That’s all that matters to you, I guess. As long as it isn’t literally the exact same thing as people in chains picking cotton in the fields, it’s just fine and it doesn’t matter who suffers. So fine. It isn’t literal slavery. It’s just incredibly cruel, especially to children who did nothing to deserve it.
Well considering all of this turned out to be you being nitpicky when the point was to illustrate how cruel something you decided was merely an inconvenience was, yeah, I’m pretty indignant. Especially since now it’s suddenly not just inconvenient but cruel.
Inconveniences can be cruel boss, they’re not however slavery no matter how dramatic and indignate you choose to be.
You’re implying being owned and not being paid are analogous, they’re not.
No one owns your children, no one is going to whip you, you need not but your freedom if that’s even a possibility, you’re not in fact less than anyone else in a legal sense of personhood.
It’s not productive to be so hyperbolic especially when what you’re saying is incredibly offensive let alone to be indignate when someone tries to explain to you how downright cruel and insensitive you’re being.
Again, living paycheck-to-paycheck and then not getting paid is not an inconvenience. How do you not know that?
It’s a way to get your house foreclosed on and a way to have to decide between electricity and food.
Have you really never been in that sort of financial situation?
Is it literally slavery?
That’s all that matters to you, I guess. As long as it isn’t literally the exact same thing as people in chains picking cotton in the fields, it’s just fine and it doesn’t matter who suffers. So fine. It isn’t literal slavery. It’s just incredibly cruel, especially to children who did nothing to deserve it.
Happy?
It’s not at all the same thing since it’s not forcible.
Point to where I said or implied anything of the sort.
Agreed, but things don’t need to be slavery to be shitty and the offensive hyperbole is both unnecessary and misleading.
Yeah, though the indignation is curious.
Well considering all of this turned out to be you being nitpicky when the point was to illustrate how cruel something you decided was merely an inconvenience was, yeah, I’m pretty indignant. Especially since now it’s suddenly not just inconvenient but cruel.
Make up your mind.
Inconveniences can be cruel boss, they’re not however slavery no matter how dramatic and indignate you choose to be.
You’re implying being owned and not being paid are analogous, they’re not.
No one owns your children, no one is going to whip you, you need not but your freedom if that’s even a possibility, you’re not in fact less than anyone else in a legal sense of personhood.
It’s not productive to be so hyperbolic especially when what you’re saying is incredibly offensive let alone to be indignate when someone tries to explain to you how downright cruel and insensitive you’re being.
For fuck’s sake, having your house foreclosed on isn’t an inconvenience.
And that’s what happens if you’re behind on house payments and you aren’t getting paid.
Seriously, how rich are you?
It’s an inconvenience, the fact you can’t find another word but literal slavery implies it’s validity.
It could, but the fact you have equity in property is pretty good nigh definitive evidence that you are not in fact a slave.
It’s my argument any more or less valid based on what I make or what I’m worth? Tell me, how does it in fact change anything I’ve spoken about.
I can find plenty of other words: cruel, heartless, disgusting, immoral, inhuman.
But you think being homeless is just inconvenient rather than a possible death sentence. Again, how rich are you?