From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Mon Jul 28 2003 - 18:51:42 MDT
Date sent: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:43:25 -0600
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: Re:Jobs and Human History
From: "athe nonrex" <athenonrex@godisdead.com>
Send reply to: virus@lucifer.com
>
> however joe, you still miss the point...you are arguing within the
> infuence of an economic premis, something i am not.
>
> a quick analogy:
>
> man1: i propose, then, that ducks float in the sea as well, since they
> also float in rivers, lakes and even bath tubs full of water...
>
> man2: but the sea os more prone to stormy weather, therefore sucks
> wouldn't be inclined to live there.
>
>
> whereas man1 is arguing about the bouyancy of ducks, relative to
> different bodies of water, you, <cough> i mean man2, is arguing about
> the weather as per relative to different bodies of water. do you
> understand what i'm saying now?
>
> i'm not arguing about economy (btw, socialism is economy, communism is
> gov't...they were intended to work in tandem, but communism died out a
> bit, while aspects and ideals of socialism still live in various
> economies...), rather, i am arguing about jobs. you are still on the
> premise that without a job to preform (that's 'perform', grammer nazi), there will be no work. allow me
> to reiterate in a simple logical proof...
>
> [>=conditional, *= conjunction, v=either/or, ~=negation, --- =
> biconditional]
>
> Jobs {J} are a type of Work {W}, but W does not depend upon having a
> J, expressed as:
>
> (J > W) * ~(W>J)
>
> one can W even if one does not have a J
> expressed as:
>
> ~J * W
>
> therefore, Work does not depend on having a Job,
> or:
>
> (J>W) * ~(W>J)
> ~J*W
> _____________
> ~(W --- J)
>
> tell me joe, please, if i'm at all off? the logic is strong here. it's
> a simple table, where, given two definitions, one proves a lack of
> equivalence between two definitions.
>
If one works, one works either for oneself or for others (including corporate others). It
must be acknowledged that those who work for others are employed by them, that is,
they have a job with them. But those who work for themselves are self-employed, that
is, they are freelancers who contract with one client after another; does this not mean
that they have (a series of) jobs, too? Or perhaps you can furnish some example of a
person who works, but works neither for him/herself nor for others.
>
> you are arguing economical premises, when the arguement clearly calls
> for something other than economical premises.
>
> i'm not talking about money or gov't or Jobs really even. i'm talking
> about the lack thereof. not that people will have no work, work will
> always be there. for someone who is really a musician, the music will
> be there even if the money is not. for a doctor, he will operate when
> he has to because he cares about people. for an engineer, whatever he
> creates or constructs will be done out of careful craftmanship,
> because he's not rushing himself on a deadline. does this not sound
> better than the current state of affairs?
>
No, because, if the fields were rendered compensatorally impecunious, enough people
would not be drawn to invest huge chunks of their lives studying to be doctors or
dentists or engineers to meet the public's need for them.
>
> and this thread has nothing to do, really, with "the law and what it
> used to be". i have no clue where you got that idea from, except that
> i plugged this thread while posting on that one, which may be where
> the confusion came from.
>
> "your move..."beatnik
>
>
> ----
> This message was posted by athe nonrex to the Virus 2003 board on
> Church of Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;thread
> id=28871> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 08:34:21 MDT