What if the man hired someone, no contract, and then, a few months later, decided he no longer wanted to employ him any longer?
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Was Lazarus A 'Bum'?
- Thread starter Arthur Brain
- Start date
What if the man hired someone, no contract, and then, a few months later, decided he no longer wanted to employ him any longer?
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Then he should have a legitimate business related reason for firing him. When you hire someone they act in reliance on the reasonable belief that if they do their job well they should be able to rely on its income and stability, absent exigent events unrelated to their performance, like a downturn in the economy or a drop in demand or increase in overhead that necessitates the move on the part of the employer.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
nope - they shouldn't need to give any reason
:freak:Señor town said:
many immigrants struggle with the english language and are still more effective at communicating than you are
Last edited:
I completely agree, with the (small) change of this (my change in brackets):
An employee, if he recognizes his value to a company, would know that a contract would be a good idea.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Fair enough, which again underlines the importance of employment contracts and overall it serves both employers and employees. If there's no job security in the workplace then it makes for low morale and likely a downturn in production if there's the constant threat of being fired on some stupid personal whim. If there's a guaranteed security of work, providing the employee meets the standards of the job and outside of misconduct that could justifiably render them sacked, then it's kind of a 'win win' in the main on just that level.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
If there's no contract involved then the employer can sack whoever for any petty reason. I've worked for agencies where you can be let go without any reason being given. That's part and parcel of a lot of temporary work. If you know that going in then you know what to expect. That's not to say I haven't had agency jobs that were worthwhile for what they were as they were also a means to an end as far as I was concerned also.
:yawn:
Nope. You've demanded that we must mean the same thing when we say "charity" or "welfare."
You're allowed to put forward your assertion that they must be exactly the same, but I have clearly defined my terms and if you want a sensible discussion you have to respect my offerings.
Demanding that is your way or nothing and spending all your time whining about a few quote tags does nothing for this discussion.
Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app
Last edited:
What I've actually done is proffer that welfare is a form of public charity. Then I set out why. I'll do it again in a moment and add Merriam Webster on the point in support of my reasoning.
Here's what I wrote:
We collectively elect people to stand in our place and speak for us. When they spend our collective money on projects from defense to welfare, they do it in our name. Welfare is, therefore, a public charity, a willful, intentional giving to those in need from a common purse.
And here's what you responded with:
The definition of charity as found in Merriam Webster: "1. benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity 2. a: generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also: aid given to those in need b: an institution engaged in relief of the poor c: public provision for the relief of the needy 3 a: a gift for public benevolent purposes b: an institution (as a hospital) founded by such a gift 4: lenient judgment of others.
Astonishing, but this is the problem with distortion as a practice, Stripe. It appears to get easier for you. I've noted a few of your efforts in past posts. The quote tag business is yet another distortion to forge an impression at odds with the truth. I've nudged your repeated, peculiar habit of failing to attribute my words to me and of parroting a charge I sustain with actual quotes while offering nothing in support beyond the echo of form. And all that while supporting my arguments on the point, as I do again above, and rebutting your assertions, as I did with the misapplication of a fallacy, etc.
All of this met by evasion, misstatement, and smilies. Telling me there's no real profit in the attempt. So I refer any reader curious about the a point to look back across our discourse, beginning with post 315 (link).
That's it for me. If you persist in misrepresenting the plain facts I'm just going to paste the rebuttal from those posts. Otherwise, in the absence of counter or argument, I'm done with the circus you brought to town.
Which is just you pretending that your narrative holds sway.
However, you've missed a key component: Choice.
People are forced with threat of prison to pay into the welfare system. You seem to think this is fine, because people should want to be generous.
It's not. And welfare is not charity, because it is coerced.
Charity is a man seeing a need and meeting it. Welfare is the state trying to legislate morality, to hear you describe it.
My definition fits perfectly with Webster's; yours requires us to buy into your many excuses for the simple fact that taxation to fund welfare is not justified in the form we see.
Astonishing, but this is the problem with distortion as a practice. It appears to get easier for you. I've noted a few of your efforts to forge an impression at odds with the truth. I've nudged your repeated, peculiar habit of failing to deal with my words in context, while offering nothing in support. And all that while supporting my arguments on the point, as I do again above, and rebutting your assertions, as I did with the proper application of a fallacy, etc.
All of this met by evasion, misstatement, and smilies. Telling me there's no real profit in the attempt. So I refer any reader curious about the point to look back across our discourse.
:wave2:
Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
stripe makes an astute observation:
town's brilliant response? whining, of course :darwinsm:
:darwinsm: classic!
eta: worth noting that all of his whining is "declaration without suportive tissue" :darwinsm:
stripe said:
town's brilliant response? whining, of course :darwinsm:
:darwinsm: classic!
eta: worth noting that all of his whining is "declaration without suportive tissue" :darwinsm:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
town, in attempting to conflate "charity" with "welfare":
clearly you've never had the pleasure of interacting with social services at the welfare office :darwinsm:
:darwinsm: supra
this is as true of the welfare office as it is of the boy scouts
and i'd argue that the boy scouts are more effective
gonna hafta give up on this mess - i'll stick in a few spaces so you'll see what i mean:
as a footnote, town gets top marks for formatting obsessiveness! :thumb:
(if you want to see what I mean, just click on "reply with quote" :dizzy: )
clearly you've never had the pleasure of interacting with social services at the welfare office :darwinsm:
town said:
:darwinsm: supra
town said:
this is as true of the welfare office as it is of the boy scouts
and i'd argue that the boy scouts are more effective
gonna hafta give up on this mess - i'll stick in a few spaces so you'll see what i mean:
town said:
as a footnote, town gets top marks for formatting obsessiveness! :thumb:
(if you want to see what I mean, just click on "reply with quote" :dizzy: )
This is all I see...
