AHHH… HAHAHAHAHAAAHAAHAA!
You’re such a predictable weasel’s queaf.
You betchya, baby. Welcome to the club. The above is literally a boiler plate he posts to every banishment.
You must be, what… #2,437 on b84’s fake ignore list?
So the answer is “yes”?
The statement you made does not give a clear yes or no answer. You don’t describe the situation completely enough. My clarification describes a situation fitting your description, but with details filled in sufficient to yield a clear “yes” answer.
Is that a “yes” or a “no”?
Frylock, I fear that your relationship is entering the “dying grandmother” stage. If you have anything important you wish to say to b84, I suggest you say it quickly.
I actually don’t understand this comment at all. I blame myself.
You will soon be on b84’s “ignore” list. The “yes or no” stage is the death rattle of his interaction with you. Consider yourself blessed and put out of your misery sooner rather than later.
This is exciting actually; he’s been consistently crossing off every member of this board that chooses to interact with him using his angry red crayon, until only the poor mods are left for him to drool all over.
Yes. The “yes or no” demands tend to coincide with, or immediately follow, the attempts to “clarify the position” of his current target, and typically herald a confrontation wherein Frylock will, in a hapless attempt to debate in good faith and address the “main idea” rather than continue down the labyrinth of b84’s ersatz Socratic dialogue, reasonably paraphrase what he believes b84 is implying.
b84 will immediately demand that Frylock provide a link to the exact quote of the paraphrased statement (which of course does not exist, being a paraphrase) or apologize. At this point, the timer has been set. No more than four posts will be exchanged before b84 announces that he no longer wishes to engage with Frylock, whom he will likely dismiss with his catchphrase "goodbye, liar."™
Ok, I’m still not 100% sure what you mean by “same benefits.” I postulated that our hypothetical window girl could move to an equivalent position across the street. To me this means that all important aspects of the job are basically the same. (But not necessarily exactly the same. If she takes a job across the street, perhaps it will take her an extra 5 to 10 seconds to get to work every day. )
Anyway, on the assumption that unless the economy is terrible, it’s not that hard to move from one low level fast food service job to another, it would seem hard to square this with your earlier statement:
You’re right. I probably made that statement because I think if you try hard enough you’ll find that every large corporation is “evil” in some way, but that it’s also very difficult, for many good practical reasons, to avoid working for a large corporation. Put those together, and you get a situation in which, contingently, people are typically absolved of responsibility for working at places with evil policies. And since that situation is the situation I think we exist in, it seemed to me that “typically low level employees are absolved etc etc…” But I did intend that statement to have necessary truth, not just truth in the world we happen to live in. You’re right to point out that, read as a necessary truth, the prior statement is in conflict with what I’ve said in the more recent posts.
I have to resolve that, and I resolve it by saying I was wrong before (though had I meant it only contingently–as true just about the particular world we live in right now–I would have been right, I think) and am right in my more recent statements.
ETA: The “same benefits” thing I am being so careful about involves the fact that different jobs can offer intangible benefits as well, both at the workplace and outside of work, not necessarily intentionally as a result of any company policy.
You dream up asinine situations, then you conjure up fact scenarios that support your asinine situations, then you proudly stand back and ask for support for that creation. Do you have any idea how many virtual facepalms get tossed your way?
Yes, it’s totally unrealistic to hypothesize that a drive-thru window girl at a fast-food restaurant can easily get an equivalent job at another fast-food restaurant nearby.
:rolleyes:
The fact is that you said something boneheaded. Try to stop acting so childishly and just admit it.
Have you ever had a job? Do you understand things like shift seniority, accrued paid time off, other benefits of seniority, job hopping and the resume? Go back to your make believe world dildo.
If we’re talking specifically about the people in the OP’s video, the fact is we have no idea what her circumstances are, or how easy it would be for her to work elsewhere, or what benefits–tangible or not–would change if she changed her work situation. For this reason, we have no place to criticize her. You may have what you think are “plausible hypotheses” but justified criticism is based on facts and knowledge concerning the situation of the one being criticized, not plausible hypotheses.
My main point is that low level employees should not be (generally speaking) exempt from criticism. Not that the girl in the video could have easily switched jobs. Although I think she probably could have and it would have been reasonable for Adam Smith to assume so.
I do note that by your reasoning, there’s generally speaking no place to criticize any employee for anything. Because maybe they really need that job to get a life-saving operation for their cousin who is about to discover a cure for cancer.
I’m not opposed to that conclusion. “Knowledge” is a high (but not impossible) bar to achieve, and one should not criticize without it.
I think it’s okay to criticize based on reasonable assumptions, but it’s really just a matter of taste. In a strict sense, all knowledge is just reasonable assumptions.
Both of those sentences are definitely false, (knowledge does rely on reasonable assumptions, where “reasonable” here is to be construed as a very strict standard albeit not one requiring infallibility, but is not itself “just” a set of reasonable assumptions) but now we’re way off topic.
The first sentence is simply an opinion concerning when it is appropriate to criticize somebody, so I don’t see how it could be true or false.
I’m not sure what your problem is with the second sentence. For pretty much every piece of knowledge you think you have, I can come up with a scenario in which that piece of knowledge turns out to be false. Perhaps there are some narrow exceptions, for example knowledge about your own existence and state of mind.
Noticed that brazil came to the discussion, so I waited for another member of the “banned by brazil84” exclusive club (In reality it is his ignore list that he even keeps in his blog).
Did not have to wait long…
Welcome to the club cmyk! Sorry to say, but this club is so crowded now that I can not say that it is exclusive anymore. 