Anything Forums

scherzo wrote:

Stasi wrote: yet you seem to think that's what this whole issue has been about.

I am clear on what this issue is about, are you? let me put it to you simply, You have a vote in the Senate on the bill, do you say 'yes' or 'no'

If you say, 'no' it is quite clear you are not voting in favor of flesh and blood, real people, because you do not know who the real person will be. You have no idea it will be a republican, or a democrat, a man, or a woman, real people who you represent.

If you say, 'no' it is also clear you are voting in favor of a collection of persons, however this is an 'idea' or 'policy', but not real people. This vote only indirectly favors people, with the idea that lower prices allow competition which in turn gives people jobs, lowers taxes, etc. etc. This vote SOUNDS good given this philosophy, but it is a philosophy grounded in things that never happened. The clause is a safe guard to protect against things that have not happened, it's only guarantee is the event will not happen, that is, there will be no additional costs to a bid because there will be no day in court, weather rape occurs or not.

Scherzo, the issue here is a philosophical one. A philosophical issue concerned with to what extent the government should involve itself in civil contracts between parties. This is not an issue about the criminality of rape, and it's not an issue about the morality of rape. You don't seem to understand that.

In any case, because of the kind of friction displayed here, and due to a couple of requests, I'm going to put you on Ignore. Good luck and be happy....

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69395

Stasi wrote: Another problem with this thread is that it's largely an argument about a non-issue.  I think it's safe to say that no one here thinks rape is okay, or that Halliburton/KBR's application of their arbitration clause was a "good" thing.  The judicial system sided with the woman and said she had a right to sue the company, and the bill passed.  What's left to argue with any real substance?

If you have nothing else to argue, then why do you keep posting?

I take issue with one person here, and it specifically has to do with how they conduct themself with others' posts and statements.  Like I said, feel free to look through past discussions between myself and Scherzo if you're really curious about where I'm coming from.  Because you're making this personal between you and I, when it wasn't intended to be such, I'm trying to explain myself.

If you have a problem with a member of the forums, you should talk to either that person in a PM or talk to Red Squirrel. Flaming in a thread is not the place to show your hatred for somebody, unless of course it's the "Burn the person above you" thread, in which case it's all in good fun.

Again, Scherzo has a history of taking discussions far from where they belong, and misusing the things other people write to do so.  This isn't a personal attack, it's an honest observation.

An observation that can be said like so: "Scherzo, that doesn't make sense, read the whole thing. >>>insert original text here<<<. He obviously meant >>>insert what the poster meant here<<<"
Insulting somebody isn't the way to express how you feel about what they stated. And again, if you have a problem about how they go about their posting, you should take it up with them or Red (if it's against forum rules). or you could completely refuse to acknowledge that person's post and act like it isn't there.

Or he started the thread about it because he read that guy's blog entry, felt emotionally inflamed and started a threat about it.  Either way, neither you nor I really know.

As a member of this forum, shouldn't we assume that he knows what he's talking about? Maybe he hasn't read it. If you believe so, cite the article or more facts from other sources. He'll either have to read it, or he'll make no sense.

Is that what this is about?  You feel I'm acting like a schoolyard bully and you hate schoolyard bullies, so you intervene as such?  Take a breather, man.  It's not about you.

I'm intervening because the flaming you are doing is interfering with discussion and is only going to cause anger. If you want to pick a fight, do it elsewhere. I know it's not about me. It's about your blatant insulting of other members of this forum. However, you are insulting people on this forum who I have been posting with for many many years, I consider them my friends. So yeah, it is personal in the sense that you are insulting people that I respect and have somewhat of a sense of camaraderie with.
I know it's between you and Scherzo, but he shouldn't have to deal with that crap. Neither should you, and if you have a problem with his previous posts, say something.
I don't understand why it's so hard to be civil? Is it really that big a deal to have to act like an adult? There are some members on this forum that post frequently and aren't even in HS yet, yet they conduct themselves like ladies and gentlemen. Is it so much to ask that those of us who are adults act like it?

Thank you for putting him on ignore.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69399

scherzo wrote:

Stasi wrote: yet you seem to think that's what this whole issue has been about.

I am clear on what this issue is about, are you? let me put it to you simply, You have a vote in the Senate on the bill, do you say 'yes' or 'no'

My strategy here is Commitment, Stasi refused to commit to saying, 'yes' or 'no' and I would have called him on it. Stasi has set me to ignore, and he is right, I do ignore parts of the conversation that do not deal with the topic, or as he sees it, why I think the topic should be.

