Anything Forums

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:31 am**

At what point does a rape clause make sense?

http://www.memestreams.net/users/decius/blogid10368850/

This is a trick question, In my opinion there is no discussion, there is no debate and as a victim I would demand justice in every way possible.

For myself this is akin of having a contract for killing someone in exchange for $50,000. and when I kill someone and demand payment, and my contract doesn't pay, I go to court and sue them for the $50,000 and the judge says the contracted must pay.

The courts are in a position to ignore contracts and it is there duty to do so.

Side note on party accountability, I would not end this until the republican party was destroyed.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69280

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:16 am**

First off, I don't think any specific party has anything to do with this.

Secondly, I agree with you. There is no discussion. She should be able to press charges. Rape is never okay.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69285

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:57 am**

Agree'd Chyse on both fronts... where is it stated that the repulicans had anything to do with it?

Good topic though... not much to say on it. I think we can all agree rape is bad... unless it's a fetish thing for both parties, but then it's more of a game and less actuall rape.... oh wait.. i'm still typing... sorry.

"The saftey word is Bananna"

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69289

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:51 pm**

Chyse wrote: First off, I don't think any specific party has anything to do with this.

Secondly, I agree with you. There is no discussion. She should be able to press charges. Rape is never okay.

The 'R' stand for republican

People who voted against this amendment include:
Alexander (R-TN)
Bond (R-MO)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Corker (R-TN)
Isakson (R-GA)

I would go so far to say if one democrat voted against then the democrat's should be destroyed as well.

My position is simple, these people represent its citizens. There can be no argument that can be made a vote against represents 'people', 'flesh and blood', 'living, breathing, people' and because you do not know who a rape victim will be, you must include yourself in the interpretation, which means you are deciding on the issue that all citizens are potential victim's of rape.

No one forfeits there protection by contract

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69291

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:07 pm**

scherzo wrote:
Chyse wrote: First off, I don't think any specific party has anything to do with this.

Secondly, I agree with you. There is no discussion. She should be able to press charges. Rape is never okay.

The 'R' stand for republican

People who voted against this amendment include:
Alexander (R-TN)
Bond (R-MO)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Corker (R-TN)
Isakson (R-GA)

I would go so far to say if one democrat voted against then the democrat's should be destroyed as well.

My position is simple, these people represent its citizens. There can be no argument that can be made a vote against represents 'people', 'flesh and blood', 'living, breathing, people' and because you do not know who a rape victim will be, you must include yourself in the interpretation, which means you are deciding on the issue that all citizens are potential victim's of rape.

No one forfeits there protection by contract

You can't just wipe out an entire party because there are idiots who don't read what they sign.. they'll just be replaced by more idiots!
You'll continually disband or impeach every party that's formed within one term of office.
Is this really your only solution to any and every governmental problem? or is this just a short term kick? I don't think any one person ESPECIALLY on a forum is qualified to basically imply "Man the governement would run better if they just followed my ideas"... that in and of it's self is basicaly a GWB attitude.

I think I rebutted your argument quite well in another thread.. please see that for my reasoning that it wouldn't work.. If you still disagree please explain why in a cohiesive manner.

I'm trying to be understanding and help bridge the commnication gap here... because I'm just not getting it... do you have me on ignore or somthing? You seem to had rather argue other points than reply to mine.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69294

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:24 pm**

On a note in defense of the republican party this isn't about a "rape clause". I don't think even KBR was crazy enough to go that far. It about mandatory binding arbitration. This is just an extreme example of why mandatory binding arbitration is bad.

The basic logic behind arbitration is this: Disputes are settled outside of court by an impartial arbitrator, thus saving money for both parties by avoiding a costly court case, while at the same time providing a binding legal framework for the issue to be resolved.

The problem with this, as you might have guessed is that the arbitrator must be impartial. If it was merely two individuals jointly deciding on an arbitrator, there is no problem here. But if it's a large company choosing the arbitrator, the arbitrator may favor the company in hopes of repeat business, as the company may simply move to another arbitrator if they lose too many cases.

The second problem with the is the mandatory bit, it was in her contract that all issues must be resolved via arbitration. And seeing as she was neither a government employee, nor on American soil at the time of the incident, she had no other legal recourse.

