Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

stuartroelke OP t1_irxy5is wrote

Reply to comment by RevengencerAlf in Getting Paid Lunches in MA by stuartroelke

That is logically incorrect. You cannot do the same things you would before or after work. If you want to go home, you’d still have to drive (that is, if you can even get home and back within thirty minutes). You are essentially bound to the location you work at. And, just because you’re not being paid for a commute doesn’t make unpaid lunches okay. Everything you said is not sensical, and also not very helpful.

−3

RevengencerAlf t1_irxyd89 wrote

You seem to have a vocabulary problem where you insert terms you don't understand the meaning of like "incorrect" when you mean to say "I don't agree with this."

Your first reply to me, while I don't agree with it, was much less unhinged and Ben Shapiro-esque.

Calling something nonsensical just because you disagree with it or don't understand it just paints you as a child throwing a pissy fit because someone has a different viewpoint from yours.

11

stuartroelke OP t1_iry1yyk wrote

No, you don’t understand that freedom bound to your work location IS NOT the same as freedom outside of work hours. That is simply a fact, and it is not debatable. Any argument against that is illogical. It is literally a different location, and you are bound to how far you can travel—using your own gas or physical energy—within the amount of break time allotted. It’s not a “pissy fit” (fun typo), but actually a difference very much rooted in reality.

0

RevengencerAlf t1_iry2895 wrote

Ah so I see we've just reached the point of the pissed of kid who just took a sociology class declaring everything he believes to be objective fact to win internet points.

12

stuartroelke OP t1_iry433a wrote

I just don’t get how you don’t understand that two physical locations are not the same. By being in one location because you have to be is not the same as being somewhere else because you want to be.

2

RevengencerAlf t1_iry4s2e wrote

Nobody is saying the locations are physically the same. This isn't some metaphysical shit, chief. The argument is that the situations are comparable, and for some reason while you could easily disagree with that you've decided to just start unilaterally declaring things fact because you think it helps you (it doesn't).

I have to be on the road at 7:45 AM not because I want to be, but because I have to be to get to the office by 8am, get paid, and not get fired. I can't take a Trip up to Maine after work today because I wouldn't get back in time to get my ass to work tomorrow.

9

stuartroelke OP t1_irz2w04 wrote

You are still bringing up commuting. Commuting is NOT comparable to unpaid lunches. Why? Commuting is NOT regulated the same (or at all for that matter). Why? I don’t know, but that’s a completely different discussion!

“This isn’t some metaphysical shit, chief”? No, it’s not. As I stated time and time again, It’s a belief that I’m trying to logically explain and advocate for. I need to organize my thoughts better—that’s all part of evolution and change—but I’m NOT trying to get paid for commuting, or not working, or “taking a trip to Maine” (and whatever mudslide arguments you are making). I’m only trying to explain my viewpoint, and then I’d like to turn those ideas into law if possible. You seem deeply invested in dismantling my logic, so do it. That’s all part of the process, no?

0

RevengencerAlf t1_irza21c wrote

"This thing that is clearly comprable isn't comparable because I don't like what it does to my argument."

Lol, k.

2