 3y ago
  Doctors… don’t murder folks (I mean, yes, this has happened, but not as a strategy of a strike). It’s a nonsense hypothetical created to make striking sound absurd. I’ve already described in general terms how striking in health care works. Walking out to strike mid-open-heart surgery doesn’t happen - it doesn’t benefit the doctor, and they would be liable for their actions (and for violating the 10-day notice, presumably). There are legal differences between property damage and taking a life, so the comparison isn’t particularly useful.
  - kcplate 3y ago
    You are hung up on the end effect instead of the cause. The point is that sabotage is wrong even in the context of labor strikes.
  - isityouyesitsme 3y ago
    I'm unable to ascertain if you're being intentionally obtuse or merely unable to follow how analogies work.
    - awhitty 3y ago
      I draw a line at trying to compare property damage and homicide as if they stem from the same “mechanism”. There’s no analogy to be made there. The striking workers didn’t kill anyone, and it’s insidious to float “how would the author feel if a striking doctor planned their action to kill someone” hypotheticals because murder and property damage are not united under some definition of “sabotage”. Like, what’s the useful takeaway from the comparison? Cement getting left in a truck is like losing a loved one? Really? Striking workers performing something like sabotage is similar to pre-meditated murder? Are these useful comparisons? I don’t think so.
      - kcplate 3y ago
        So…both.

kcplate 3y ago

No, I am not confused. One is murder and one is intentional destruction of property. Both results are due to intentional sabotage by the actors involved.

awhitty 3y ago
Doctors… don’t murder folks (I mean, yes, this has happened, but not as a strategy of a strike). It’s a nonsense hypothetical created to make striking sound absurd. I’ve already described in general terms how striking in health care works. Walking out to strike mid-open-heart surgery doesn’t happen - it doesn’t benefit the doctor, and they would be liable for their actions (and for violating the 10-day notice, presumably). There are legal differences between property damage and taking a life, so the comparison isn’t particularly useful.
- kcplate 3y ago
  You are hung up on the end effect instead of the cause. The point is that sabotage is wrong even in the context of labor strikes.
- isityouyesitsme 3y ago
  I'm unable to ascertain if you're being intentionally obtuse or merely unable to follow how analogies work.
  - awhitty 3y ago
    I draw a line at trying to compare property damage and homicide as if they stem from the same “mechanism”. There’s no analogy to be made there. The striking workers didn’t kill anyone, and it’s insidious to float “how would the author feel if a striking doctor planned their action to kill someone” hypotheticals because murder and property damage are not united under some definition of “sabotage”. Like, what’s the useful takeaway from the comparison? Cement getting left in a truck is like losing a loved one? Really? Striking workers performing something like sabotage is similar to pre-meditated murder? Are these useful comparisons? I don’t think so.
    - kcplate 3y ago
      So…both.