jeb! says we all need to work longer hours :|

Post Reply New Topic

You're a few years too late, my dear.
The UK started it with a company who auctioned off the internship to the highest bidder.
I do believe they are currently illegal here.

What is this mysterious looking number business you keep posting?

The only time I worked for free, my husband worked for free, or anybody I know worked for free was when they chose to. The world isn't full of evil business owners out to hurt the poor, innocent, doe eyed and trusting employees. Everybody is out for what they can get. Employees and employers.

I have a feeling that you would love to see all work stopped, nobody would ever have to go to work, we could all just sit around and wait on the government to send us our money so we could buy whatever we feel we are entitled to and nobody would have to do anything for it. I do think that in your vision of this you see that most people would still go to work because it would be for the good of society but that wouldn't happen. Maybe 739 people would go to work and the rest would sit at home enjoying themselves for about four days and then everything would grind to a halt and we would be in the middle of anarchy.

I think you are romanticizing the poor and the bums because you are poor, like I am, and because we are nice people (you are a WHOLE LOT nicer than I am lol) you think that people would be decent. You give people way too much credit. I may go too far in the opposite direction but I think my idea of things is closer to the truth than yours is. Honestly.

I really get frustrated with you because you see everything through rose colored glasses. I'm not mad at you, I'm just frustrated.

People are not as helpless as you seem to think they are. There is a small percentage who are, but for the most part people aren't. Also, the working world isn't fun or fair or anything at alll like that. It's survival. Survival is usually not pretty and comfortable and fun and nice. It's usually brutal and while we try and make it less brutal, it will always be brutal on some level. That is human nature.

I hate that you are so naive because you will constantly be disappointed in people, and you really are so nice and care so much that it will hurt you. I don't want to see you hurt but you see the world in an unrealistic way. While many things are possible on paper and in theory, when you factor in human nature they are impossible. I'll give you an analogy about what I mean, but it's something I think you would really want. I honestly think you would really enjoy seeing a store with the honor system. Come in and pick what you want, pay what you can afford and leave it in the box and take your stuff and leave. I think that you would believe that most people would do the right thing. I on the other hand think that not only the box of money but everything in the store would be gone by noon.

I think you know how human nature is, you aren't stupid by any means. You are very smart and you have been around the block. But I think you willfully ignore it because you want things to be a certain way. I'd like them to be the way you want them to too, but I know they can't. People screw it up. Most people that is.

I always feel bad when I argue with you about stuff like this and go on about how people are. It kind of feels like forcing a bunny rabbit to watch porn lol. That sounds stupid, I know. But you know what I mean. I just think you give people too much credit. I think if you really got to know a lot of the people you always stand up for, you wouldn't give a rats ass about them anymore. Not all of them, by any means. Just the majority. Of course I'm speaking only from my personal experience, but most of the people I know who are in the situations you want to help are either a lot less nicer than you think, and a whole lot tougher than you think.

Anyway, off to watch parks and recreation on Amazon. I'll check with you tomorrow. I'm honestly not being mean.

Love ya!

I agree with most of this (I can only understand most of it).

Being raised poor, it puts you at a disadvantage when you get to college and starting out.
I mean you can catch up later in your careers if you find the right path.

I lived it with unstable mother and first step father.
I also have dad who isn't really interested in me.
Add that with some physical disabilities (I have some neurological stuff, over muscle tightness/and undersized, and joint issues), I can do most stuff as long as it isn't heavy lifting, sports, hard labor (I sound like a Canadian).
Then add the near metldown that lead to my Asperger's diagnosis at age 25 (I told my parents every year that I didn't get social stuff and had lots of trouble in social situations) and what the roulette of medication did to me (it took 4 years to find a decent medication) during my college years.

So this put me at a sizable disadvantage, which is still effecting me.
All this together put me at a huge d

Is it not morally reprehensible for an employer to coerce employees into working for free?

How does your acquiescence to that pressure absolve the employer of their wrongs?



Aside from being an ad-hominem attack, this is a what is known as reducto ad asburdum, which is to say reduction to the absurd. The use of such fallacies is a form of bullying, and generally betrays that the user is arguing from a weak position. And a boor.



