So when you got your job at a company you didn't think of, that you didn't start, using tools you didn't make, it's not fair that the people who did think of it, did start it, and did provide those tools profit more than you do?
No. That character of a society in general can be measured by how it treats everyone. If your society will rob wealth from those who earn it to give it to those who did not, your society does not have much character.
where is the company without its' employees? it doesn't exist. you could invent the wheel, but it is of no use without the spokes.
i'm not saying that the owner of something shouldn't make more...just that they often take advantage of their employees, paying them the minimum that they are legally allowed to get away with.
i believe you are wrong about your second statement. if you have to classify it as "robbing" then the society itself is neither decent, caring or humane. there are plenty of people out there working much harder than others that have more wealth than they do. they earn what little they get. sometimes those with wealth do not earn it. some take it from the sweat and labour of others. again, some...not all. that is "robbing" on a mass scale and reflects negatively on the character of a society.
Nowhere. That's why the company pays its employees.
i'm not saying that the owner of something shouldn't make more...just that they often take advantage of their employees, paying them the minimum that they are legally allowed to get away with.
So when an employee freely accepts a job with an employer that pays them the minimum wage, the employer is taking advantage of the employee??? That seems odd since the laws are in place such that the employer has to pay more than the employee is worth.
The minimum wage is an example of the employee exploiting the employer and using the guns of the state to do so, not the other way around.
i believe you are wrong about your second statement. if you have to classify it as "robbing" then the society itself is neither decent, caring or humane.
To rob someone is to take something they own against their will. You may classify it however you wish, but you cannot escape the fact that you hold a gun to people's heads and demand they pay you for something that, to a large extent, they don't see a value in.
there are plenty of people out there working much harder than others that have more wealth than they do. they earn what little they get.
The sheer effort of "working" does not entitle you to a dime of someone else's money. It entitles you only to the value that someone with that dime sees in your labor.
sometimes those with wealth do not earn it. some take it from the sweat and labour of others. again, some...not all. that is "robbing" on a mass scale and reflects negatively on the character of a society.
The rich have no more right to steal than the poor do. However, to make generalized statements that indicate the vast majority of the rich are thieves and the vast majority of the poor are victims is to ignore the exploitation that goes both ways.
Nowhere. That's why the company pays its employees.
So when an employee freely accepts a job with an employer that pays them the minimum wage, the employer is taking advantage of the employee??? That seems odd since the laws are in place such that the employer has to pay more than the employee is worth.
The minimum wage is an example of the employee exploiting the employer and using the guns of the state to do so, not the other way around.
To rob someone is to take something they own against their will. You may classify it however you wish, but you cannot escape the fact that you hold a gun to people's heads and demand they pay you for something that, to a large extent, they don't see a value in.
The sheer effort of "working" does not entitle you to a dime of someone else's money. It entitles you only to the value that someone with that dime sees in your labor.
The rich have no more right to steal than the poor do. However, to make generalized statements that indicate the vast majority of the rich are thieves and the vast majority of the poor are victims is to ignore the exploitation that goes both ways.
we could go back and forth on this ad nauseum, but i can see that we disagree completely on this issue. with all due respect, i believe all of your points of view are wrong. that's just my opinion and you probably see it as backwards, whereas i see yours as backwards. we'll have to agree to disagree.
also, would you kindly change your signature please. there's no need for that, simply because i disagree with you and think that you are wrong. again, it's merely a matter of opinion.
also, would you kindly change your signature please. there's no need for that, simply because i disagree with you and think that you are wrong. again, it's merely a matter of opinion.
These were your words that you publicly communicated to me for all to see. If you expected me to take offense from them, your expectations were incorrect.
If you can explain to me why they are appropriate in a public reply but not in my signature, I will remove it.
These were your words that you publicly communicated to me for all to see. If you expected me to take offense from them, your expectations were incorrect.
