Imagine yourself as a single working mother living paycheck to paycheck, and
then your child becomes sick.
I'm a guy Nathan, I don't know what it's like to be a woman. Strike 1 against your argument.
Such provisions are perfectly rational and humane. If somebody is sick, you
wouldn’t want them coming to work and making everybody else sick, reducing
overall productivity and causing unnecessary trouble for coworkers and clients.
Wrong again! I have stock in pharmaceutical companies. The more sick people, the more I get in dividends. Let's be more creative about this. I often look to the Bible for solutions and I think I've found one. In the olden days they had leper colonies. We could simply have a sick wing where the unclean (as they will be known) must work until they are clean.
Millionaires not only don’t have to go to work when they are sick, they
don’t have to work at all if they don’t want to. The working class, though,
certainly don’t have this luxury.
Millionaires don't have to work because they've already worked so hard that they shouldn't have to! Duh! I think it's the millionaires that don't have the luxury of being like the lazy working class. What, do you think millionaires just happened to be born and all of a sudden have a ton of money? I don't even know what you'd call that! The point is, millionaires have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and offer society a great example of what to be like (see television for more on this). The other point, Strike 3, you're outta here!
RH Out!
1 comment:
Hey, I stumbled across this post while researching the concept of the "lazy working class." I just had to say, bro, that you are a class A dumbass. You have no idea of the absurdity of your refutations of the article you are disputing. It makes what you write some really funny shit. Stephen Colbert could quote some of what you say word-for-word and it would mesh perfectly with the tone of his show. By the way, in case you don't know, everything he says on the show is a lie (to the real Stephen Colbert). He uses a persona that emphasizes the absurdity of his claims by confidently asserting them despite their foolishness.
Let's take a look at what you say:
You claim his first point is invalid simply because you are not a woman. If we extend that logic a little further, you are saying this point is meaningless to men in general. This is...well...your logic is so stupid that it is something you would expect a bitchy child to produce. I mean...are you really serious? Do you not realize that there could never be any one example that everybody could relate to? If he had talked about someone being injured instead of pregnant (an inherently more commonly-shared issue) you would have said something equally snarky as your response to the pregnant woman. I imagine it would be like, "Well, that is stupid because I've never gotten hurt badly." Also, you say you "don't know what it's like to be a woman," however, very little empathy is required to understand the simple concept that a woman is not in great physical shape immediately following the strain of pregnancy. You are clearly not trying to understand the author's point and are instead injecting agenda. I guess though I should thank you for the red flag of this stupid logic right at the beginning of your post, so that I am better prepared to deal with the rest.
The logic of your second refutation is similarly childish in its absurdity. Anyone can get sick you idiot, even you. You don't have some magic little God-shield that keeps out cancer and the flu (though maybe for that one you have a vaccine, something far more effective than religion). What really shines through this refutation of yours is your ignorance-producing arrogance that allows you to believe these idiotic things. It is almost like you are saying, "I am so right in my opinion that I don't even need to make a coherent argument."
Then your third point has the simplest stupidity. It is just factually inaccurate. You don't seem to care about the truth. Do just a tiny hair of research. Although there is an increasing trend of self made millionaires in the US, there are stilly many many peopl BORN RICH. To answer your question, the phenomenon that eludes your understanding is called "inheritance." Take a peek at the Forbes 400. Also, you ignore the fact that many people work very hard and never become millionaires. Not everyone can become rich just because they work hard. If you don't understand that you don't understand a lot about the way the world works. The entire field of economics exists because there are limited resources in the world, and in some way it must be decided how they are divided between individuals. There cannot be rich people without there being poor people.
You have a disgustingly classist point of view.
Post a Comment