But back to the point I was making. The bill in question was in favor of banning all government contracts for companies that use mandatory binding arbitration. Arbitration is no doubt more cost effective, which allows the company to provide more competitive services. And while the fairness of arbitration is in question, and it is obviously not appropriate in all circumstances (such as case where criminal charges would be filed), I think the logic of the republicans here is that it would be unfair to businesses (and inappropriate meddling in business affairs) to require all businesses with government contracts to forgo it's use.

That being said, I think mandatory binding arbitration is dangerous and very anti-consumeremployee and would like to see it gone all together.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69295

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:20 pm**

manadren wrote: On a note in defense of the republican party this isn't about a "rape clause". I don't think even KBR was crazy enough to go that far. It about mandatory binding arbitration. This is just an extreme example of why mandatory binding arbitration is bad.

The basic logic behind arbitration is this: Disputes are settled outside of court by an impartial arbitrator, thus saving money for both parties by avoiding a costly court case, while at the same time providing a binding legal framework for the issue to be resolved.

The problem with this, as you might have guessed is that the arbitrator must be impartial. If it was merely two individuals jointly deciding on an arbitrator, there is no problem here. But if it's a large company choosing the arbitrator, the arbitrator may favor the company in hopes of repeat business, as the company may simply move to another arbitrator if they lose too many cases.

The second problem with the is the mandatory bit, it was in her contract that all issues must be resolved via arbitration. And seeing as she was neither a government employee, nor on American soil at the time of the incident, she had no other legal recourse.

But back to the point I was making. The bill in question was in favor of banning all government contracts for companies that use mandatory binding arbitration. This is no doubt more cost effective, which allows the company to provide more competitive services. And while the fairness or arbitration is in question, and it is obviously not appropriate in all circumstances (such as case where criminal charges would be filed), I think the logic of the republicans here is that it would be unfair to businesses (and inappropriate meddling in business affairs) to require all businesses with government contracts to forgo it's use.

That being said, I think mandatory binding arbitration is dangerous and very anti-consumeremployee and would like to see it gone all together.

Thanks for bringing a more Macro view to the topic manadren... it makes the details make more sense...

sorry i got off topic rebutting the "destroy the political party" idea....

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69297

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:06 pm**

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.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69299

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:33 pm**

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?
This sort of thing shouldn't happen at all. Nobody should have to deal with this. I'm all about the government staying out of my crap, but when it comes to safety of employees, I think the government needs to step in.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69327

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:15 pm**

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. then they shouldn't complain about having to abide by the contract.

they shouldn't complain about being raped? LOL (couldn't resist putting words in your mouth, or should I say type)

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

"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

"nobody is forcing people to work"

America has a great reputation for not forcing people to work

and it has come a long way,

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69332

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:25 pm**

Side note on party accountability, I would not end this until the republican party was destroyed.

I would go so far to say if one democrat voted against then the democrat's should be destroyed as well.

Scherzo, you're a moron.

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.

Congrats on creating a tangent that really doesn't have to do with the original post... again. Also, once again, you're not making much sense.

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

You're taking something Bookworm said and warping into ridiculous nonsense like only you can. Reading, and making sense of an employee contract doesn't require a lifetime of studying law, you idiot.

"nobody is forcing people to work"

America has a great reputation for not forcing people to work

and it has come a long way,

Nice job, you took a conveniently selective snippet of something Bookworm said and responded to it completely out of context, all the while posting images to further dramatize your "point". Bookworm's actual statement said:

"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."

This has nothing to do with slaves or homeless people. Of course, in your warped little mind that seems to operate on a sad, pseudo-intellectual level, you are a genius and everyone else is either a fool or morally bankrupt slimeball for failing to agree with you.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69353

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:27 pm**

FloodG8-9595,Oct 21 2009, 03:07 PM wrote:
scherzo,Oct 21 2009, 11:51 AM wrote:
Chyse,Oct 21 2009, 07:16 AM wrote: You can't just wipe out an entire party because there are idiots who don't read what they sign.. they'll just be replaced by more idiots!
You'll continually disband or impeach every party that's formed within one term of office.
Is this really your only solution to any and every governmental problem? or is this just a short term kick? I don't think any one person ESPECIALLY on a forum is qualified to basically imply "Man the governement would run better if they just followed my ideas"... that in and of it's self is basicaly a GWB attitude.