If you can explain to me why they are appropriate in a public reply but not in my signature, I will remove it.
farfromglorified, if you are attempting to bait me into insulting you or something, it is not going to work. i sent you an email, two PM's and left a message for you here. it is rather childish of you to quote something i said simply because i thought you were wrong. i was not trying to offend you, and i made that abundantly clear.
are you merely trying to be condescending because i thought you were wrong?
to say that you were going to remove it, but now you are choosing to keep it because i sent you a PM asking you to remove it is even more childish.
i thought we could have a reasonable conversation, but apparently that is not possible with you. i was trying to be respectful, and you are trying to be belittling. don't play dumb by asking me to explain to you why i would want you not to quote me in your signature or have my name in your signature.
farfromglorified, if you are attempting to bait me into insulting you or something, it is not going to work. i sent you an email, two PM's and left a message for you here. it is rather childish of you to quote something i said simply because i thought you were wrong. i was not trying to offend you, and i made that abundantly clear.
I'm not attempting to bait you into insulting me. I also received your messages.
are you merely trying to be condescending because i thought you were wrong?
No, I'm condescending because I know I'm right. It's certainly your right, however, to think I'm wrong.
to say that you were going to remove it, but now you are choosing to keep it because i sent you a PM asking you to remove it is even more childish.
I said I was going to remove it, but now am choosing to keep it because you sent me a second PM (before I even had time to read the first) telling me you were going to report me. You may feel free to report me, I am willing to accept whatever consequences are necessary for my actions.
i thought we could have a reasonable conversation, but apparently that is not possible with you. i was trying to be respectful, and you are trying to be belittling. don't play dumb by asking me to explain to you why i would want you not to quote me in your signature or have my name in your signature.
I may very well be dumb regarding that topic. I sincerely want to know what is the difference between your words in your post and your words in my signature?
if anyone has any explaining to do, it is you.
What would you like me to explain? Why I put your words in my signature? Ok, here goes:
I made a number of points in a rebuttal of a previous post you made. Your response to those points was this:
"we could go back and forth on this ad nauseum, but i can see that we disagree completely on this issue. with all due respect, i believe all of your points of view are wrong. that's just my opinion and you probably see it as backwards, whereas i see yours as backwards. we'll have to agree to disagree."
In other words, you did not want to continue the conversation. That's perfectly within your rights -- you have no obligation to argue points you don't wish to argue. However, you decided to slip this in as well:
"with all due respect, i believe all of your points of view are wrong"
Now, again, it's certainly your right to think this or to say this. It sort of contradicts the literal essence of your post, but that's no big deal. Furthermore, it may very well be that all my points of view are wrong. However, I don't think I am wrong, which in turn would mean that I think you're wrong, since we disagree. So, in other words, when you say:
"with all due respect, i believe all of your points of view are wrong"
That would read to me as:
"all of your points of view are right".
In other words, I wear replies like the one you made as a badge of honor.
All that is rather irrelevant however, to the question I'm asking you:
Why is your statement ok in a public reply to me but not in my signature?
I'm not attempting to bait you into insulting me. I also received your messages.
No, I'm condescending because I know I'm right. It's certainly your right, however, to think I'm wrong.
I said I was going to remove it, but now am choosing to keep it because you sent me a second PM (before I even had time to read the first) telling me you were going to report me. You may feel free to report me, I am willing to accept whatever consequences are necessary for my actions.
I may very well be dumb regarding that topic. I sincerely want to know what is the difference between your words in your post and your words in my signature?
What would you like me to explain? Why I put your words in my signature? Ok, here goes:
I made a number of points in a rebuttal of a previous post you made. Your response to those points was this:
"we could go back and forth on this ad nauseum, but i can see that we disagree completely on this issue. with all due respect, i believe all of your points of view are wrong. that's just my opinion and you probably see it as backwards, whereas i see yours as backwards. we'll have to agree to disagree."
In other words, you did not want to continue the conversation. That's perfectly within your rights -- you have no obligation to argue points you don't wish to argue. However, you decided to slip this in as well:
"with all due respect, i believe all of your points of view are wrong"
Now, again, it's certainly your right to think this or to say this. It sort of contradicts the literal essence of your post, but that's no big deal. Furthermore, it may very well be that all my points of view are wrong. However, I don't think I am wrong, which in turn would mean that I think you're wrong, since we disagree. So, in other words, when you say:
"with all due respect, i believe all of your points of view are wrong"
That would read to me as:
"all of your points of view are right".