It might be your nature, and it might be the nature of those you associate with, but i disagree that it's human nature.

Some people are jerks. That doesn't give others license to also be jerks.

Regardless of your baser instincts or that of anyone else, in the pursuit of a civilized society it is incumbent on good people to establish norms that do the least harm.

I feel sorry for you that you live in such a horrible world. I don't live in that world, and i don't figure that you have to, but i imagine that you will continue to live in it.



Condescension is unbecoming.

Honor-system business ventures do exist, and many are successful despite your pessimism.

Is it possible that you are projecting your own issuess on everyone else?



Maybe you really do live in a place where most people are terrible people.

The truth is that most people are doing the best they can. And for some people that isn't very good.

Often it's a reflection of abuse they have received at the hands of others. So many people have been cruel to them that they believe that it is normal, or even that it is a necessary trait.

Often, they accept and even embrace the faults of their abusers instead of distancing themselves. This is an unhealthy pattern.

It is incumbent on those who can to rise above the place others have tried to put them in and break this kind of cycle of abuse. This starts with recognizing where you have taken to heart the things that other people have taught you about yourself that are in truth terrible falsehoods that were intended to hurt you and limit your potential.

Even a "Loving" person can do this. In truth, they are better at it than anyone else you will meet because it is easier for them to get you to believe what they are teaching you. It's not their fault - they are reacting to the abuse they received at the hands of people who loved them. But that doesn't mean you have to put up with it.

If you can, forgive your abusers, because it can only hurt you to hold onto the hate and won't do a thing to them.

But in any case, put them in your past and keep them there. This is easier if they are dead. Not that I'm suggesting anything, but my maternal grandfather was in the ground for 10 years before my mother could follow up a story of her youth with the words "And he should not have done that. He was not a good person. He was an alcoholic, and did things he should not have done."

And that bastard lived into his late 80's. His liver must have been made of asbestos. He always seemed like a nice guy to me, but i guess i only ever saw him at his "friendly drunk" stage, and in any case his racist harpie wife would get all pouty if he paid any attention to children that weren't hers, so i didn't see him all that frequently.

Mind, I'm only calling my grandfather's 4th wife a racist because she confided in me, privately, at the only family reunion she attended, that she is in fact a racist. I could tell, because she started with the words "I'm not a racist, but . . . "

In retrospect, I don't mind that i never knew these people well.

An ad hominum attack???? WTF! That was to Aunt Blabby who is my friend. He gets how I feel and I get how he feels. I was trying to explain to him why I keep trying to get him to see things from my POV because I think his is not realistic. It's far from ad hominum.

I'm pretty sure he gets exactly what I'm trying to say and that I wasn't being mean at all. We talk a good bit, and not just on the forum. So no, it wasn't any attack. It was also addressed to him, as I was quoting him.

I'm not even going into the rest of your analysis of what I said to him. Because it doesn't matter since it wasn't about anything you said at all. Or your opinions. Lets see what he has to say about it, shall we?

Assuming things about what people mean and not stating them as the assumptions they are just tend to make anyone look pretty damn stupid. I phrased mine as my assumptions of how I think he feels. I'll give you ten to one that he gets that even though you don't and also didn't seem to understand much at all about the post.

So now what you gonna do Mr Dillon?

the "showing porn to a bunny" sorta hurt.

No! It was like I was taking a sweet wonderful innocent and loving bunny and making him watch the dirtiest filthiest porn ever and ruining his innocence. I feel like when I tell you how I see how things are and it goes so against how you see them to be that it's taking away the way you want to see the world. The bunny is good in this example and the porn is bad in it. It's opposite of how I'd usually use those two I know, but I meant it in a good way.

I give up. I honestly just give the hell up. Everybody here wins. I'm done. I'm throwing in the towel and dealing with the actual world out there.

Later

Jesus

Pssst----I think he was teasing----at least, I HOPE he was, cuz it really made me LOL, when I read it!