I think I rebutted your argument quite well in another thread.. please see that for my reasoning that it wouldn't work.. If you still disagree please explain why in a cohiesive manner.

I'm trying to be understanding and help bridge the commnication gap here... because I'm just not getting it... do you have me on ignore or somthing? You seem to had rather argue other points than reply to mine.

My apologies, you are not set to ignore and I will try to look for the other thread.

I would like to say first that I cannot predict what you will say as easily as others, this makes replying to you harder and allows for a defeat of an argument based on what I may say to you taken out of context to another. But I don't know if I did this truly or not. A simpler explanation in this case, "the idea of destroying a party" I believe I had explained to be a response from myself over a particular law in Canada. The idea is grounded in reason, "holding a party accountable" however its practice as you have pointed out is near impossible.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69354

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:50 pm**

Stasi wrote:
Side note on party accountability, I would not end this until the republican party was destroyed.

I would go so far to say if one democrat voted against then the democrat's should be destroyed as well.
Scherzo, you're a moron.

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.
Congrats on creating a tangent that really doesn't have to do with the original post... again. Also, once again, you're not making much sense.

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
You're taking something Bookworm said and warping into ridiculous nonsense like only you can. Reading, and making sense of an employee contract doesn't require a lifetime of studying law, you idiot.

"nobody is forcing people to work"

America has a great reputation for not forcing people to work

and it has come a long way,
Nice job, you took a conveniently selective snippet of something Bookworm said and responded to it completely out of context, all the while posting images to further dramatize your "point". Bookworm's actual statement said:

"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."

This has nothing to do with slaves or homeless people. Of course, in your warped little mind that seems to operate on a sad, pseudo-intellectual level, you are a genius and everyone else is either a fool or morally bankrupt slimeball for failing to agree with you.

Well, Stasi, it's nice to see that you have some real information and thoughts about this issue to bring to the table, not just a slew of insults to throw at scherzo. Thanks for your input.

Relating to the "destroying of a party," George Washington did say that poilitical parties would destroy this country.

Relating to what Scherzo said, we have actually become quite good at forcing people not to work.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69362

Posted: **Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:10 am**

Sure I have my thoughts on the issue, but past efforts to have an intellectual exchange with Scherzo always end the same - having to re-explain things over and over, argue semantics, and try to figure out what the hell he's trying to say, what point he's trying to make, or why conversation A ended up on subject B. I no longer try. Feel free to search the debate forum for past exchanges to see what I'm talking about.

What I've been finding quite irritating is the fact that he takes what someone says, twists it, and then carries on in a new direction. That is an arrogant, rude, and disrespectful way to carry on an argument - far moreso than calling someone what they've demonstrated themself to be (a la "moron").

Relating to what Scherzo said, we have actually become quite good at forcing people not to work.

Re-read what Scherzo said because you obviously didn't read it correctly.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69363

Posted: **Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:28 am**

Congrats on creating a tangent that really doesn't have to do with the original post... again. Also, once again, you're not making much sense.

You're taking something Bookworm said and warping into ridiculous nonsense like only you can. Reading, and making sense of an employee contract doesn't require a lifetime of studying law, you idiot.

Nice job, you took a conveniently selective snippet of something Bookworm said and responded to it completely out of context, all the while posting images to further dramatize your "point". Bookworm's actual statement said:

"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."

This has nothing to do with slaves or homeless people.

Bookworm didn't specify what "lots of dough" was, however he did show his bias on where he started his argument. We do not have enough facts to establish if indeed it was lots of dough, or not. But we do know that bookworm thinks it is lots of dough, and this makes many assumptions. Like the assumption that there were less paying jobs with security from rape available in the U.S. - We don't know that this is true, but would Bookworm argue the same way if this fact was changed? The point is, the income received for this contract can easily be constructed that it was not in fact, "lots of dough"

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 really proud of the images of slaves and the homeless, If you read between the lines you will see that during the times of slavery, slave owners could legally rape their property, I am suggesting this is a modern day equivalent to those days, because then as it is now, RAPE is wrong, and only the LAW had something different to say about it.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69364

Posted: **Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:12 am**

scherzo,Oct 22 2009, 10:27 PM wrote:
FloodG8-9595,Oct 21 2009, 03:07 PM wrote:
scherzo,Oct 21 2009, 11:51 AM wrote:
My apologies, you are not set to ignore and I will try to look for the other thread.

