• CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago
      1. That’s a statement, not an argument. If you’re going to start citing fallacies then I’m going to start expecting properly formed arguments.

      2. That statement seems to be based exclusively on him being a union buster, despite the union busting happening 5 years after he left.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Ok, I did. It said:

          came to this thread exactly to make fun of this “fully-rounded labour exploiter”

          So you’re asserting that he exploited labour. Presumably in a way that is beyond the labour exploitation inherent in capitalism. Further up the page, in a different thread, you also said:

          If some of these 35 visa dependent worked for more than 9 years, I am pretty sure he was there when they were exploited to work there. There’s no indication that these workers have less than a 5 year tenure.

          Ok, so it sounds to me like you’re asserting that he exploited them. How, exactly? Are you claiming the act of being employed on a foreign worker visa is itself exploitation? Because genuinely, unless the answer to that question is “yes”, I cannot understand what the basis of your claim is. And I think that’s probably the problem @[email protected] is having, too.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          So he’s going to rehire the visa dependent labourers RG fired?

          That’s neither a statement nor an argument, and is complete nonsense.