In other words, I wear replies like the one you made as a badge of honor.
All that is rather irrelevant however, to the question I'm asking you:
Why is your statement ok in a public reply to me but not in my signature?
- first, i sent you an email...
re: "your signature"
"i would appreciate it if you changed your signature. thanks."
- then, i then sent you a PM...
re: "your signature"
"i would appreciate it if you changed your signature. thanks."
- i then posted in this thread...
"also, would you kindly change your signature please. there's no need for that, simply because i disagree with you and think that you are wrong. again, it's merely a matter of opinion."
you were here the whole time and chose to ignore me while replying to other threads.
- so i sent you a final PM...
re: "excuse me"
"are you going to change it, or do i have to resort to reeporting you to kat and sea?"
...at which point you finally responded with...
"You may report me. I will not remove the statement, though I had planned to before reading this. I will remove your name from it, however.
These were your words that you publicly communicated to me for all to see. If you expected me to take offense from them, your expectations were incorrect.
If you can explain to me why they are appropriate in a public reply but not in my signature, I will remove it."
you had plenty of time to respond and should not have put my name in your signature in the first place. you were looking in this thread and reading it while i was waiting for your response, yet you chose to continue to ignore me. it was rude, ignorant and uncalled for. i had absolutely no intention of offending you, yet you seem very offended by the notion that someone believes your opinion to be wrong. otherwise, why would you take their name and their words and put them in your signature? of what use is that? to try to be condescending?
as i stated before it is my belief that you are wrong. it does not mean that you are. it is your belief that you are right. it does not make either one of us right....it is all a matter of opinion!!! there is no contradiction in the "literal essence of my post". i made my post and said that we were getting nowhere with this "conversation" it was only going in circles. you had every right to reply to my post and make more statements, and you should have chosen to do that rather than take my name and words and put them in your signature. if i say i'm not interested in discussing something in circles anymore, does that prevent you from posting a response? no.
what it comes down to is a bunch of picking apart of every single word, every single sentence, chest thumping, and ego on your part that you cannot accept that it is somone's belief that you are wrong. you say that you know you are right, however. go with that. i'm certainly not interested in discussing anything with you at this point, obviously. i'm putting you on ignore so as not to have to deal with your picking apart of posts anymore. feel free to do the same.
i guarantee that you would not disrespect me in person, so why would you do it in a post? i would not disrespect you in person, and that is why i did not in any of my posts. it's an easy rule of thumb when posting.
again, the only one who has explaining to do is you, not me. you want me to explain why it is ok to use someone's name and words in your signature? the onus to do that is on you, not me.
"i would appreciate it if you changed your signature. thanks."
Yep, 1:39pm
- then, i then sent you a PM...
re: "your signature"
"i would appreciate it if you changed your signature. thanks."
Yep, 1:38 PM.
- i then posted in this thread...
"also, would you kindly change your signature please. there's no need for that, simply because i disagree with you and think that you are wrong. again, it's merely a matter of opinion."
Yep. 1:42 PM.
you were here the whole time and chose to ignore me while replying to other threads.
I wasn't ignoring you at all. I was simply doing other things.
- so i sent you a final PM...
re: "excuse me"
"are you going to change it, or do i have to resort to reeporting you to kat and sea?"
Yep. 1:57 PM.
...at which point you finally responded with...
"You may report me. I will not remove the statement, though I had planned to before reading this. I will remove your name from it, however.
These were your words that you publicly communicated to me for all to see. If you expected me to take offense from them, your expectations were incorrect.
If you can explain to me why they are appropriate in a public reply but not in my signature, I will remove it."
you had plenty of time to respond and should not have put my name in your signature in the first place. it was rude, ignorant and uncalled for.
Why should I have not put your name or words in my signature? If it was rude, ignorant or uncalled for for me do so, why wasn't it "rude, ignorant and uncalled for" for you to put it in your reply to me?
as i stated before it is my belief that you are wrong. it does not mean that you are. it is your belief that you are right. it does not make either one of us right....it is all a matter of opinion!!! there is no contradiction in the "literal essence of my post".