I would like to say first that I cannot predict what you will say as easily as others, this makes replying to you harder and allows for a defeat of an argument based on what I may say to you taken out of context to another. But I don't know if I did this truly or not. A simpler explanation in this case, "the idea of destroying a party" I believe I had explained to be a response from myself over a particular law in Canada. The idea is grounded in reason, "holding a party accountable" however its practice as you have pointed out is near impossible.

no problem Scherzo... I think I was having a bad day when I posted that... lol

I have no problem with accountability I just think impeaching entire parties would end in chaos. I agree that we should find some way to hold individuals responsible for their idiotic actions and sneaky political tactics allowing them to spend taxpayer money on bullcrap no one wants or needs... however we must turn to ourselves to elect better people who will end these actions... it won't happen overnight.. probably not even in our life times... we and our forbearers have really f'd up a pretty good system

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69376

Posted: **Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:50 pm**

Stasi wrote: Sure I have my thoughts on the issue, but past efforts to have an intellectual exchange with Scherzo always end the same - having to re-explain things over and over, argue semantics, and try to figure out what the hell he's trying to say, what point he's trying to make, or why conversation A ended up on subject B. I no longer try. Feel free to search the debate forum for past exchanges to see what I'm talking about.

What I've been finding quite irritating is the fact that he takes what someone says, twists it, and then carries on in a new direction. That is an arrogant, rude, and disrespectful way to carry on an argument - far moreso than calling someone what they've demonstrated themself to be (a la "moron").

Relating to what Scherzo said, we have actually become quite good at forcing people not to work.
Re-read what Scherzo said because you obviously didn't read it correctly.

If you have a problem with Sherzo then you could talk to him about it, or not participate in his threads, or simply ignore him. Any of those would be good alternatives to insults.

"nobody is forcing people to work"

That's what Scherzo said. I agreed saying that we are in fact, doing the exact opposite.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69378

Posted: **Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:24 pm**

Chyse wrote:
Stasi wrote: Sure I have my thoughts on the issue, but past efforts to have an intellectual exchange with Scherzo always end the same - having to re-explain things over and over, argue semantics, and try to figure out what the hell he's trying to say, what point he's trying to make, or why conversation A ended up on subject B. I no longer try. Feel free to search the debate forum for past exchanges to see what I'm talking about.

What I've been finding quite irritating is the fact that he takes what someone says, twists it, and then carries on in a new direction. That is an arrogant, rude, and disrespectful way to carry on an argument - far moreso than calling someone what they've demonstrated themself to be (a la "moron").

Relating to what Scherzo said, we have actually become quite good at forcing people not to work.
Re-read what Scherzo said because you obviously didn't read it correctly.

If you have a problem with Sherzo then you could talk to him about it, or not participate in his threads, or simply ignore him. Any of those would be good alternatives to insults.

"nobody is forcing people to work"
That's what Scherzo said. I agreed saying that we are in fact, doing the exact opposite.

??? First off, BOOKWORM said "nobody is forcing people to work" as a part of a longer sentence, one that Scherzo decided to quote and trim so that he could take it out of context.

So, with the above, are you saying that you agree with the statement that "nobody is forcing people to work" and going on to say that "we" (whoever the hell "we" is, it certainly isn't anyone I know) are doing the opposite? So then you're basically saying that Scherzo said "nobody is forcing people to work" (even though he was quoting someone else out in poor context), and that you agree with that, but that the reality is the opposite?

And you said previously:

Relating to what Scherzo said, we have actually become quite good at forcing people not to work.

Consistency, please.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69379

Posted: **Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:39 pm**

scherzo wrote:

Congrats on creating a tangent that really doesn't have to do with the original post... again. Also, once again, you're not making much sense.

You're taking something Bookworm said and warping into ridiculous nonsense like only you can. Reading, and making sense of an employee contract doesn't require a lifetime of studying law, you idiot.

