Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I showed you pictures of the children working in fucking coal mines. I showed you the laws written against the abuses you don't believe ever existed. That's not evidence? -.-Then you should have no trouble citing actual evidence rather than a work of fiction.
Child Labor and the Textile Mills Georgia Public BroadcastingChildren did easy harmless jobs in textile mills, like retying a thread after it breaks. There were some mining jobs where children did some jobs that were dangerous, but dangerous jobs were as common as dirt in those days.
Furthermore, we're talking about regulating business, not parents who put their children to work.
Start here: United States Army beef scandal - Wikipedia the free encyclopediaIn American History, dummy. Do you think we invented this shit just for the hell of it? It was to solve a problem, a big one usually.Told ya...
"The jungle" is a work of fiction. It proves exactly nothing. Government legislation also proves nothing. Most government legislation is promoted by scams and lies. Take the ACA, for instance. Nothing said to justify this monstrosity was true.
So where is the evidence for the "reality?"
Then you should have no trouble citing actual evidence rather than a work of fiction.
What kind of evidence will you accept if not legal, photographic, or contemporary cultural references?What "horrific conditions of the slaughter houses and packing plants?" All you've got on that is a piece of propaganda by a committed socialist. Perhaps you could produce some actual evidence sometime.
I was proving to you that child labor was a thing until laws were written specifically to strike it down. The horrific conditions of the slaughter houses and packing plants had to be fought with the same kind of legislation, which went hand in hand with the banning of child labor and the worker's rights movement. That's the kind of shit a total lack of regulation allowed. That's what it will allow again if given the chance. We need basic standards and regulations. The only valid question is how much.Child labor is mostly a separate issue then regulation of business. Otherwise, you got nothing.
Child labor ended when it became economically feasible to allow children not to work. Prior to that not working meant starvation. The law only came into place after the economic conditions changed.
What "horrific conditions of the slaughter houses and packing plants?" All you've got on that is a piece of propaganda by a committed socialist. Perhaps you could produce some actual evidence sometime.
Start here: United States Army beef scandal - Wikipedia the free encyclopediaIn American History, dummy. Do you think we invented this shit just for the hell of it? It was to solve a problem, a big one usually.Told ya..."The jungle" is a work of fiction. It proves exactly nothing. Government legislation also proves nothing. Most government legislation is promoted by scams and lies. Take the ACA, for instance. Nothing said to justify this monstrosity was true.
So where is the evidence for the "reality?"
Then you should have no trouble citing actual evidence rather than a work of fiction.
And here: Pure Food and Drug Act A Muckraking Triumph
And here: Federal Meat Inspection Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Try some actual historical data showing food has been adulterated or is unsafe. You know, like people dying or getting sick from food poisoning.What kind of evidence will you accept if not legal, photographic, or contemporary cultural references?What "horrific conditions of the slaughter houses and packing plants?" All you've got on that is a piece of propaganda by a committed socialist. Perhaps you could produce some actual evidence sometime.
I was proving to you that child labor was a thing until laws were written specifically to strike it down. The horrific conditions of the slaughter houses and packing plants had to be fought with the same kind of legislation, which went hand in hand with the banning of child labor and the worker's rights movement. That's the kind of shit a total lack of regulation allowed. That's what it will allow again if given the chance. We need basic standards and regulations. The only valid question is how much.Child labor is mostly a separate issue then regulation of business. Otherwise, you got nothing.
Child labor ended when it became economically feasible to allow children not to work. Prior to that not working meant starvation. The law only came into place after the economic conditions changed.
What "horrific conditions of the slaughter houses and packing plants?" All you've got on that is a piece of propaganda by a committed socialist. Perhaps you could produce some actual evidence sometime.
It's obvious that you never put in a day of hard work in your life.
The government relied on unregulated business that did what they damn well pleased and sold the same product to the Army that they were pushing to the general public. Please answer my question. What kind of evidence will you accept?You're using a case where government got scammed as proof that the free market needs to be regulated? Since when is government part of the free market?
I've already explained that legislation proves nothing other than that some politicians wanted to get their names in the papers.
Oh. You did. My bad. I would say the same US Army case you literally just threw out as valid immediately after admitting that it happened..Try some actual historical data showing food has been adulterated or is unsafe. You know, like people dying or getting sick from food poisoning.
None. Forget it. He's the extra stupid version of a box of hammers.What kind of evidence will you accept if not legal, photographic, or contemporary cultural references?What "horrific conditions of the slaughter houses and packing plants?" All you've got on that is a piece of propaganda by a committed socialist. Perhaps you could produce some actual evidence sometime.
