He told me he believes anyone who works, public or private sector, is entitled to security.

Of course, I disagree 100%.  I would love for him to elaborate on this some more as to why he feels this.

Quote from: taxed on February 25, 2011, 08:36:53 PM
He told me he believes anyone who works, public or private sector, is entitled to security.

Of course, I disagree 100%.  I would love for him to elaborate on this some more as to why he feels this.

Link, Taxed?

Quote from: Shooterman on February 25, 2011, 08:51:46 PM
Link, Taxed?

He PM'd me...  I'll copy and paste with his permission...

Quote from: taxed on February 25, 2011, 08:36:53 PM
He told me he believes anyone who works, public or private sector, is entitled to security.

Of course, I disagree 100%.  I would love for him to elaborate on this some more as to why he feels this.

entitled to security~~ perhaps in a communist society, but not in a capitalistic society. Agree?

Maybe we should wait for zip... For one thing, we haven't defined "security" for the sake of this discussion. What sort of security are we talking about?

Quote from: tbone0106 on February 25, 2011, 09:14:44 PM
Maybe we should wait for zip... For one thing, we haven't defined "security" for the sake of this discussion. What sort of security are we talking about?

Hahaha!

and maybe he should define entitled, right?

Hahaha @ T!

Seriously, Kay!  :D "Security" can be defined in lots of ways... job security, retirement security, personal safety security, and so on. Of course, zip's got a way of sorta redefining things as he goes along, but we ought to at least find out what sort of security he's talking about as a starting point, don't you think?

Quote from: tbone0106 on February 25, 2011, 09:26:33 PM
Seriously, Kay!  :D "Security" can be defined in lots of ways... job security, retirement security, personal safety security, and so on. Of course, zip's got a way of sorta redefining things as he goes along, but we ought to at least find out what sort of security he's talking about as a starting point, don't you think?

The context of our convo was pensions...  But I would like zip to elaborate as well...

Quote from: tbone0106 on February 25, 2011, 09:26:33 PM
Seriously, Kay!  :D "Security" can be defined in lots of ways... job security, retirement security, personal safety security, and so on. Of course, zip's got a way of sorta redefining things as he goes along, but we ought to at least find out what sort of security he's talking about as a starting point, don't you think?

It still boils down to having a job, right? Without a job how can we talk of any other type of security? We cant have a pension without a job, eh? Why worry about personal safety if you havent a job, right? 

Dont get me wrong~ for debate purposes, it is good to know up front exactly what we are debating, but without a job, there need not be any talk of any type of secuirty. Am I right or wrong? 

Quote from: taxed on February 25, 2011, 09:05:34 PM
He PM'd me...  I'll copy and paste with his permission...

I thought maybe that was the case. Bad JuJu, Taxed, and you know it.

Folks, Taxed is wrong to bring what was a PM to the general forum. Whatever your beef with Zip might be, you're walking a fine line when this is done.

Quote from: Shooterman on February 26, 2011, 05:35:44 AM
Folks, Taxed is wrong to bring what was a PM to the general forum. Whatever your beef with Zip might be, you're walking a fine line when this is done.

Shooter, I am not bringing a private PM into the forum.  I have nothing against zip, and really like zip.  To say otherwise isn't accurate.  Our conversation was on the topic we go back and forth on the forum all the time.  The content itself wasn't private, and it is no surprise he feels that way, but his exact quoting summarized his position very clearly.  Me saying zip feels workers are entitled, and he isn't against unions, isn't exactly a eureka moment.  I only wanted to get his permission to post the exact quote, since it was a PM, and is the ethical thing to do.  Zip has shared private info with me, and I would never say anything about it.  This, however, is related to our ongoing discussion on unions, i.e., nothing private or confidential in regards to this topic.

Quote from: Shooterman on February 25, 2011, 08:51:46 PM
Link, Taxed?

   I said it shooter taxed and were pming back and forth....its kind of like taxed making his famous statements...like get rid of all govt workers except cops or fireman..:)   but of course taxed thinks WHAT!!!! security for a worker scum ? not a chance I want to keep every single penny I make and watch video of lowlife americans with nothing...fack them...

Quote from: taxed on February 26, 2011, 09:59:42 AM
Shooter, I am not bringing a private PM into the forum.  I have nothing against zip, and really like zip.  To say otherwise isn't accurate.  Our conversation was on the topic we go back and forth on the forum all the time.  The content itself wasn't private, and it is no surprise he feels that way, but his exact quoting summarized his position very clearly.  Me saying zip feels workers are entitled, and he isn't against unions, isn't exactly a eureka moment.  I only wanted to get his permission to post the exact quote, since it was a PM, and is the ethical thing to do.  Zip has shared private info with me, and I would never say anything about it.  This, however, is related to our ongoing discussion on unions, i.e., nothing private or confidential in regards to this topic.

Shouldn't the contents of a PM be discussed prior to divulging the info on the general forum?

Admittedly, I do not read every thread, or even most threads, but I do not recall Zip making the comments you have attributed to him. If he has, and if I'm wrong, I will confess, do several um-dega-degas, light 3 candles and fart appropriately. ( to prove my sincerity, I shall bottle the farts and send them to you ) the link to the thread or threads will suffice, but not a PM.

No one else may find themselves in agreement with me, and I really can live with that, but my contention is unless mutual agreement is made between the parties, prior to the divulged material, private messages should be considered sacrosanct.

This is my opinion; you may or may not agree.

Quote from: Shooterman on February 26, 2011, 10:42:51 AM
Shouldn't the contents of a PM be discussed prior to divulging the info on the general forum?

Admittedly, I do not read every thread, or even most threads, but I do not recall Zip making the comments you have attributed to him. If he has, and if I'm wrong, I will confess, do several um-dega-degas, light 3 candles and fart appropriately. ( to prove my sincerity, I shall bottle the farts and send them to you ) the link to the thread or threads will suffice, but not a PM.

No one else may find themselves in agreement with me, and I really can live with that, but my contention is unless mutual agreement is made between the parties, prior to the divulged material, private messages should be considered sacrosanct.

This is my opinion; you may or may not agree.

What you are saying is correct Shooter, but this wasn't really private, since we debate this on the public forum.  If I thought is was even remotely private or confidential, I wouldn't mention it.  My ethics are too strong to ever do something like that, and I would seriously lose sleep if I did.