Nice job, you took a conveniently selective snippet of something Bookworm said and responded to it completely out of context, all the while posting images to further dramatize your "point". Bookworm's actual statement said:

"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."

This has nothing to do with slaves or homeless people.
Bookworm didn't specify what "lots of dough" was, however he did show his bias on where he started his argument. We do not have enough facts to establish if indeed it was lots of dough, or not. But we do know that bookworm thinks it is lots of dough, and this makes many assumptions. Like the assumption that there were less paying jobs with security from rape available in the U.S. - We don't know that this is true, but would Bookworm argue the same way if this fact was changed? The point is, the income received for this contract can easily be constructed that it was not in fact, "lots of dough"

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 really proud of the images of slaves and the homeless, If you read between the lines you will see that during the times of slavery, slave owners could legally rape their property, I am suggesting this is a modern day equivalent to those days, because then as it is now, RAPE is wrong, and only the LAW had something different to say about it.

Why are you hung up on the "lots of dough" thing? True, we don't know how much money this woman made off of her contract, but Halliburton/KBR contracts in Iraq are lucrative, as in six figures. And Bookworm's point, which seems to have totally been lost on you while you tried to send it on a tangent, was that people need to weight the cost (i.e. what they potentially give up) and decide if it's worth it, even if they're going to make lots of money.

Sure, it's near impossible to understand every manner with which a contract may be used or abused, but that's not the point here. If a contract is understood in a reasonable way, and you feel that the way the other party, in this case the company, is trying to use or interpret the contract, then you have recourse through the courts. Do you even know what happened with her case? A court DID say that she had a right to sue her employer. And the Senate DID pass Al Franken's bill. No one is saying that rape is okay, yet you seem to think that's what this whole issue has been about.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69380

Posted: **Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:41 pm**

Chyse wrote: First off, I don't think any specific party has anything to do with this.

Secondly, I agree with you. There is no discussion. She should be able to press charges. Rape is never okay.

This wasn't even about pressing charges. It was about her right to sue Halliburton/KBR. When you sue someone, you are not pressing charges, you're making an argument in civil court that someone owes you money for something.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69381

Posted: **Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:56 pm**

Stasi wrote: ??? First off, BOOKWORM said "nobody is forcing people to work" as a part of a longer sentence, one that Scherzo decided to quote and trim so that he could take it out of context.

So, with the above, are you saying that you agree with the statement that "nobody is forcing people to work" and going on to say that "we" (whoever the hell "we" is, it certainly isn't anyone I know) are doing the opposite? So then you're basically saying that Scherzo said "nobody is forcing people to work" (even though he was quoting someone else out in poor context), and that you agree with that, but that the reality is the opposite?

Scherzo restated "nobody is forcing people to work" to mean something completely different. The context that Bookworm put it in meant "well she doesn't HAVE to work." The context that Scherzo put it in meant "Nobody has to work, and not working ends up in homelessness."
If you actually read what they're saying, instead of just remembering the order of words in your head, you'll notice that there's a lot more to each phrase than just "this describes the noun in the previous sentence." There is sarcasm in Scherzo's post and Bookworm's post is all about this lady "not being forced to work."

When I agreed with Scherzo, I agreed with him saying that "nobody is forcing people do work" in context with the rest of his post, which was disagreeing with Bookworm. How can one do the opposite of "nobody is forcing people do work?" You have to take what's after the verb in that sentence and that's what I say "we" (the general society of America, including the large companies that make decisions like laying off their employees) are doing the opposite of "forcing people to work" by forcing people not to work.

Also and again, do you have anything relevant to say about this or are you just going to keep throwing up what other people have said and criticizing it or them? Because if you're not gonna provide opinions or thoughts on the actual topic, I really don't think you need to be in this thread. This is the Debates & Heated Discussion forum, not the "Schoolyard Bullying" forum.

Why are you hung up on the "lots of dough" thing?

Why are you hung up on the "you're an idiot" thing?

And Bookworm's point, which seems to have totally been lost on you while you tried to send it on a tangent,

How is that important? Seems like just mindless insulting of another person. Sounds like something that you don't need to make your point about this issue.

Do you even know what happened with her case?

