Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Silver_ wrote (edited )

Not necessarily, I don't know If It was mentioned in the original agreement.

Promising something is not a contract (It's not a two way trade).

Whether I think that they deserve to be ostracized or not, doesn't change anything.

People are free to ostracize (or not) people.

You can be ostracized, even If you haven't done any crimes.

0

heckthepolice2 wrote

Why does the original agreement matter so much? They made a new agreement. Most of the workers probably would have left had they known they wouldn't get severance. The company got them to stay under false pretenses. That in and of itself is an agreement. "I will continue working for you if you give me severance when the company goes bankrupt"

4

Silver_ wrote

Promising something is not a contract !

Most of the workers probably would have left had they known they wouldn't get severance.

Yup, It's like cancelling a meetup or a soccer match, people wouldn't have bought their plane/train tickets. From a moral perspective, It's better to compensate, even though It's not mandatory.

That in and of itself is an agreement. "I will continue working for you if you give me severance when the company goes bankrupt"

I agree, but have they agreed to this ?

−1

heckthepolice2 wrote

Why are you so into this soccer match metaphor? Are you salty cause your ex-wife got mad at you for not coming to your kid's games?

Anyway, to make that actually comparable to the situation at hand would require a few changes

  1. The person flaking owns the train company and thus directly profits from the sale of the tickets

  2. The person flaking fully intends to flake and is deliberately decieving the other person for their own profit

  3. The cost of the train ticket is several months of labor

Where exactly do you draw the line between a "promise" and a "contract"?

1

[deleted] wrote

1

Silver_ wrote

If I say "no transgender people in my shop", will you attempt to murder me, then ?

−5

[deleted] wrote

2

Silver_ wrote

Oh no, I am going to keep what I earned, you're so oppressed because of me !

−2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

Silver_ wrote

Yeah and what ? I am forced to sell you my pants, while you're at it ?

I own my shop, kid

−3

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

Silver_ wrote (edited )

In other words "anarchists" want war with voluntaryists, meanwhile voluntaryists don't want to attack anyone. You are the "good guy" "non-violent/peaceful" . Nice.

But If everyone followed your logic then most "anarchists" would be dead, because you have unpopular opinions.

Killing people over ideas (even If no violence was done)...

−4

[deleted] wrote

4

Silver_ wrote

It's MY shop, therefore I get to decide who enter in it or not...

−4

[deleted] wrote

3

Silver_ wrote

The security guards will ask the person to leave.

−2

[deleted] wrote

3

Silver_ wrote

The guards will first try to de-escalate, but If the person doesn't want to leave MY property, It will end up badly for him.

Aka, the guards will use force.

−2

[deleted] wrote

3

Silver_ wrote

I own my shop.

"Violence" is acceptable to defend your body/property.

I am simply defending my property. If I don't want you to enter, you don't enter : I own my shop.

−2

[deleted] wrote

3

Silver_ wrote

Yup, I don't want you to enter in my bathroom, when I take a bath, you don't enter.

I don't want you to enter in my garden, you don't enter.

I don't want you to enter in my shop, you don't enter.

−1