I'll just stick with the real world for now, where every nation on earth with capitalism regulates it.Start here: United States Army beef scandal - Wikipedia the free encyclopediaIn American History, dummy. Do you think we invented this shit just for the hell of it? It was to solve a problem, a big one usually.Told ya...
So where is the evidence for the "reality?"
Then you should have no trouble citing actual evidence rather than a work of fiction.
And here: Pure Food and Drug Act A Muckraking Triumph
And here: Federal Meat Inspection Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
You're using a case where government got scammed as proof that the free market needs to be regulated? Since when is government part of the free market?
I've already explained that legislation proves nothing other than that some politicians wanted to get their names in the papers.
its quite easy to prove that someone was denied based on whatever group they're in so long as someone else who is of a different group was hired with credentials not as strong as whatever minority is in question.yeah but you can just be taken to court for it so it's not a smart thing to do.You can always sue but it wouldn't go anywhere. You could sue them for not selling socks and underwear and that would have the same chances of winning. Cake toppers you can get from Amazon. If they don't stock them then they lose out on the sale. That's it.Why wouldn't it be?
I could see a potential lawsuit by a gay couple. They would want a top with two men or women for the top and if the cake maker has none, could they not sue?
The only way they'd be in trouble is if they wouldn't sell what they have because those guys were fags.
Fair enough but how do you prove it? That is why all these laws are comical. When hiring you can choose or not choose to hire because of age, sex, religion. To say otherwise is a lie.
It is done all the time. It's a judgement call and to prove that would be very tough.
It wasn't in their best interests, which is why we passed these laws. In a racist, sexist, xenophobic, sectarian, homophobic, you name it nation, the market works this out much too slowly. People need to get on with their lives, hence these laws.I think I've changed my stance. It should probably be in the best interest of the people that a business be allowed to serve whoever they want. Doesn't mean I won't think down of them, though.
The government relied on unregulated business that did what they damn well pleased and sold the same product to the Army that they were pushing to the general public. Please answer my question. What kind of evidence will you accept?You're using a case where government got scammed as proof that the free market needs to be regulated? Since when is government part of the free market?
I've already explained that legislation proves nothing other than that some politicians wanted to get their names in the papers.
Oh. You did. My bad. I would say the same US Army case you literally just threw out as valid immediately after admitting that it happened..
Do we actually have laws saying that businesses are not allowed to say no to these groups? I honestly have no idea.It wasn't in their best interests, which is why we passed these laws. In a racist, sexist, xenophobic, sectarian, homophobic, you name it nation, the market works this out much too slowly. People need to get on with their lives, hence these laws.I think I've changed my stance. It should probably be in the best interest of the people that a business be allowed to serve whoever they want. Doesn't mean I won't think down of them, though.
its quite easy to prove that someone was denied based on whatever group they're in so long as someone else who is of a different group was hired with credentials not as strong as whatever minority is in question.yeah but you can just be taken to court for it so it's not a smart thing to do.You can always sue but it wouldn't go anywhere. You could sue them for not selling socks and underwear and that would have the same chances of winning. Cake toppers you can get from Amazon. If they don't stock them then they lose out on the sale. That's it.I could see a potential lawsuit by a gay couple. They would want a top with two men or women for the top and if the cake maker has none, could they not sue?
The only way they'd be in trouble is if they wouldn't sell what they have because those guys were fags.
Fair enough but how do you prove it? That is why all these laws are comical. When hiring you can choose or not choose to hire because of age, sex, religion. To say otherwise is a lie.
It is done all the time. It's a judgement call and to prove that would be very tough.
No, the laws were passed because some socialists who hate business had a hand in crafting them. Whatever government does has nothing to do with "need." It always has to do with someone's agenda.It wasn't in their best interests, which is why we passed these laws. In a racist, sexist, xenophobic, sectarian, homophobic, you name it nation, the market works this out much too slowly. People need to get on with their lives, hence these laws.I think I've changed my stance. It should probably be in the best interest of the people that a business be allowed to serve whoever they want. Doesn't mean I won't think down of them, though.
Who put you in charge of deciding how fast society is supposed to change?It wasn't in their best interests, which is why we passed these laws. In a racist, sexist, xenophobic, sectarian, homophobic, you name it nation, the market works this out much too slowly. People need to get on with their lives, hence these laws.I think I've changed my stance. It should probably be in the best interest of the people that a business be allowed to serve whoever they want. Doesn't mean I won't think down of them, though.
I think I've changed my stance. It should probably be in the best interest of the people that a business be allowed to serve whoever they want. Doesn't mean I won't think down of them, though.