I have a feeling that Scherzo is a competent individual and has read the article. He DID start the thread about it.

See how productive that was? Man, this schoolyard bullying stuff is great!
If you want to yell at me about this or anybody else, instead of backing up your opinions with purely evidence and logic, please send me or the person you're mad at an angry PM. So we can delete it immediately because none of us want to listen to somebody insult us for our ideas on a topic.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69382

Posted: **Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:42 pm**

Wow.. this place hasn't changed much LOL

I have to agree with Chyse, the anger and banality isn't going to in any way aid either you or anyone else in conveying your point or ideas.
I see that you are obviously trying to make a point but, it seems more lost in the insults and bad attitude.

Calling someone a moron isn't going to make them want to see your point of view, and if that's not your goal in a debate then you are just being a bully for the sake of self fulfillment, thats sad and if true you have no real reason to say anything at all.. on the other hand, you could do a lot better with people if you'd have more patience and understanding.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69389

Posted: **Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:09 pm**

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.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69391

Posted: **Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:50 pm**

Chyse wrote: Scherzo restated "nobody is forcing people to work" to mean something completely different. The context that Bookworm put it in meant "well she doesn't HAVE to work." The context that Scherzo put it in meant "Nobody has to work, and not working ends up in homelessness."
If you actually read what they're saying, instead of just remembering the order of words in your head, you'll notice that there's a lot more to each phrase than just "this describes the noun in the previous sentence." There is sarcasm in Scherzo's post and Bookworm's post is all about this lady "not being forced to work."

Bookworm's original statement:

"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."

implies that there are alternatives to working with companies have these kinds of clauses in their contracts, which is absolutely true. Maybe you see that, maybe you don't. The problem that I have with how Scherzo has conducted himself here and in past debates is that he take a snippet of what someone said, and then starts a whole new tangent to the discussion, when it really wasn't what anyone was getting at in the first place.

Also and again, do you have anything relevant to say about this or are you just going to keep throwing up what other people have said and criticizing it or them? Because if you're not gonna provide opinions or thoughts on the actual topic, I really don't think you need to be in this thread. This is the Debates & Heated Discussion forum, not the "Schoolyard Bullying" forum.

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?

Why are you hung up on the "lots of dough" thing?
Why are you hung up on the "you're an idiot" thing?

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.

And Bookworm's point, which seems to have totally been lost on you while you tried to send it on a tangent,
How is that important? Seems like just mindless insulting of another person. Sounds like something that you don't need to make your point about this issue.

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.

Do you even know what happened with her case?
I have a feeling that Scherzo is a competent individual and has read the article. He DID start the thread about it.

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.

See how productive that was? Man, this schoolyard bullying stuff is great!
If you want to yell at me about this or anybody else, instead of backing up your opinions with purely evidence and logic, please send me or the person you're mad at an angry PM. So we can delete it immediately because none of us want to listen to somebody insult us for our ideas on a topic.

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.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69393

Posted: **Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:59 pm**

FloodG8-9595 wrote: Wow.. this place hasn't changed much LOL

I have to agree with Chyse, the anger and banality isn't going to in any way aid either you or anyone else in conveying your point or ideas.
I see that you are obviously trying to make a point but, it seems more lost in the insults and bad attitude.

Calling someone a moron isn't going to make them want to see your point of view, and if that's not your goal in a debate then you are just being a bully for the sake of self fulfillment, thats sad and if true you have no real reason to say anything at all.. on the other hand, you could do a lot better with people if you'd have more patience and understanding.

Scherzo and I have a past in here. It's one of the reasons I hate getting involved in any discussion in which he's a part. He doesn't stay on topic and he takes people out of context and then redirects the discussion. Also, he doesn't read what other people say to the point that he understands it, thus requiring re-explainations and re-statements of the same things over and over again. He gets so wrapped up in his own pseudo-intellectual ramblings that everyone else's posts exist more as an excuse for him to continue rambling. I've been seeing some of the frustration in people's posts here with his arguments in the last week, and coming in here and seeing him redirecting things by being his old self, I, admittedly impulsively, said what I said. Maybe it was wrong, but I prefer to call a dog a dog, a pig a pig, and, well, you get the picture.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3955, old post ID:69394