We know you're having "some days", right now----cuz, you TOLD us, you were----so, we'll just wait 'til "these days", are over......

Jeb! sez we don't work enough? (Insert wicked witch of the west laugh here)

One of the reasons I'm on SSDI is because I was constantly working one full time job, in addition to 2 part time jobs, in addition to the lengthy commute I had to get to my jobs. You try to get up at 3:00 am in the morning to get to Washington DC by 6:00 am on only 2 hours sleep to perform a job you hated.

Yes, I know what a good many of you are going to say next: why didn't I move to metro DC? First, I took a $5k a year pay cut after NAWC Warminster was closed, due to Base Realignment and Closure Commission, and NRaD decided to move all their RDT&E activities back to San Diego. My employer, who had the contract for managing all the GPS receiver testing and documentation, told me flat out that he was NOT about to pay my moving or living expenses. In addition, I was called quite a few unsavory epiteths for trying to take care of my mother, of which he called her quite a few unsavory epiteths also. (This about a woman, in her younger days, had such a foul mouth she could make drunken Russian sailors blush ). Second, on what I was being paid as a contractor to Army DCSOPS, the only thing I could afford in metro DC was to live in my car. Third, I still had to take care of mom, somehow or the other, because, by this time, her employer left her go due to disability (she developed arthritis in both of her knees, as well as her hips and back. The 2 remaining brothers living at home weren't contributing to help her manage the household. She couldn't get food stamps (not that she would accept that kind of help in the first place, since welfare, in any form, whether it came from the state or the church or from private sources, was a sure sign of weakness, and was not tolerated, in any way, shape or form.), as the 2 brothers, in addition to myself, made way too much money for her even to qualify. Third, I took the pentagon job in order to shut the rest of the family up. If i didn't take the job, I was immediately labeled a bum and a lazy-arsed motherf!cker who didn't deserve to live. I would also be violating 2 of the family's mantras: 1. Money is not everything, it's the ONLY thing, and 2. You are supposed to keep working, and working hard to exhaustion, until you drop dead, then after dropping dead, immediately get back up and start working again until you drop over dead again. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

So yeah, Jeb! Thanks for invalidating one of the reasons I'm on SSDI. While you're at it, you and Trump can have anal intercourse with yourselves, in addition to the rest of both the Rethuglican and Dopeycratic parties. (Insert smiley flipping the bird at all politicians.)

blauSamsting,

You are misusing the term reductio ad absurdum. It is NOT a fallacy, but is simply taking a point to its absurd logical conclusion to show that one or more of its premises are wrong. It can't be used everywhere, and I question whether that is what OOM was using, but it is NOT a fallacy and it certainly isn't bullying.

Last edited by beneficii on 11 Jul 2015, 4:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

it would be better if they [trump and Jeb!] each inserted a virulently radioactive plutonium probe into their respective mouths, and sucked it for all they're worth.

I need to set aside some time to actually study logical fallacies and associated BS ways of arguing.

Belittling someone's position by ascribing an absurd extreme version is absolutely bullying.

She says they are friends? Maybe she's just not nice to her friends.

That is not reductio ad absurdum. Reductio ad absurdum is where you take the premises the person establishes with their conclusion and take those premises to their logical conclusion (i.e. you come up with the conclusion that follows from those premises). By showing that the logical conclusion is absurd, you show that the set of premises is incorrect. You can also use it to show how the omission of certain premises leads to an absurd logical conclusion. It does not necessarily concern the arguer, but the set of premises presented.

An example of reductio ad absurdum applied to mathematics comes from Wikipedia, showing that the concept of a smallest real number greater than zero is absurd by taking the concept to its logical conclusion: Basically, you can divide any number by two, and dividing any real number that is greater than zero by two will ALWAYS yield a smaller number (smaller, meaning closer to zero, and smallest, meaning closest to zero; basically where N is a real number, N > 0, and "/" represents division, N / 2 < N is ALWAYS true); therefore, no number can be the smallest in the set of real numbers greater than zero.

Uncensored - Key & Peele - Little Homie: http://youtu.be/pSDTmJtE-Bc