The literal essence of your post was that you didn't want to continue the debate, yet you still attempted to make one final contention in it. Obviously, that contention had a different outcome than you expected.
what it comes down to is a bunch of picking apart of every single word, every single sentence, chest thumping, and ego on your part that you cannot accept that it is somone's belief that you are wrong. you say that you know you are right, however. go with that. i'm certainly not interested in discussing anything with you at this point, obviously. i'm putting you on ignore so as not to have to deal with your picking apart of posts anymore. feel free to do the same.
I can accept that you hold the belief that I am wrong. You're more than welcome to believe that I am wrong.
What I also accept is that words and sentences have purposes. And when you make those purposes dependent on other people's reactions, they can very much be used against you. So I'll ask it one other time, just in case that threat to ignore me was just a bluff:
Why is your statement ok in a public reply to me but not in my signature?
Comments
where is the company without its' employees? it doesn't exist. you could invent the wheel, but it is of no use without the spokes.
i'm not saying that the owner of something shouldn't make more...just that they often take advantage of their employees, paying them the minimum that they are legally allowed to get away with.
i believe you are wrong about your second statement. if you have to classify it as "robbing" then the society itself is neither decent, caring or humane. there are plenty of people out there working much harder than others that have more wealth than they do. they earn what little they get. sometimes those with wealth do not earn it. some take it from the sweat and labour of others. again, some...not all. that is "robbing" on a mass scale and reflects negatively on the character of a society.
Nowhere. That's why the company pays its employees.
So when an employee freely accepts a job with an employer that pays them the minimum wage, the employer is taking advantage of the employee??? That seems odd since the laws are in place such that the employer has to pay more than the employee is worth.
The minimum wage is an example of the employee exploiting the employer and using the guns of the state to do so, not the other way around.
To rob someone is to take something they own against their will. You may classify it however you wish, but you cannot escape the fact that you hold a gun to people's heads and demand they pay you for something that, to a large extent, they don't see a value in.
The sheer effort of "working" does not entitle you to a dime of someone else's money. It entitles you only to the value that someone with that dime sees in your labor.
The rich have no more right to steal than the poor do. However, to make generalized statements that indicate the vast majority of the rich are thieves and the vast majority of the poor are victims is to ignore the exploitation that goes both ways.
we could go back and forth on this ad nauseum, but i can see that we disagree completely on this issue. with all due respect, i believe all of your points of view are wrong. that's just my opinion and you probably see it as backwards, whereas i see yours as backwards. we'll have to agree to disagree.
If all my points are wrong, you wouldn't owe me any respect
i try to respect everyone's opinion. it is my belief that your points are wrong. that doesn't necessarily make it so. it's just my opinion.
These were your words that you publicly communicated to me for all to see. If you expected me to take offense from them, your expectations were incorrect.
If you can explain to me why they are appropriate in a public reply but not in my signature, I will remove it.
farfromglorified, if you are attempting to bait me into insulting you or something, it is not going to work. i sent you an email, two PM's and left a message for you here. it is rather childish of you to quote something i said simply because i thought you were wrong. i was not trying to offend you, and i made that abundantly clear.
are you merely trying to be condescending because i thought you were wrong?
to say that you were going to remove it, but now you are choosing to keep it because i sent you a PM asking you to remove it is even more childish.
i thought we could have a reasonable conversation, but apparently that is not possible with you. i was trying to be respectful, and you are trying to be belittling. don't play dumb by asking me to explain to you why i would want you not to quote me in your signature or have my name in your signature.
if anyone has any explaining to do, it is you.
I'm not attempting to bait you into insulting me. I also received your messages.
No, I'm condescending because I know I'm right. It's certainly your right, however, to think I'm wrong.
I said I was going to remove it, but now am choosing to keep it because you sent me a second PM (before I even had time to read the first) telling me you were going to report me. You may feel free to report me, I am willing to accept whatever consequences are necessary for my actions.
I may very well be dumb regarding that topic. I sincerely want to know what is the difference between your words in your post and your words in my signature?
What would you like me to explain? Why I put your words in my signature? Ok, here goes:
I made a number of points in a rebuttal of a previous post you made. Your response to those points was this:
"we could go back and forth on this ad nauseum, but i can see that we disagree completely on this issue. with all due respect, i believe all of your points of view are wrong. that's just my opinion and you probably see it as backwards, whereas i see yours as backwards. we'll have to agree to disagree."