In this case, Bookworm made a commitment, however it was a commitment based on an assumption, and Stasi believes that I have deflected the debate. I have deflected the debate, I'm curious if Bookworms beliefs or argument would change if indeed it was not a lot of dough, If this is true, then there would be no need to argue about the morality of Rape or otherwise, because Bookworm has made a condition, "I'll agree if it isn't alot of dough", "I disagree if it is a lot of dough"

After Stasi refusal to Commit, I would have ignored everything he can or would say about the topic, and continued to call him on it. Bookworm has seen this in action and he knows how I work, I have successfully and very civily discussed topics before with Bookworm (success does not mean I'm right) success is accepting the view or position.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69402

I'm not going to comment about Stasi, though I would hope we could let this go.

I would like to make one comment, or rather quote, in response to a few of scherzo's arguments, however.

The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix "di" in "dilemma" means "two". When a list of more than two choices is offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.

False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice ("If you are not with us, you are against us.") But the fallacy can arise simply by accidental omission—possibly through a form of wishful thinking or ignorance—rather than by deliberate deception ("I thought we were friends, but all my friends were at my apartment last night and you weren't there.")

When two alternatives are presented, they are often, though not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities. This can lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive, even though they need not be. Furthermore, the options are typically presented as being collectively exhaustive, in which case the fallacy can be overcome, or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps by considering a whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic.

False dilemma (wikipedia)
Top 20 Logical Fallacies

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69404

Stasi wrote: The judicial system sided with the woman and said she had a right to sue the company, and the bill passed.  What's left to argue with any real substance?

What's left to argue, and what I see is a legitimate point by Scherzo, is WHY 10 Republicans voted against the bill. Sure, the bill passed, but I do think those Republicans must have had some legitimate points that did not include thinking that rape is okay. Is it proper to make a law saying that ALL companies that use mandatory binding arbitration have to forego government contracts? I'm not sure it is.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69407

Chyse wrote:

Bookworm wrote: I'll agree that some employee contracts have clauses that are very anti-employee, but nobody is forcing people to work at those companies that have such contracts. Employees should read EVERTYTHING in the employee contract before they even start working for a company. If they fail to read the contract, or they sign a pro-business contract simply becasue they want to make lots of dough, then they shouldn't complain about having to abide by the contract.

You're right, nobody if forcing them. But if you have children to feed, wouldn't you choose a job where you might get raped than no job at all?

You are overlooking a third possibility, that of taking a different job. A refusal to take a dangerous job does not result in automatic lifelong joblessness.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69409

scherzo wrote: I can attack the idea of where your argument is arranged.

"they want to make lots of dough"

... the top 1 percent of all Americans, some 3 million people,  The incomes of this group, those making more than $348,000 a year, rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each

The top 10 percent of the population carried away some 48.5 percent of all reported income in the US in 2005

The top tenth of 1 percent (300,000 people)  “The top tenth of a percent reported an average income of $5.6

I do not think the companies can get away with paying "lots of dough". The income received is likely more comparable with your income than the idea of, "lots of dough" especially if you consider it likely isn't permanent. Over a lifetime your occupation will likely yield more income than this contract combined with whatever job is available after.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/inco-m30.shtml

I'm not sure how your link regarding the top tenth of one percent relates to our discussion. Are you saying that someone makes "a lot of dough" only if they are making millions of dollars? I found a webpage stating that the average halliburton salary is 73,000 dollars.
http://www.simplyhired.com/a/salary/search/q-Halliburton
That is certainly more than I make at my job, so to me, that is "a lot of dough."

"Employees should read EVERTYTHING in the employee contract"



blame the victim game? Everyone understands there is a certain amount of understanding that we bring into an arrangement. Otherwise the questions would be endless and no one can operate in society like this. Do you know every law ever written? I think not, so how can you conduct yourself properly in Society? To do so you would need to spend years reading every law, more years reading its jurisprudence, then even more years committing them to memory, by the time you reach 60 you maybe have read EVERYTHING you need to step outside your door to function in society, except you don't have a door because you haven't worked

By posting a picture of books in a library, are you insinuating that an employee contract contains as much information as all those books? Do you really think that an employee contract contains as much informations as "every law ever written"? I can assure that the amount of reading needed to understand the employee contract is NOT that extensive.