Better, but not by much...
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
right - that's what I see when I try to reply to his post - the text is absolutely buried in the formatting
and it looks like he was formatting every semicolon and number separately :darwinsm:
it doesn't matter - I made my point
you'd have to be totally ignorant of the modern welfare system to think that it meets the definition of an effective charity
and it looks like he was formatting every semicolon and number separately :darwinsm:
it doesn't matter - I made my point
you'd have to be totally ignorant of the modern welfare system to think that it meets the definition of an effective charity
Here's the text without all the formatting.
The definition of charity as found in Merriam Webster:
"1. benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity
2. a: generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also: aid given to those in need
b: an institution engaged in relief of the poor
c: public provision for the relief of the needy
3. a: a gift for public benevolent purposes
b: an institution (as a hospital) founded by such a gift
4: lenient judgment of others.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
right, and government welfare programs meet two of those definitions, specifically 2b and c
but i would argue that they don't meet it effectively, and thus don't meet the definition
otherwise, you could just as well call the Soviet Communist System (or the Chinese, or the North Korean) "charity", as they meet the bare bones definition of 2b and 2c
No, it's just me making a posit offered in parts as an act of reason and sustained by authority (Merriam Webster).
Choice is a part of that process. The only difference is you think it can't be charity because every single individual doesn't mark a box that says, "Put X percentage of my tax payments, in sum, into charitable works to help those who are incapable in the moment or longer to help themselves." That's a contrived litmus without any authority whatsoever. The giving done by those who stand in our place is by extension our own. It is entered into voluntarily, both in the fashioning of the process at first and the budgeting for its continuance yearly.
Beyond the clear fact of that and as pertains to the myth of motive, the odd idea that the people protesting welfare are not protesting the charity itself, but the lack of that box...well, it's as peculiar as suggesting that we would not allow our neighbor's house to burn to the ground if permitted the freedom to act, but we begrudge the fire department created to more efficiently and effectively act on our behalf.
This peculiar notion you have that people only refrain from breaking the law under threat of prison is, I believe, largely unsupportable. People do what the law requires for the most part because a) a law is good and b) people desire to do good and to have good done to them. The root of law really isn't force and threat. The root of law is compassion mixed with a heady dose of self-interest. The harder part is essentially reserved for those who would in the general course of things be inclined to take and do what they want without regard for the rights and well being of others.
The right has recognized that for years when it comes to gun crimes, that if you proscribe or compel you don't really tend to impact the felon or the fellow with an evil grudge. You may dissuade lesser thugs or those in the throes of a temptation who can be tempered by reason, but for the most part you're simply prescribing the process for redress and consequence. Or, essentially good citizens follow conscience and that keeps them within the law while those on the margins may be helped, but essentially the law begins to tell everyone what may be done to the breaker and for those damaged by him.
I think public charity is fine for a number of reasons. First, because it does a better job than we can as individuals, as a fire department does a better job than relying on neighbors to do their best as they see it. And secondly, because it does a real, tangible public good.
Rather it is charity for the reasons given three or four times now and met with a denial because some (an undisclosed number rooted in your sensibility but not in objective data) begrudge it and therefore remove the voluntary from it. Well, that's met in my reasons to begin with. Beyond that is the case to be made that a) more people than not begrudge welfare and b) that leaders of government are failing their duty to represent that majority. To which I'd answer if and when that is the case the simple remedy is found in a ballot and everyone concerned has access to it.
It's one form, again. And you can say as readily that when any man elects those to do his will and those men act charitably they have...wait for it....seen a need and met it, creating and addressing it as an act of public charity on our behalf and in our name.
No, that's you only hearing you. If you heard me you'd understand something else, that the state acts as a collection of individuals tasked to represent millions and that in this regard they are acting morally and as an expression of that power given by we, the people, in creating or sustaining a public charity.
No, your acting illustration of a man meeting a need does, but that was never a part of the contest except as you attempted to restrict charity to it, which neither Websters nor reason will.
Again, taxes are collected to fund any number of things and those empowered create programs, the allocations through budgets. The justification is in our process, as is remedy at any point.
I omit a problem of yours that were I to note it would distract and upset you, but I'd be happy to help you with the quote function at any point, both as an act of charity and because I think proper attribution is important. Just nudge me. Any time really.
:e4e:
Last edited:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
town angrily says goodbye to stripe:
:think:
town gets a treatment from his physician:
next day, feeling refreshed, town pleads for stripe to continue:
:thumb:
:think:
town gets a treatment from his physician:
Spoiler
next day, feeling refreshed, town pleads for stripe to continue:
:thumb:
You know what's funny about all of this? It's all irrelevant. The Bible very clearly states that a 10% tax is tyrannical. We are currently taxed about 50%, with most of that going to one welfare program of some sort or another.
In addition, the Bible also states that a government's roles to perform are only three things, protecting it's citizens, infrastructure, and when possible, protecting other. It does not have the authority to take care of it's citizens.
So, basically, discussing what kinds of welfare programs are acceptable and what are not, and whether the motive is acceptable, is like discussing how far a rock is going to go inside a house when you throw it through the window.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app