In other words, you did not want to continue the conversation. That's perfectly within your rights -- you have no obligation to argue points you don't wish to argue. However, you decided to slip this in as well:
"with all due respect, i believe all of your points of view are wrong"
Now, again, it's certainly your right to think this or to say this. It sort of contradicts the literal essence of your post, but that's no big deal. Furthermore, it may very well be that all my points of view are wrong. However, I don't think I am wrong, which in turn would mean that I think you're wrong, since we disagree. So, in other words, when you say:
"with all due respect, i believe all of your points of view are wrong"
That would read to me as:
"all of your points of view are right".
In other words, I wear replies like the one you made as a badge of honor.
All that is rather irrelevant however, to the question I'm asking you:
Why is your statement ok in a public reply to me but not in my signature?
- first, i sent you an email...
re: "your signature"
"i would appreciate it if you changed your signature. thanks."
- then, i then sent you a PM...
re: "your signature"
"i would appreciate it if you changed your signature. thanks."
- i then posted in this thread...
"also, would you kindly change your signature please. there's no need for that, simply because i disagree with you and think that you are wrong. again, it's merely a matter of opinion."
you were here the whole time and chose to ignore me while replying to other threads.
- so i sent you a final PM...
re: "excuse me"
"are you going to change it, or do i have to resort to reeporting you to kat and sea?"
...at which point you finally responded with...
"You may report me. I will not remove the statement, though I had planned to before reading this. I will remove your name from it, however.
These were your words that you publicly communicated to me for all to see. If you expected me to take offense from them, your expectations were incorrect.
If you can explain to me why they are appropriate in a public reply but not in my signature, I will remove it."
you had plenty of time to respond and should not have put my name in your signature in the first place. you were looking in this thread and reading it while i was waiting for your response, yet you chose to continue to ignore me. it was rude, ignorant and uncalled for. i had absolutely no intention of offending you, yet you seem very offended by the notion that someone believes your opinion to be wrong. otherwise, why would you take their name and their words and put them in your signature? of what use is that? to try to be condescending?
as i stated before it is my belief that you are wrong. it does not mean that you are. it is your belief that you are right. it does not make either one of us right....it is all a matter of opinion!!! there is no contradiction in the "literal essence of my post". i made my post and said that we were getting nowhere with this "conversation" it was only going in circles. you had every right to reply to my post and make more statements, and you should have chosen to do that rather than take my name and words and put them in your signature. if i say i'm not interested in discussing something in circles anymore, does that prevent you from posting a response? no.
what it comes down to is a bunch of picking apart of every single word, every single sentence, chest thumping, and ego on your part that you cannot accept that it is somone's belief that you are wrong. you say that you know you are right, however. go with that. i'm certainly not interested in discussing anything with you at this point, obviously. i'm putting you on ignore so as not to have to deal with your picking apart of posts anymore. feel free to do the same.
i guarantee that you would not disrespect me in person, so why would you do it in a post? i would not disrespect you in person, and that is why i did not in any of my posts. it's an easy rule of thumb when posting.
again, the only one who has explaining to do is you, not me. you want me to explain why it is ok to use someone's name and words in your signature? the onus to do that is on you, not me.
Yep, 1:39pm
Yep, 1:38 PM.
Yep. 1:42 PM.
I wasn't ignoring you at all. I was simply doing other things.
Yep. 1:57 PM.
Why should I have not put your name or words in my signature? If it was rude, ignorant or uncalled for for me do so, why wasn't it "rude, ignorant and uncalled for" for you to put it in your reply to me?
The literal essence of your post was that you didn't want to continue the debate, yet you still attempted to make one final contention in it. Obviously, that contention had a different outcome than you expected.
I can accept that you hold the belief that I am wrong. You're more than welcome to believe that I am wrong.
What I also accept is that words and sentences have purposes. And when you make those purposes dependent on other people's reactions, they can very much be used against you. So I'll ask it one other time, just in case that threat to ignore me was just a bluff:
Why is your statement ok in a public reply to me but not in my signature?