"nobody is forcing people to work"

America has a great reputation for not forcing people to work

I said that nobody is forcing people to work for particular companies. Do you disagree with that? Do you think Halliburton forces people to work there, thus preventing them from getting jobs elsewhere?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69410

manadren wrote: I would like to make one comment, or rather quote, in response to a few of scherzo's arguments, however.


False dilemma (wikipedia)
Top 20 Logical Fallacies

By quoting and then posting a link to false dilemma, are you not creating a false dilemma? you have given the reader or audience no other alternative other than agree with the post or not, mean while not giving an example of where you think the false dilemma in the argument occurs, which of course robs someone of a defense of such a charge

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69411

I'm not sure how your link regarding the top tenth of one percent relates to our discussion. Are you saying that someone makes "a lot of dough" only if they are making millions of dollars? I found a webpage stating that the average halliburton salary is 73,000 dollars.
http://www.simplyhired.com/a/salary/search/q-Halliburton
That is certainly more than I make at my job, so to me, that is "a lot of dough.

Yes I am.

First of all $73,000 is a lot, but would you leave your job for it? My statement included more information,

Over a lifetime your occupation will likely yield more income than this contract combined with whatever job is available after.

By posting a picture of books in a library, are you insinuating that an employee contract contains as much information as all those books? Do you really think that an employee contract contains as much informations as "every law ever written"? I can assure that the amount of reading needed to understand the employee contract is NOT that extensive.

already addressed in my reply to Stasi,

Reading and making sense of a contract does not require a lifetime study in law, only because we bring ourselves to the contract before we read it. We were taught to read, and during this teaching we were also taught, either though observation, though tutors, through church, or through life experiences how to conduct ourselves. No matter how many times one can read the contract could they EVER understand what it said about RAPE, and UNLAWFUL DETENTION, because what we have learned throughout our lives has told us this is WRONG.

I am not insinuating the contract contains more information, I do not think that the contract have more information, My example was to the understanding. We function in society without knowing every law, because we have an understanding. Quite simply, you are placing a higher burden of understanding to the victim than you are willing to accept yourself, the way to envision this is to substitute your wife or daughter as the victim and then ask yourself if the contract satisfies your sense of justice?

I said that nobody is forcing people to work for particular companies. Do you disagree with that? Do you think Halliburton forces people to work there, thus preventing them from getting jobs elsewhere?

my parallel here was that Rape to slaves was wrong then as it is now. Then as it is now, there are legal issues on justice.

I do not think any company forces people to work for them, but In this case they force the conditions in which to work

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69412

Bookworm wrote:

Chyse wrote:

Bookworm wrote: I'll agree that some employee contracts have clauses that are very anti-employee, but nobody is forcing people to work at those companies that have such contracts. Employees should read EVERTYTHING in the employee contract before they even start working for a company. If they fail to read the contract, or they sign a pro-business contract simply becasue they want to make lots of dough, then they shouldn't complain about having to abide by the contract.

You're right, nobody if forcing them. But if you have children to feed, wouldn't you choose a job where you might get raped than no job at all?

You are overlooking a third possibility, that of taking a different job. A refusal to take a dangerous job does not result in automatic lifelong joblessness.

With the current economy, it's not that easy for somebody to just say "My job sucks. I need to get a new one." and expect to find a job at all. Having a job is a very valuable thing right now.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69415

Chyse wrote:
With the current economy, it's not that easy for somebody to just say "My job sucks. I need to get a new one." and expect to find a job at all. Having a job is a very valuable thing right now.

the article says this happened in 2005, the crash was 2008.

But does it really make a difference? Trying to paint the victim as a greedy, money grubbing, looking for a quick buck and she deserves what she gets, or at least understood what she was giving up in return of the quick buck, really doesn't matter to me.

Would the same be true if she signed the same contract to do missionary work? We can approach the same facts, same contract, same gang rape, same detainment in a shipping container without food, water, bed, and the same threats and only change the type of work being done, however we should all reach the same conclusions as if she was indeed a money grubbing whore who deserved what she got, as the debate is about the vote in the Senate.



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69417

scherzo wrote: No matter how many times one can read the contract could they EVER understand what it said about RAPE, and UNLAWFUL DETENTION, because what we have learned throughout our lives has told us this is WRONG.

