You're confusing issues. As with similar confusions about "right to work" (where the putative conflict is between Alice's right to hire whom she chooses and Bob's putative "right to a job"), the confusion lies in what one calls a right.
I assume you are talking about right-to-work labor laws, in which case, it does not refer to the above. It has to do with union-membership (which you more than likely similarly disagree with...) I agree that there is rampant abuse of the word/idea of "rights" in this country and around the world. I similarly think that many political disagreements can be boiled down to this problem.
And just where did anyone in any of these posts call for outlawing any particular language, pidgin, slang, creole, jive, or invented lingo?
I was actually joking, Tim. My original response was sent before I knew of the Oakland initiative. I do not hail from California, the land of Proposition XXX, and find some of them silly. You do advocate the unemployment of people who do utilize such a dialect/language. And I do fear that many people subscribe to your line of thinking. So I do respond to some of your posts earlier than I sometimes should to present a different point of view.
Really, Matt, go back to Rhetoric 101 and learn how to argue.
That's a good argument. Do they teach that ad hominem stuff in that class? ;-) Matt
Matthew J. Miszewski writes (directed to Tim May):
You do advocate the unemployment of people who do utilize such a dialect/language.
I've never seen Tim "advocate the unemployment" of anyone or any group. He has merely argued that an employer should be free *not* to hire an individual for any reason whatsoever. Such a reason might include his/her language/dialect, appearance, race, gender, religion or any other (arbitrary-to-an-outsider) criterion. This is a standard libertarian position and shouldn't be too difficult to grasp. -- Jeff
Jeff Barber
Matthew J. Miszewski writes (directed to Tim May):
You do advocate the unemployment of people who do utilize such a dialect/language.
I've never seen Tim "advocate the unemployment" of anyone or any group. He has merely argued that an employer should be free *not* to hire an individual for any reason whatsoever. Such a reason might include his/her language/dialect, appearance, race, gender, religion or any other (arbitrary-to-an-outsider) criterion.
No, that's what I said. Get your attributions straight.
This is a standard libertarian position and shouldn't be too difficult to grasp.
Bullshit. "Libertarians" are fucking statists who whine on this list about "illegal discrimination" and the need for the gubmint to enforce the "right to work". --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
participants (3)
-
dlv@bwalk.dm.com
-
Jeff Barber
-
Matthew J. Miszewski