Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
What makes you think that I think that "all" employees are responsible for the acts of a few? I don't. But unfortunately, like everything else in real life, actions have consequences.
|
Then you just want to punish people you agree have nothing wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
So, then, the direct corollary of your argument is, all those folks marching and rioting over the Grand Jury decisions in Ferguson and Brooklyn are also wrong, correct? Because it's not OK to blame all policeman, police forces, etc., for the actions of a few? That is precisely the same situation.
|
Not really. First, there's a difference between protesting and rioting, the former being legal, the latter being a very serious crime. Second, the point the protesters want to make is that it
is all policemen, because there is an institutional corruption. Those who do not violently violate people's rights tolerate those who do, even though they are legally obligated to arrest corrupt cops, too. Whether you agree with them or not,
they are making an entirely different point. Amazon
agrees that most employees are not stealing from them.
Also, any extra time the cops spend dealing with protestors (or rioters) is
on the clock, because the police have a very influential union. So your example
actually supports me, not you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
If you think that the marchers, etc., are justified in blaming all cop shops, and marching/rioting to protect themselves from those few bad cops, then you have to think that Amazon is justified in protecting itself from a few bad apples (pun intended).
|
Peaceful protest is constitutionally protected. Rioting is not. When you equate them, as you do, with "marching/rioting," you are being either dishonest, or clueless. They are not.
There are no constitutional issues in the Amazon lawsuit. Neither Amazon's right to search employees as they leave, nor the employees' expectation to get paid for the time that take, is a
constitutional issue. Peaceful protest
is a constitutional issue. Rioting is a
criminal offense.
Three entirely different issues.
The word I'm thinking of is "straw man." As in, you are attributing to me a position I have never claimed, and do not agree with. Riots should be suppressed by any means necessary, and I do mean
any means. The difference between riots, insurrection and armed revolt are more semantics than anything else. Violent crime is never acceptable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
SAME exact situation.
Hitch
|
No, it's not, not even a little bit, and it's very dishonest of you to claim it is. A sure sign that you have nothing to dispute what I've actually said. Next bullet point on the "how to argue on the internet" is to call me a Nazi.