But the contract said NO SUCH THING as you are trying to make it seem about rape and unlawful detention. The contract in no way allows for rape and unlawful detention. A stupid company TRIED to use the contract provision in such a way and FAILED. The courts ruled against them and said the woman COULD sue the company; therefore, a mandatory arbitration clause DOES NOT allow for rape and unlawful detention. NO ONE has to worry that just because a company has a mandatory arbitration clause, they are going to be going around allowing their employees to rape women. Yet the legislature has jumped on this clause as if this clause is the source of a rape problem. It isn't.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69418

scherzo wrote: Trying to paint the victim as a greedy, money grubbing, looking for a quick buck and she deserves what she gets, or at least understood what she was giving up in return of the quick buck, really doesn't matter to me.

Well, it's a good thing then that no one here has tried to paint the victim in such a manner. I certainly haven't.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69419

Chyse wrote: As a member of this forum, shouldn't we assume that he knows what he's talking about?

Absolutely not. Why do you think we should assume that just because someone is a member of this forum that they know what they're talking about?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69436

Bookworm wrote:
But the contract said NO SUCH THING as you are trying to make it seem about rape and unlawful detention. The contract in no way allows for rape and unlawful detention. A stupid company TRIED to use the contract provision in such a way and FAILED. The courts ruled against them and said the woman COULD sue the company; therefore, a mandatory arbitration clause DOES NOT allow for rape and unlawful detention. NO ONE has to worry that just because a company has a mandatory arbitration clause, they are going to be going around allowing their employees to rape women. Yet the legislature has jumped on this clause as if this clause is the source of a rape problem. It isn't.

I believe Jamie Leigh Jones had to worry, things are certain now, but they never were. I am not trying to make it seem about rape, it is about rape, Jamie was raped. The company did try for the civil court and failed but succeeded in having it not go to the criminal courts

However, notes and photographs taken by Schultz (of Jones the morning following her rape) were missing, undermining any chances of bringing the case through the criminal courts.

without a criminal conviction there will still be doubt about the rape.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69441

Bookworm wrote:

scherzo wrote: Trying to paint the victim as a greedy, money grubbing, looking for a quick buck and she deserves what she gets, or at least understood what she was giving up in return of the quick buck, really doesn't matter to me.

Well, it's a good thing then that no one here has tried to paint the victim in such a manner. I certainly haven't.

Bookworm wrote: If they fail to read the contract, or they sign a pro-business contract simply becasue they want to make lots of dough, then they shouldn't complain about having to abide by the contract.

You were first to mention money in this context, you further stated that she shouldn't complain, I can only interpret that to mean she shouldn't complain about not going to civil court?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69442

scherzo wrote:

Bookworm wrote:

scherzo wrote: Trying to paint the victim as a greedy, money grubbing, looking for a quick buck and she deserves what she gets, or at least understood what she was giving up in return of the quick buck, really doesn't matter to me.

Well, it's a good thing then that no one here has tried to paint the victim in such a manner. I certainly haven't.

Bookworm wrote: If they fail to read the contract, or they sign a pro-business contract simply becasue they want to make lots of dough, then they shouldn't complain about having to abide by the contract.

You were first to mention money in this context, you further stated that she shouldn't complain, I can only interpret that to mean she shouldn't complain about not going to civil court?

Well, you're interpreting wrongly. She can definitely complain about rape and take them to civil court because of rape. Rape was NOT allowable in the terms of the ciontract. However, those things that are legally covered in the terms of the contract should not be complained about later. Why even work at a company that makes you sign a contract if you're only going to complain later about the contract you signed?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69455

scherzo wrote:

However, notes and photographs taken by Schultz (of Jones the morning following her rape) were missing, undermining any chances of bringing the case through the criminal courts.

without a criminal conviction there will still be doubt about the rape.

Scherzo, where did you get that particular quote about photographs? I just rechecked the links at the beginning of the thread, and I didn't see it? Who is Schultz? Would a removal of mandatory binding arbitration have caused any photographs to not be missing?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69456

Bookworm wrote:

scherzo wrote:

However, notes and photographs taken by Schultz (of Jones the morning following her rape) were missing, undermining any chances of bringing the case through the criminal courts.

without a criminal conviction there will still be doubt about the rape.

Scherzo, where did you get that particular quote about photographs? I just rechecked the links at the beginning of the thread, and I didn't see it? Who is Schultz? Would a removal of mandatory binding arbitration have caused any photographs to not be missing?

my apologies, source is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Leigh_Jones

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69460