There must be a name for the creative style of argumentation that I’m seeing here, which seems to consist of a nifty two-step process: (1) take a selected comment completely out of context, so that the original intended meaning is lost, and then (2) subject what remains to the most cynical and uncharitable possible interpretation.
My point about sick days was made in the larger context of the principle of civil disobedience, of when such actions may be justified and when they are not, and of the validity of using Martin Luther King’s statements about it as blanket support for illegal strike actions. Specifically, this is what I said, with the proper context restored:
So it wasn’t really about “sick days” at all, but about the threshold to which injustices must rise before it’s morally justifiable to defy the rule of law. In this case, the union demand was even more frivolous than I misstated in my example; they were apparently content with the allocation of sick days, and were demanding the right to bank them from year to year. They also had a few other goals related to seniority and job security, all of which were small potatoes in the larger scheme of things and certainly not monumental social causes, yet they staged numerous illegal strike actions that sometimes endangered public safety.